HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-76 Forest Lake Estates M.H. Park VanDyke, Adams for Rayland Corp. - BackfileAugust 30, 1976
Lewis M. Costello, Esquire
Kuykendall, 'Whiting, Costello and Hanes
Post Office Box 276
Winchester, Virginia 22601
In Re: Site Plan No. 034, Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park
Dear Lou:
The subject Site Plan (3o. 034 for Conditional Use Permit No. 013)
was approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia
at their Regular Meeting of August 25, 1976.
Please contact me should you need any further information.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRBINIA
H. Ronald Berg
Planning Director
HRB/fmd
CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
Rayland Corporation, attantion H. Ray VanDylte
E. Eugene Gunter, Esquire
etn
g4rich (111, vulltv
Departramt of ?P1,-tTT11inB allb velAllpi"'Tent
John R. Riley
PLANNING DIRSCTOR P. 0. BOX 601
9 COURT SIQUARS
ZONING ADmINISTRAT01t m e m o r a n d u it WiNCFIESTER. VjTrCj?-jIA 2Pr .301
TO:Dept. of Parks and Recreation Mr. Ned Cheeley
Va. Dept. of Highways and Transportation ATTN Mr. R. C. King �/
Winchester -Frederick Health.Department ,ATTN Mr. Kauchak
Department of Public Works ATTI-l' Mr. Stan Pangle
Sanitation Authority Mr. W. Jones
Zoning ATIN Mr. T_j_C9r_ntQ
FROM: John R.'Riley, Director Date February 11, 1980
SUBJECT:
Review comments on Conditional Use Permit Subdivision
Rezoning x Site Plan
We are reviewing the enclosed request by Forest Lake Estates
or their representative T. G. Adams Will you please
review the attached and return your comments to me by asap
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
�This space should be used for review comments:
Standard secondary road connection will be required at the entrance to Prince
Drive from Route 636.
is Pewit r,.st l wCCL, -, , _;
Signature Date 2-22-80
703/662-4532
H. RONALD BERG
PLANNING DIRECTOR
J. WILLIAM RILEY, III
ZONING CODE ADMINISTRATOR
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
�_ r.ebtrirk CCountg
Bcyar#zt rni of Iannrns au
9 COURT SQUARE
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601
m e m o r a n d u m
August 20, 1976
J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolutions of August 18, 1976
Please be advised of the following:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of said County of the Site
Plan application by Rayland Corporation (H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams) for Forest
Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park -- CUP No. 62) of 491 spaces on 123 acres located in
Opequon Magisterial District, having duly considered the following:
(a) The arid tendency of the stream in the vicinity of one of the two planned re-
creation areas, which had been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, Planning
Commission, Sanitation Authority and Staff;
(b) Safety, health and welfare of residents downstream from the proposal because of
the stream's tendency toward dryness;
(c) State Water Control Board has not approved the waste treatment plant and the
Planning Commission should not be forced to approve the mobile home park before
the treatment plant is approved; and
(d) Requested spaces increased from the original 173.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors forward in writing
to the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission any request the Board may make of
the Planning Commission. 1,7
By:
HRB/fmd
703/662-4532
.�' r�i�Erick rnutity
Department of IC-txttting a1tb D— CMuPtttp t2
John R. Riley
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR m e m o r a n d u m
TO:Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Va. Dept. of Highways and Transportation
P. O. BOX ('01
9 COURT SOUAFi=' WINCHESTER, VIP2GtP4IA �,22—Sol
Mr. Ned Cheeley
ATTNT Mr. R. C. Kind;
Winchester -Frederick Health.Department
AT'!'i\
Department of Public Works
ATTN
Mr. Kauchak
Mr. Stan Pangle
Sanitation Authority Mr'. W. Jones ✓
Zoning ATTN --Mr-- Toy„,, u
crvrrs-r—rz C3r�
FROM :
John R.'Riley, Director Date February 11, 1980
SUBJECT:
Review comments on Conditional Use Permit Subdivision
Rezoning x Site Plan
We are reviewing the enclosed request by Forest'Lake Estates
or their representative T . G . Adams Will you please:
review the attached and return your comments to me by asap _ 4
S f A
r 1 1
---------------------------------------- -- —
-FEB 12 1'jF0
This space should be used for review comments: n�
Water and sewer facilities to be provided, owned and operated by
developer. Developer has contracted with Authority for water and
a master meter assembly has been installed in the Lone Oaks to provide
the service.
-`q Signature _ Date -�� _
4 r£b£r ich ITsullfil
Dryartntent of iC-txtttittg aitb 33ebetupr rei=t
John R. Riley 618 9'D
PLANNING DIRECTOR 11 P. Q: $0X 6-31
g Cotixr SQUAnZ
ZONING AQMINISTRATOR
m e m o n d u llt%-% 1` INCHESTZR. V;RGINIA 22501
V
TO. Dept. of Parks and Recreatio c, «� ? Mr. Pied Cheeley
Va . Dept. of Highways and Tra v T n 4 ATT14 Mr. R. C . King
Winchester. -Frederick Health --De
ent �201' ATTN Mr. Kauchak i
Department of Public Works ATT Mr. Stan Pangle
Sanitation Authority Mr. W. Jones
Zoning ATT. T
FRO;': John R.'Riley, Director Date _February 11, 1980
SUBJECT:
Review comments on Conditional Use Permit Subdivision
Rezoning x Site Phan
We are reviewing the enclosed request by Forest Lake Estates
or their representative T . G . Adams
review the attached and return your comments to me by
-------------------- --------------------------
This space should be used for review comments:
A \ /\
1 'r - --r
Signature .S - J,, ' Date J Z
ryUaiszs2- ;a:,
Construction to
Begin Soon on
Mobile Home Park
By SYLVIA V. LONG
Star Staff Writer
Construction will begin soon in the
Forest Lake Estates subdivision
southeast of Stephens City, where
spaces are available for as many as 491
mobile homes on 123 acres.
The Frederick County Planning Com-
mission was informed of the construc-
tion plans at its regular meeting yester-
day, when Director of Planning and
Development John R. Riley Jr.
presented a site plan submitted by the
developers.
The planners commented that they
have "no choice but to approve" the
plan, which was approved in line with a
court order in 1976 by the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors.
A proposed sewage treatment plant
has received preliminary approval from
the State Water Control Board, and will
be built just before the installation of
mobile home units in the park, some 18
months from now.
T. G. Adams, park owner, said this
morning that with the uncertain
economy, "We feel the need for this type
of home will be great" when the units
are ready for occupa:�icy.
WINCHESTER EVENING STAR, Winchester, Virginia, Thursday, Februaryll, 1986 15
— — ---
lCurb Nairfax Planning :43i'mrid Tommimitatt
103 East Sixth Street
Front Royal, Virginia 22630
Telephone 703-635-4146
R. Edward Duncan
Executive Director September 17, 1976
Mr. R. Bradley Chewning, Director
State Water Control Board
Valley Regional Office
P. O. Box 268
Bridgewater, Virginia 22812
Mr. Ray Van Dyke
Route 3, Box 252A
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Letter of Conformance - Forest Lake Estates
(Site Plan No. 34)
Gentlemen:
This is to advise that the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission meeting
in session on September 9, 1976 authorized that this letter of conformance be
prepared, as referenced above, with the following comments:
1. That the proposed Forest Lake Estate project is not in
conflict with the Metropolitan Regional Water Quality Plan,
since this is a proposed private system and is not within the
proposed service area of the M/R Plan.
2. That all comments and supporting material previously received
be forwarded with the letter of conformance which goes to the
State Water Control Board.
3. At such time as public service facilities are provided to the
area, the developer be required to connect to these facilities.
4. That the State Water Control Board and State Health Department
continue to'evaluate and research new methods of dealing with
the proposed discharge between now and the time of actual con-
struction of the facility.
Clarke County Page County Warren County Town of Luray
Frederick County Shenandoah County Town of Front Royal City of Winchester
Forest Lake Estates 2 September 17, 1976
I hope that this adequately addresses all inquiries and administrative require-
ments in this regard and that all interests to include private, public, and
citizens can be compromised to some level of mutual agreement.
Sincerely yours,
/12t. Edward uncap
Executive Director, Assoc. AIP
djd
cc's: Mr. J. O. Rena.lds, III, County Administrator
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Planning Director
Mr. Wellington Jones, Director, Sanitation Authority
Mr. Lewis Costello, Kuykendall, Whiting, Costello & Hanes
Mr. Gerald W. Augst, Austin Brockenbrough & Associates
Dr. Muriel Brown
Enclosures: Mr. Chewning only
RECEIVED SEP 2 0 1976
G �
h' 1',4
J. 0, RENALD3 Ili
GI?UNTY AOMINISTRATOR
4T rL,bexick. (9-auntu
4�vaxb of �$uperliisars
August 27, 1976
Mr. R. Edward Duncan
Executive Director
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission
103 East Sixth Street
Front Royal, Virginia 22630
Dear Ed:
9 COURT SQUARE
WINCHESTFR, VIRGi141A 22601
Since the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved
the site plan for Forest Lakes Estates at their regular Meeting
on Wednesday, August 25, 1976 and the Circuit Court has by
order entered of record stipulated that a water and sewer
system may be established for the development and they already
have a conditional use permit, it would be appropriate to place
the A-95 Review for the sewerage facilities for Forest Lake
Estates on the next Planning District Commission Agenda.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
JOR:ctb
cc - S. Roger Koontz
Dennis T. Cole
-'�O'nald Berg
Sincerely,
r,
. ✓ Q. Renalds, III
County Administrator
703 - 667-2365
Board
Okays Site Plan
ror VanDyke Trailer Park
By TOM McCABE
Star Staff Writer
Feeling trapped and that it ultimately
had no choice in the matter, the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors finally ap-
proved site plans for H. Ray VanDyke's
proposed 485-space trailer park, com-
plying with a court order to do so."
The culmination to the five -year -old
controversy came at last night's super-
visors meeting with much reluctance on
the part all six elected representatives
after several motions were heard and an
executive session was held on the matter.
ATTORNEY Lewis M. Costello,
representing land owner T.G. Adams and
WINCHESTER EVENING STAR
Thursday,Au ust26,1976
VanDyke, stressed that it was only the site
plan that was under consideration and not
water and sewer conditions. Costello said
the 1970 and 1974 ordinances had all been
complied with in the plan, as directed by a
court order issued early this year by Judge
Robert K. Woltz.
In 1970, VanDyke received a conditional
use permit for 173 trailers oa 123 acres in
the Stephens City area. Then in 1974 the
board said no to a request that 13 acres be
added to the tract and additional trailers
be permitted. VanDyke brought a lawsuit
against the board following the denial.
Early this year, Frederick County
Circuit Court Judge Robert K. Woltz or-
dered that the land in question could be
developed as proposed so long as the 1970
ordinances be complied with on the initial
173 trailers and 1974 ordinances for any
additional spaces. And the order enjoined
the board of supervisors from interfering
with the development.
Thus last night's action was considered
by the board as an administrative one and
not a legislative one.
BACK CREEK Supervisor Thomas
Rosenberger was the most reluctant board
member. He initially made a motion to
deny the plans, saying, "If the court feels
we are wrong, then we'll be on the
defensive."
The motion failed for want of a second.
Then a motion for approval from
Stonewall Supervisor Dennis Cole died for
want of a second. Cole said that in 1974, it
was his motion for denial that resulted in
the lawsuit, "but tonight we are dealing
with a court order."
Finally a motion from Opequon's Will
Owings for an executive session with the
commonwealth attorney was accepted and
the board was gone for approximately 20
minutes.
When it returned to the room, Cole again
made his motion for approval which was
finally accepted by the board
unanimously, But it did not pass before
each supervisor had his say on the matter.
The gist of what they said was no matter
how distasteful the proposal is, there is
still a court order and the courts are to be
respected by the board.
Van. Dyke's Sewer
Plans `Incomplete'
By TOM MCCABI�
star Staff Writer
`Incomplete' is the word used by an
official of the'State Water Control Board to
describe H. Ray Van Dyke's application to
the board for approval of a sewage
treatment plant to serve a proposed 485-
space trailer park in the Stephens City
area.
Larry Simmons of the control board said
the application must be accompanied by a
statement of conformance from the ap-
_plicable planning district commission.
That statement regarding Van Dyke's
application has yet to be submitted,
Simmons said yesterday.
This morning, R. Edward Duncan,
executive director of the Lord Fairfax
Planning. District Commission, said he has
not yet written the requested statement
since his office has not, "completely
checked out," -the plans.
Van Dyke's site plans for -the proposed.
123 acre development comes before the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
tonight. It will not be the first time the
plans have been before the supervisors.
On June 8, the board tabled any action on
the proposal, referring the matter back to
the planning commission as a forum in
which additional questions on the plans
could be answered. Water and sewer plans
was one of the prime areas of interest
among the supervisors.
THE PLANNING commission had
recommended to the board, on June 2, that
the application be denied.
Then last week, the matter came before
the commission again and denial was
recommended for a second time. Com-
mission member Manuel DeHaven cited
Crooked Run stream as inadequate to
handle the effulent from the proposed
sewage treatment plant,
Last week, attorney Eugene Gunter,
who represents Van Dyke, said, "We have
received nothing negative from the State
Water Control Board."
Simmons said .yesterday, that the SWCB
does not respond in neither negative or
positive terms.
Simmons said the board only evaluates
the situation and then determines wha�
must be done for the`facility to meet state
standards. The SWCB is not one that gives
its blessings to projects, but only outlines
requirements.
The Van Dyke matter has become a,
controversial one and has been :in the
works since 1970. It was then that Van
Dyke received a conditional use permit for
173 trailers to be placed on 123 acres.
Then in 1974 he attempted to have an
additional 13 acres added to the tract as
well as more trailers. The board denied the
request and Van Dyke brought the matter
to litigation.
JUDGE ROBERT K. Woltz ruled early
this year that Van Dyke could develop the
land as proposed.
The Judge ordered that 1970 ordinances
must be complied with for the initial 173
spaces and 1974 ordinances for additional
spaces.
In his current plans, Van Dyke has not
included the 13 acres that brought on the
suit.
The plans call for a 17 acre lake, five
wells to supply water to the trailersand a
private sewage treatment facility.
No public funds are to be used for the
plant, but it is intended to run into a public
stream and therefore SWCB approval is
required and state standards must be met.
Board Chairman S. Roger Koontz was
advised of the application's "incomplete"
status this morning and asked by The Star
if it would affect tonight's action on the site
plans.
Koontz replied that the information was
new to him and declined commenting on it
since he did not have adequate time to
evaluate the new situation.
WINCHESTER EVENING STAR
Wednesday, August 25 1976
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
August 24, 1976
Mir. J. 0. Renalds, County Administrator;
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors,
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Renalds and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
For many months, the Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
along with many other citizens hgve opposed the project of Forest Lake
Estates for a variety of reavons. Throughout these months, many questions
have been asked and remain unanswered --- questions that even this
Board has asked of the developers.
Tonight there are a few specific questions which should be answered
before a final decision is made.
' First - How can an area such as a lake be designated "Recreational"
when it has sewer lines running across the top of it? Is this the same
lake as proposed in 1970?
N'f;". — Second - According to Mr. Gunter last Wednesday at the Planning
Commission Meeting, the developers have had no negative statement from
the State Water Control Board. have the developers had any positive
statement from the State Water Control Board?
'et .
-> Third - Last week Mr. Gunter continued to say that the original
platt contained no plans for central water and sewer, Yet, according to
the Platt dated August 18, 1970, there are two sewer plants: one to
accomodate 89 trailers and the other to accomoda#te 84 trailers; thus,
giving a total of 173 trailers to which Judge Woltz addressed his decision
r
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Wage two
in terms of water and sewer plans. With this information, it seems
that the Board would be within its legal rights to deny the developers
request for approval of the water and severer plans that are being presented
tonight since they are not the plans originally submitted and litigated.
As of July 1976, hr. Davis of the State eater Control Board said
that the State will not give approval until the plans have been submitted
to this Board and approved.
Fourth - There are many different interpretations of the Judge's
decision. As just mentioned, the decision seems to address itself to
water and sewer plans for 173 trailers. The decision continues to say
that the rest of the land may be developed as the owner sees fit. Since
the original application of 1974 was for Mobile and 1,1odular homes, and
since the original plait contains plans for water and sewer services for
173 trailers, what are the developer's plans for providing water and
sewer services to mobile or modular homes above the 173 trailers?
• Fifth - If it be the intention of the developer to have the effluent
flow into Crooked Run, I would like for the Board to look at the follow-
ing pictures taken by David Smith df the W-inchester Evening Star on
July 170 197#. The conditions of the stream at that time show how the
area is frequently dry and unable to withstand the discharges frorn one
or more sewer plants. Can the Board say that such a plan as presented
would be feasible or constitute good planning for such a development?
In closing, On behalf of the Frederick County Environmental Council,
I would like to ask this Board once again to deny approval for this
application based on the information that has been presented tonight.
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Page three
The Council feels certain #hat if the Board denies the application
on the grounds that the water and sewer plans being presented tonight
are not the ones presented in 1970 and not the ones referred to in the
Judge's decision, that an appointed official, sucL as the Judge, would
not over -ride the wishes of the people and the governing body.
Sincerely,
Laura F. Pifer
(Mrs. Robert L. Pifer, Jr.)
Secretary
cc: NIr. Brad Chewnin , State eater Control Board;
Mr. Ed Duncan, Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission,
CUP #62 - FOREST LAKE ESTATES (MOBILE HOME PARK) - OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
APPROVED ,I
Mr. Rosenberger stated that when this matter was before the Board several weeks
ago, he had requested the Board members to present their questions regarding this pro-
ject to the Planning Commission for their consideration and input. He stated that the
Board had been reminded of this request at a subsequent meeting but had not presented
any questions to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he had given his'.
list of questions to Mr. Renalds.
Mr. Cole asked if the Board had any power to deny this request inasmuch as an
order had been issued by the Judge in favorq_of the applicant in this matter. Mr.
�:
Ambrogi advised that this is not before the Board as a conditional use permit, because
this has already been approved, but is before the Board as a site plan. He added that
because of the court order the Board could only act in an administrative or ministerial
manner and apply the statutes and ordinances to the site plan submitted to see if it
meets the requirements.
Mr. Louis Costello appeared before the Board representing the applicants ,:nd
stated that they felt all the requirements had been met on the site plan.
/ There was a short discussion as to whether .this development would contain only
2` mobile homes or both mobile homes and modular homes. Mr. Costello advised the Board
that only mobile homes would be located in this development,
Mrs. Laura Pifer appeared before the Board representing the Environmental Counci
}: land presented a statement in opposition to this development citing such objections as
no positive statement had been received from the State Water Control Board, the ade-
quacy of the proposed central water and sewer system, the ability of crooked run to !
''handle the effluent from the development and the change in the water and sewer plans !�
from the original proposal. II
Mr. John Pickeral appeared before the Board in opposition to this development anq
,.stated that he was very familiar with crooked run and he did not see how it could posJ
sibly handle the effluent from such a development,
Mr. Rosenberger moved for denial of the request stating that he felt the environ-
d
mental impact on the people in the community would be greatly affected, that the tax
structure of Frederick County would be affected, and that the Board had no options le
;but to deny the request. Mr. Rosenberger's motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Cole then moved for approval of the site plan stating that a court order had
,,been issued in this matter and he would abide by that order. Mr. Cole's motion died
for lack of a second.
BOARD WITHDRAWS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed unani-
mously, the Board withdrew into executive session to discuss the legal position of the
Board with regard to the site plan of Forest Lake Estates.
BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION l
ti...... ....a.;.... ......A.. M.. D ..mf.nme.c M.1-1m aa,nnrl arl liv no-nniq T_ rn1P Anri nasspd unan-
Upon motion
made by R. Thomas
Malcolm, secon e y Dennis T. Cole an
''imously the Board withdrew from executive session.
-T
RECONVENES
INTO REGULAR SESSION
�BOARD
Upon motion
made by R. Thomas
Malcolm, seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed unal
.imously, the Board reconvened into
regular session.
Upon motion
made by Dennis T.
Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does herein approve the site plan,,
CUP #62, of Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park) containing 491 spaces on 123 acresj1
in Opequon Magisterial District of H. Ray Van Dyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corpora-
,'
i tion.
.I
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Dr. Raymond
l�Fish stating that this matter was very distasteful to most of the members of the Boar
and most of the citizens of the County, and the Board found themselves caught in a trip
not of their own making, and therefore had no choice but to approve this site plan; S
Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole, with the majorit
of the Board expressing the opinion as set forth by Dr. Fish. Thomas B. Rosenberger
voted aye also stating that he was voting on the motion against his better judgment.
August 20, 1976
Lewis M. Costello, Require
Twenty bourn Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601 ,..
In Res Planning Commission recommstendation.to.the Board of Supervisors
V
of Forest Lake Estataa. bi s_ Park Site P1an.No. ._
r
v , ...:t 6aM i �`: `* o r '� )... f 4� 7 'f'f•c vy 1'if v .. Nn!. c uf.'a .. � ? ';; ;Y , M. �'- e..��Y r ;yFr < �'t-T.>74 �d
Dear Mr. Costello s
,
Following the Planning CouRission's.rosolution of denial recomoendation,at
the Regular Meeting of August 18,.1976.Counael,for Messrs. VanDyke and Adams requested
;the specific reasons be submitted ia_writing to_,their,clients. The.folloviug is for,,
your informations
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning,Comalssion forxthe County of,Frederick,,Virginia
`f>
does hereby recommend denial to theksoard ,of ,supervisors .of said ,County of . tha Site .t,
w `
Plan application by Rayland Corporation ,($. Bay VanDyke and T..Q.,Adow) for Forests-
;; . Lake Estates (Mobile Hans Park - , VP No. , 62) of .491 spaces on 123 , acres .located in4
t
. . Opequvn Magisterial District, hay .
$gg.,duly,consi4s;od the _following: �s
(a) The and tendeacy'of the stream in the.viainity of ons..of.th* two planned recrea-;
tion areas, Which had been, reviow4d .,by ,; thq ,Board -,of Supervisors, .Planning Com
scission, Sanitation Authority aqd
(b) Safety, health and welfare of, rosl4ento dgwnstream from. the proposal .because of
the,stream' a tendency toward drp?ness j
(c) State Water Control Board ha.4 notapprored.,the,waste.treatment plant and the
�U� --4 -4 Planning Commission should, not h4 ,tor , approve the »rgbile home park before
the treatment plant is agprovsd k ,and ' k
(d) ;Requested spaces increased from the,9aj,g1na1.173.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF FREDERIC&, VIRGINIA
t
r° Roe d' Berg
4
Secretary
.:
K Planning Commission,
CC: J. 0. Renalds, 111, County. Administrator;
N. Ray VanDyke; and E. Eugene Gunter..
AseoC=ATse
AssA Cons 703
TIM"HOas. 667.4049
LAW OFFICE
E. EUGENE GUNTER
THE SENT BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
August 19, 1976
Mr. Ronald H. Berg
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: H. Ray Van Dyke
Site plan for Forest Land Estates
My File No. 139-M
Dear Ron:
This letter will confirm our motion and request that the site
plan of Forest Land Estates be dispatched by the Planning
Commission or you to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
and the further request by copy of this letter to J. 0.
Renalds, III, that the matter of the approval of the site
plan be put on the agenda of the next meeting of the Frederick
Couty Board of Supervisors.
This letter will further confirm our motion of request that
any reasons for disapproval stated in Mr. DeHaven's motion,
or otherwise, be provided to Mr. Costello and me forthwith.
Your prompt attention is anticipated and we
this matter to be on the agenda of the next
the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as
the essence.
Sinc ely,
E. Eugene Gunter
EEG/vr
cc: J. 0. Renald, III
Lewis H. Costello
H. Ray Van Dyke
T. G. Adams
VZF CI IV"ED AU-6 2 519 6
shall expect
meeting of
time is of
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
August 18, 1976
Mr, Ronald Berg, and
The Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
rinchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg and ioembers of the Planning Commission,
The Frederick County Environmental Council once again would like
to go on record as oppossing the project of Forest Lake Estates in the
Opequon District on Rt. 636 as proposed by hr. T. G. Adams and Mr. H.
Ray Van Dyke.
There are several questions that come to mind in reviewin this
QD
project. For instance, Why are new plans for the Sewer Treatment Plant
being presented when plans for such a plant were mentioned in Judge
Woltz's decision on page 5, paragraph 18-3-1? Does the plan now being
presented still address itself to the 173 units? (As mentioned in the
Decision). If the plan being presented today for a Sewer Treatment Plant
addresses itself to accomodate more than 173 units, then should this not
be considered as a new plan which would have to meet the present require-
ments and not those of 1970 and 1974? Since I have been unable to find
out who now has the original plait of this proposed project, it has been
thus far difficult to review what the original project really was.
I would like also at this time to ask you to review the statement
given to you on May 19, 1976 at which time the Council said and I quote,
"We consider that the effluent from a central sewage treatment plant
regtf.ired for the proposed development should be discharged into a stream
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Wage two
which flows continuously. The tributary of Crooked. Run which runs
through the area is frequently dry. We have photographs taken on July 17,
1974 by David Smith of the 11linchester Evening Star accompanied by a
notarized affidavid showing this stream bed at a point where it crosses
Route 636 a couple of miles down stream from the proposed mobile home
development. You may be assured that this stream is frequently dry
particularly in the sum?er when effluent odors are the mdst noticeable."
I have those pictures today for you to study.
After seeing these pictures, you might be able to better understand
our concern of the impact that such a plant might have on the area in
question.
The topic of recreation is another matter for review. The relation-
ship of the recreational lake to the sewer plant brings to mind the
questions How is anyone going to use a lake for recreational purposes,
such as swimming, when the sewer lines will be running over, under or
near the same lake?
Also the Council feels that the developer should be explicit as to
what areas are to be left for recreational purposes before the final
approval is given on the project; instead of designating areas as recreat-
ional at a later date only after a trailer is unable to be stabilized in
that particular space.
There are many other questions still unanswered, such as: How is this
project going to affect the county schools that are already over -crowded?
What about the conditions of the road in the area of the project? What
about the fire hazards?
w
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Page three
All of these questions and more were asked in I,4ay of this year.
Will these questions be answered suitably before a final decision is
made ?
In closing, I would like to remind you that on lvlarch 24, 1976, the
Council asked that an Environmental and Economic Impact Statement for
county and public review be made. The Council is urging the completion
of such statements be done by an independent before a final decision is
made by the county.
Sincerely,
Laura F. Pifer
(Nirs. Robert L. Pifer, Jr.)
Secretary
cc: State Water Control Board
FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY
POST OFFICE BOX 618
S. ROGER KOONTZ. CHAIRMAN 9 COURT SQUARE WELLINGTON H. JONES. P.E.
JAMES ROBESON, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 ENGINEER - DIRECTOR
G. W. BORDEN. SEC.-TREAS.
JAMES H. DIEHL
WILLIAM A. MORRISON
Lewis M. Costello, Esquire
P. O. Box 276
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Costello:
PHONE 703 - 667-0389
August 18, 1976
This will acknowledge your letter of August 10, 1976
concerning the Forest Lake Estates development wastewater
treatment plant. The Authority took action on February 16,
1977 on the plant as outlined in Mr. Krueger's letter dated
March 1, 1974. Since that time, the Authority has not taken
any action to change or recind their action of that date, and
therefore, those conditions are still applicable.
Should you have further questions, please call my office.
Sincerely,
4el -
W. H. Jones, P. E.
Engineer -Director
WI -I J/tin
KUYKENDALL,
POST OFFICE BOX 276
20 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601
703-667-4640
J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL
HENRY H. WHITING
LEWIS M. COSTELLO
DAVID J. ANDRE
THOMAS M. DICKINSON. JR.
GEORGE W. JOHNSTON. $
DOUGLAS A. GREENLEE
J. E. WETSEL. JR.
DENNIS J. MCLOVGHLIN
H. EDMUNDS COLEMAN. 31E
LAW OFFICES
WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES
POST OFFICE BOX 678
KING AND CORNWALL STREETS
LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075
703-777-5700
703-471 -9800
August 10, 1976 STILSON H. HALL
COUNSEL
H. Ronald Berg
Planning Director
Frederick County Department of
Planning and Development
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Forest Lake Estates Mobile Home Park
Dear Mr. Berg:
WILLIAM B. HANES
ROBERT E. SEVILA
ELIZABETH D. WHITING
Attached hereto are additional plats on the above mobile home park
showing the contours as required by the ordinance.
Also, please be advised that the lots as shown in the 400 foot radius
of the treatment plant would not be used at this time. They are shown
as platted, however, in the event that other sewage facilities are
approved for this project, at which time they could be used. (Lots 364-379)
It is our intent to have the engineer from Richmond, Mr. Sadler, with
us at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, August 17, and we
presume that we are going to be on the agenda on that date.
Very truly yours,
KUYKENDALL, WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES
By C4`0
Lewis M. Costello
LMC/dhl
Enclosures
FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY
POST OFFICE BOX 618
S. ROGER KOONTZ. CHAIRMAN 9 COURT SQUARE WELLINGTON H. JONES. P.E.
JAMES ROBESON. VICE-CHAIRMAN ENGINEER - DIRECTOR
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
G. W. BORDEN. SEC.-TREAS.
JAMES H. DIEHL
WILLIAM A. MORRISON
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Ronald Berg
PHONE 708 - 667-0889
August 9, 1976
FROM: Engineer -Director FCSA
SUBJ: Forest Lake Estates - Water & Sewer Review
Upon review of the referenced site plan, the following
comments are submitted.
1. Site plan does not conform to Sect. 16-2-10 and
16-3-6 of the zoning ordinance with respect to grades
on the sanitary sewer.
2. Site plan does not include contours as set forth in
Sect. 16-2-13.
3. Pipe sizes appear adequate.
IHydrant spacing appears adequate.
Until grades and/or contours are available, the plan
cannot be approve.
Jones,P
5
V,'H J/tm
4
August 9, 1976
Lewis M. Costello, Esquire
Post Office Box 276
Winchester, Virginia 22601
In Re: Forest Lake Estates Mobile Nome Park, Conditional Use Permit Appl.# 62
Beat Mr. Costello:
Our engineers' comments have been received on the subject's water and sewer
plans. The plans are incomplete. While pipe sizes and hydrant spacing appear ade-
quate, no grades or contours were provided.
In addition to grades and contours, the lots which will not be used at this
time should be clearly delineated. This delinlation would include the lots within
four hundred feet (4001) of the treatment plant.
In accordance with the long-standing policy of the Planning Commission, this
information should be received eight (8) days prior to the Commission meeting in
order to be placed on the Courmi.ssion's agenda.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
H. Ronald Berg
Planning Director
HRB:fmd
CC: J. 0. Renaldeg III, County Administrator
(PC 08/18/76) p 3
CUP No. 62 - Fore4t Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park) - 491 spaces on 123 acres
Opequon Magisteri,Ll District - Requested by Rayland Corporation (H. Ray VanDyke
and T. G. Adams).jii /SEE Site Plan No. 034./
Action - Recommended Denial
Mr. Berg stated that this proposal had been referred back to the Planning Commission
by the Board ofSupervisors for the addition of water and sewer plans and recreation
areas indicated on the Site Plan. He said that the developer had noted a 400-foot area
around the sewage treatment plant. He said that the file contains a letter from Mr.
Costello stating that Lots 364-379 are the lots not to be used and is now stipulated
on the plan. He said that two (2) recreation center areas are planned; one of which
will be in the area of the existing house. He said that, other than the changes he
had stated, the plan is the same as previously considered.
Mr. Tom Dickinson, Associate to Lewis M. Costello, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the applicants had complied with all ordinances and requirements; thus
demonstrating their willingness to cooperate and provide information as had been asked
of them.
Mr. E. Eugene Gunter appeared before the Commission and stated that the County is
governed by Judge Woltz's opinion, and quoted from said opinion:
"...The applicant has the right to construct a mobile home park on the premises and
he need only comply with the administrative requirements of the ordinances in effect
upon a certain date." /Sic/
OPPOSITION
Mrs. Laura F. Pifer, Secretary, The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.,
appeared before the Commission in opposition and read the following letter that she
had written August 18, 1976:
"The Frederick County Environmental Council once again would like to go on record
as oppossing the project of Forest Lake Estates in the Opequon District on Rt. 636
as.proposed by Mr. T. G. Adams and Mr. H. Ray Van Dyke.
There are several questions that come to mind in reviewing this project. For
instance, Why are new plans for the Sewer Treatment Plant being presented when plans
for such a plant were mentioned in Judge Woltz's decision on page 5, paragraph 18-3-1?
Does the plan now being presented still address itself to the 173 units? (As mentioned
in the Decision). If the plan being presented today for a Sewer Treatment Plant addres-
ses itself to accomodate more than 173 units, then should this not be considered as a
new plan which would have to meet the present requirements and not those of 1970 and
1974? Since I have been unable to find out who now has the original Platt of this
proposed project, it has been thus far difficult to review what the original project
really was.
(PC 08./18/76) p 4
I would like also at this time to ask you to review the statement given to you on
May 19, 1976 at 4.hich time the Council said and I quote,
'We consider tliat the effluent from a central sewage treatment plant required for
the proposed development should be discharged into a stream which flows continuously.
The tributary of Crooked Run which runs through the area is frequently dry. We have
photographs taken on July 17, 1974 by David Smith of the Winchester Evening Star
accompanied by a notarized affidavid showing this stream bed at a point where it
crosses Route 636 a couple of miles down stream from the proposed mobile home
development. You may be assured that this stream is frequently dry particularly. in
the summer when effluent odors are the most noticeable.' I have those pictures today
for you to study.
After seeing these pictures, you might be able to understand our concern of the
impact that such a plant might have on the area in question.
The topic of recreation is another matter for review. The relationship of the recrea-
tional lake to the sewer plant brings to mind the question: How is anyone going to
use a lake for recreational purposes, such as swimming, when the sewer lines will be
running over, under or near the same lake?
Also the Council feels that the developer should be explicit as to what areas are
to be left for recreational purposes before the final approval is given on the project;
instead of designating areas as recreational at a later date only after a trailer is
unable to be stabilized in that particular space.
There are many other questions still unanswered, such as: How is this project going
to affect the county schools that are already over -crowded? What about the considtions
of the road in the area of the project? What about the fire hazards?
All of these questions and more were asked in May of this year. Will these questions
be answered suitably before a final decision is made?
In closing, I would like to remind you that on March 234, 1976, the Council asked
what an Environmental and Economic Impact Statement for county and public review be
made. The Council is urging the completion of such statements be done by an indepen-
dent before a final decision is made-�-by the county."
/s/ Laura F. Pifer
cc: State Water Control Board
Mrs. Pifer said that it was her understanding that Mr. Ambrogi had filed a petition
for the return of the original plat by Judge Woltz.
She showed the Commission pictures of the Crooked Run tributary.
Following a twelve (12)- minute recess, the Chairman Called the Meeting to Order
with Counsel present.
OPPOSITION
Mr. Mason Larwood, The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc., appeared before
the Commission and stated his concern about the reference in Judge Woltz's opinion on
page three to paragraph 20-20 of the Trailer Ordinance because, he said, this paragraph
was not in effect at the time the application was made. He stated that the Trailer
Ordinance was prepared in 1959 and revised November, 1970 -- which contained the para-
graph in question. He contended that the referred paragraph did not exist at the time
the application was originally made.
/0
(PC 08/18/76) p 5
Rebuttal
Mr. Gunter stated that he felt neither the Commission nor the Board has final
authority on the water and sewer -- that is the province of the State -Water Control
Board. He said that they (State Water Control Board) had given an "okay" subject to
approval of the ; local governing bodies.
He referred to the letter of March 1, 1974 from Don E. Kruger, P.E., Engineer -
Director, Fredreick County Sanitation Authority; which, he said, at that time approved,
conditionally, the sewage treatment plant as proposed.
Mr. Berg answered the Chairman's inquiry by saying that the Board of Supervisors
had not provided a list of questions,
Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger, Supervisor, appeared before the Commission to comment
on the Board's action, following inquiry by the Chairman.
Mr. Mason Larwood asked if the application in regard to the stream bed had been
made available to the State Water Control Board.
Mr. VanDyke stated that the State :Water Control Board had viewed the site.
Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Attorney for the Commonwealth, opined that the referenced
Paragraph 20-20 is applicable only to the trailer sites that followed after the origi-
nal 173.
Mr. Berg stated that he had been advised by the engineers that the sewer lines
planned to cross the lake would be via a bridge rather than on or under the water.
Mr. Gunter contended that they had met requirements of the 1974 Ordinance.
Mr. Snarr asked -Mr. Berg if the Site Plan meets requirements of the court decree
to which Mr. Berg replied that it does.
Mr. Snarr said if the 173 spaces meet requirements as of application date and the
additional spaces meet requirements of the 1974 Ordinance, what then is there to be
considered further?
The Chairman said that the Commission is obligated to answer the Board's questions.
Mr. Brumback's motion, seconded by the. Chairman, to adjourn into Executive Session
to discuss legal matters was defeated /by a vote of 3-2/: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay,
Jr. - NO, Venskoske; Brumback - YES.
(PC 08/18/76) p 6
Mr. Berg read to the Commission the Minutes from the Minutes of the Meeting of June
8, 1976 of the Board of Supervisors at which Mr. Rosenberger had made a motion to table
the application and refer it back to the Planning Commission along with all the items
that the Board had questions about.
Mr. Berg read to the Commission from the Minutes of the 'Meeting of June 23, 1976 of
the Board of Supervisors at which Mr. Rosenberger had requested that questions relative
to the proposed Forest Lake Estates Mobile Home Park be submitted to the Planning
Commission as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary delays in the Commission's consi-
deration and recommendation.
Mr. Berg stated that, at the meeting of May 19, 1976, the application was tabled by
the Planning Commission due to being incomplete; and at the meeting of June 2, 1976
the Planning Commission recommended denial with Mr. Costello requesting denial reasons
be forwarded by letter to the applicant.
Upon motion made by Manuel C. DeHaven, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by
the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Chairman; Elmer Venskoske - YES,
Snarr - ABSTENTION due to insufficient information,,he said:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of said County of the Site
Plan appliation by Rayland Corporation (H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams) for Forest
Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park - CUP No. 62) of 491 spaces on 123 acres located in
Opequon Magisterial District, having duly considered the following:
(a) The'arid tendency of the stream in the vicinity of one of the two planned re-
creation areas, which had been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, Planning
Commission, Sanitation Authority and Staff;
(b) Safety, health and welfare of residents downstream from the proposal because -of
the stream's tendency toward dryness;
(c) State Water Control Board has not approved the waste treatment plant and the
Planning Commission should not be forced to approve the mobile home park before
the treatment plant is approved; and
(d) Requested spaces increased from the original 173.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; tieriskoske; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors forward in writing to
the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission any request the Board may make of the
Planning Commission.
�� C1
a
LAW OFFICES
KUYKENDALL, WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES
POST OFFICE BOX 276
POST OFFICE BOX 678
20 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
KING AND CORNWALL STREETS
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075
703-667-4640
703-777-5700
703-471-9800
J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL
HENRY H. WHITING
LEWIS M. COSTELLO
DAVID J. ANDRE
THOMAS M. DICKINSON. JR.
GEORGE W. JOHNSTON.3L
DOUGLAS A. GREENLEE
J. E. WETSEL, JR.
DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN
H. EDMUNDS COLEMAN.3Q
Mr. H. Ronald Berg
Planning Director
Frederick County Office
STILSON H. HALL
COUNSEL
WILLIAM B. HANES
August 3, 1976 ROBERT E. SEVILA
ELIZABETH D. WHITING
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Adams -Van Dyke
Dear Mr. Berg:
This letter confirms my objection to having been excluded from the
Planning Commission agenda for Wednesday, August 4, 1976.
My previous correspondence to you, dated June 30, 1976, requested
that we be placed on the regularly scheduled agenda meeting, Wednes-
day, July 21. Since that meeting was cancelled by the Commission,
it was reasonable to assume that it would be included in the agenda
on August 4 without additional request.
Telephone communication with your office on July 19 indicated that
we would be on the agenda for August 4 if the plat was filed by
then. We filed the plat with your office on July 30.
Throughout this matter, we have been bending over backwards to supply
information to obtain an orderly, and legal, treatment before the
Planning Commission.
It does not appear that these applicants are being fairly treated in
this application. We do restate our intent to comply with any and
all reasonable requirements of an applicant as stated at the time
the previous application was turned down; but we feel we are being
senselessly subjected to delaying tactics indicative of bad faith,
RECEIVED AUO 11970
Mr. H. Ronald Berg -2- August 3, 1976
either on the part of the Commission or your office.
We do request that we be advised of the status of the application
after review by the various component members of your office.
Very truly yours,
KUYKENDALL, WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES
u
By qA;
Lewis M. Costello
sjr
RECEIVED AUG 91976
Kwrh Natrfax 1p'lanning Diiitrid TommitiMon
R. Edward Duncan
Executive Director
FAW1,`itar���30
Telephone 703-635-4146
July 14, 1976
Mr. Garold W. Augst
Austin Brockenbrough and Associates
114 East Cary Street
Fichmond, Virginia 23219
Be; Forest Lake Estates Wastewater Treatment Facility, Frederick County
Dea r l,)A r. Aug+ t:
This its to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 29, 1976 as referenced above.
I apologize for the delay in replytago but I bave been out of the office for the past
two weeks.
A review will be crude of the proposed facility and at such tirre. comments will be
forwarded to you as appropriate. By copy of this letter I am also requesting
comments and recommendations from the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
and Planning Commission. When these are received, they will be so forwarded
with our review and comwents.
Sincerely yours,
l_
R. Edward Mucan
Executive Director, Aseoc. AIP
c+es Air. J. 0. Reaalds, III
r. "on Berg RECEIVED JUL 1 6 1976
Clarke County Page County Warren County Town of Luray
Frederick County Shenandoah County Town of Front Royal City of Winchester
aJ .
KUYKENDALL,
POST OFFICE BOX 276
20 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
703.667-4640
J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL
HENRY H. WHITING
LEWIS M. COSTELLO
DAVID J. ANDRE
THOMAS M. DICKINSON. JR.
GEORGE W. JOHNSTON.3 =
DOUGLAS A. GREENLEE
J. E. WETSEL. JR.
DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN
H. EDMUNDS COLEMAN. $
LAW OFFICES
WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES
June 30, 1976
Mr. Ron Berg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Frederick County Office
Courthouse Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Adams -Van Dyke Application
Dear Mr. Berg:
POST OFFICE BOX 678
KING AND CORNWALL STREETS
LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075
703-777-5700
703-471 -9800
STILSON H. HALL
COUNSEL
WILLIAM B. HANES
ROBERT E. SEVILA
ELIZABETH D. WHITING
The submission of information from Mr. Saddler on the Adams -Van
Dyke matter will be sufficiently delayed that I do not believe
we should be placed on the agenda for July 7. We would request
to be placed on the agenda of July 21.
We will submit the information to you as soon as it is received
here.
We do not, by submitting this data, agree in view of the court
order it can be required, but we plan to submit the information
to evidence full compliance and give information which might be of
assistance to the Commission.
Very truly yours,
KUYKEN ALL, WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES
A."By
Lewis M. Costello
eak
RECEIVED - 21976
;;prior to this time. He stated that he felt this constituted a hardship and requested)
"that the matter be investigated as to whether or not the Board might permit an ex-
ception in this case.
Mr. Koontz requested Mr. Ron Berg to investigate this matter and report back to
iG23��G
Ithe Board at the next regular meeting.
EQUESTS THAT QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED FOREST HILLS ESTATES
BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
Mr. Rosenberger stated that in accordance with previous Board action, members of
the Board were requested to submit any questions they might have relative to the pro-
posed Forest Hills Estates Mobile Home Park to the Planning Commission for considera-
tion.and recommendation. He requested that these questions be forwarded to the Plan-
ning Commission as soon as possible so that this matter might not be delayed any long=
er than necessary.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: �{
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PETITION NO. 014.76 OF BRADY T. ELLIS, ET UX STONEWALL MAGISTER
IAL DISTRICT FROM A-2 TO M-1 - APPROVED y
II
Mr. Lenny Ellis appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning request and
presented a brief history of the development of the property stating that it had been!,
iA a very run down cctndition and the applicants plan to improve the property consider!
ably in order to operate a scaffolding business at this location. He presented a
a
drawing of the plans for the property and business operation.
1
The.surrounding property owners, the number of employees and the traffic involve
4
in this type operation were discussed briefly.
I
Mr. John Owens, a resident of this area, appeared before the Board in support of
f � '
[:ii�w j u .v x.� r � .-. _ t�.s �. y' 4.• <_ ..- �J l _ ... � .._ .> .... ._ _ r .. .� s. .� :..
reb,crtrk &uuty
34-yartment of Thannitig and 6etupnlent
H. RONALD BERG
PLANNING DIRECTOR
J. WILLIAM RILEY. 111
ZONING CODE ADMINISTRATOR
June 10, 1976
Mr. Lewis M. Costello, Esquire
Post Office Box 276
Winchester, Virginia 22601
9 COURT SQUARE
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
In Re: Forest Lake Estates - June 2, 1976 Planning Commission Recommendation
Dear Lou:
The Planning Commission stated several reasons for recommending that
the Site Plan for Forest Lake Estates be denied. While there was general con-
cern about the intensive use of this particular acreage, the specific reason
concerned the health and welfare of the park residents as well as people res-
iding in the area of the proposed park.
The specific items included in the motion to recommend denial were
as follows: (1) land contour,
(2) access roads,
(3) sewage treatment plant feasibility, and
(4) isolation lends easily to crime.
For your general information - The denial recommendation motion was
passed with five members voting "yes" and one member voting "no".
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
H. Ronald Berg
Secretary
Planning Commission
HRB:fmd
CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
703/662-4532
WINCHESTER , VIRGINIA 22601, THURSDAY , JUNE 3, 1976
Commission Recommends
Denying Van Dyke Permit
By TOM McCABE
Star Staff Writer
On a motion by Thomas Rosenberger,
the Frederick County Planning Com-
mission recommended denying H. Ray
Van Dyke's conditional use permit ap-
plication for a trailer park in the Stephens
City area yesterday.
Rosenberger said he had visited the site
of the proposed 491 trailer space park (that
number was reduced to 485 yesterday) on
123 acres. He called it "one of the most
undesirable sites in Frederick County."
The liaison from the board of super-
visors said the slope of the land is too steep
and there are hollows and a gulley running
the length of the site. Rosenberger also
said the access road is inadequate for such
a proposed park.
THE RECOMMENDATION to deny the
permit application came despite a court
opinion issued earlier this year saying Van
Dyke could develop the trailer park and
must only comply with 1970 and 1974
zoning ordinance requirements to do so.
In 1970 Van Dyke received a conditional
use permit for 173 trailers on 123 acres.
Then in 1974 he sought permission to add 13
acres to the tract and the board of
supervisors denied the request. The
matter was then taken to court, and Judge
Robert K. Woltz ruled on it earlier this
year.
Since his opinion, the matter has been
before the board of supervisors once and
the planning commission twice.
At the Supervisors' hearing, Lewis M.
Costello, attorney for T.G. Adams from
whom Van Dyke has an option on the
proposed site, offered the board a com-
promise.
He said that if the board would not ap-
peal Judge Woltz's decision when it
became final and approve the additional 13
acres, Van Dyke would restrict the
number of trailers to 591.
Costello contended that under the
judge's ruling approximately 1,400 trailers
would be permitted.
OPPOSITION to the proposal was strong
at that meeting and no action was taken.
Later Board Chairman S. Roger Koontz
said no compromise would be accepted
and the matter would have to run the
normal course starting with the planning
commission.
The board of supervisors never filed an
appeal to Judge Woltz's disposition of the
case.
Two weeks ago Van Dyke submitted his
site plan to the commission with 491 spaces
on 123 acres and central water and sewer.
Commission members questioned Costello
and engineers from a firm contracted by
Van Dyke to prepare the plan on the
number of spaces covered by the 1970
ordinance and those covered by the 1974
ordinance.
The membership also questioned them
on the slope -of the land. A five per cent
grade is allowed and it was said that some
of the proposed spaces would be much
steeper.
Continued on Page 2
LAND USE
This Plan describes general land use concepts for t e future development of
Frederick County. The Plan describes general dev opment patterns occurring
and planned for Frederick County. As planning ,/continues each year, more
specific concepts will be developed for interchange areas, corridors, rural
community centers, and other areas. Such plans will combine plans for
facilities, roads, and land use.
The primary land use concept in the plan/ divides the County into rural and
urban areas. A major concept is the iiban Development Area. The Urban
Development Area defines the general ar6a in which sewer and water services
are provided and in which more intensive forms of development occur.
In general, areas to be planned for urban development or for other forms of
development can be determined based on the location of existing facilities and
uses and on the physical characteristics of the land. By carefully evaluating
these and other factors, a land , use plan can be adopted which is reasonable
and sustainable against challeno.
Urban Development Area
There is a need to appro.iriately designate the general location of planned
urban development. This designation should include the areas that will contain
more intensive development and that will need to be provided with utilities,
Improved roads, and other urban facilities. By designating the urban
development area and confining urban development to that area, the County
can determine where to direct special and intensive efforts at providing
facilities.
In determining the shape, location, and size of the urban development area, the
existing patterns of land use, the suitability of land for development, and the
existing and planned sewage facilities must be considered. The drainage areas
in the easte h half of the County, including all that might reasonably be
provided with sewer and water service, have been evaluated. Each such
drainage art a has been evaluated according to existing development and zoning,
the location of existing sewer and water facilities, the potential for future
development, and the availability of land suitable for development. These
evaluations have been used to group drainage areas and portions of drainage
areas Into a reasonable proposal for an urban development area.
It is" particularly important that the urban development area contain enough
land' to accommodate the development that can be realistically ,expected during
the next five to ten years. There is a need to provide for a di"rsity of types
of locations for a wide range of developments. Sufficient land \needs to be
included in the urban development area to provide a competitive %and market
29
Continued from Pagel ,
SOME questions were left
unanswered and all parties
agreed to table any action until
.they were answered.
County Planner Ronald Berg
sent a letter with a list of those
questions to Costello and
yesterday, Costello said they
had all been addressed in the
site plan.
--00Mffo—said the number of
proposed spaces had been
reduced to 485 and ,the roads in
the proposed park widened. He
called on engineer F ruce Edens
to address the grade question.
Edens said the .grade
problem, where it exists, could
be corrected with fill from 36
acres not to be developed and
designated for recreation.
Berg asked how they plan to
tie down the trailers placed on
fill.
Costello answered, "As the
ordinance requires."
A DISCUSSION on the subject;
ensued.
Berg:' "The State requires
that tie -down piers be below the
established frost line on stable
soil."
Costello: "We'll do whatever
the ordinance calls for."
Berg:. "Some of the lots will
have 20 feet of fill, and I'm
asking how you propose to do,
it."
Costello: "If we can't con-
form to the ordinance then we
won't use that site."
Commission C hairman
Langdon Gordo : "Mr.
Costello, if there is a problem
with terrain, what pe centage of
lots would be affecte "'
Costello: "We don' know." -
Gordon: "If thele are ex-
cessive problems with the
grade, we would like to have an .
idea of the extent i n order to
make a decision."
Costello: "Some lot9 have
already been elimina ted, and if
others can't be used"then it's a
matter of econom_i_c_: and they
won't be use r. If the
grade says a io crA� be used as
intended then it won't be used."
i THAT DISCUSSION was
followed by Rosenberger's
comment on the proposed site
as "undesirable."
Costello said, "The
desirability of the site was
aetermined by the zoning or-
dinance and not the site plan."
The attorney advised the
commission that the only issue.
before it was whether the site
plan meets the requirements of
the ordinances in effect when
the initial application was
made.
Commission member James
Golladay asked for clarification
on how the site plan has
changed since 1974. He said the
original was for 123 acres and
173 trailers and the current plan
calls for 485 trailers on the same
acreage. .,
Costello said the plan that
went to litigation called for 491
spaces on 123 acres plus the
additional 13 acres, and that is
what the court agreed to.
Finally the motion to
recommend denial was made.
Only member Keith Williams
voted against it.
IF THE board of supervisors
follows the planning com-
mission's recommendation Van
Dyke would not be able to begin
work on the proposed trailer
park without further court
action, according to County
Administrator J.-O. Renalds.
Renalds said today that he
does not know what course.
would have to be followed by
Van Dyke's attorney in such a
case.
An 'injunction against the
board could be sought or it could
be required that arguments be
made to show that the ap-
plicable ordinances had been
complied with in the site plan,
Renalds said.
•5 . ,
r
x R
4
)16
9 ¢ 5k
S+or PMto by J Mile, Cary '
Does It Meet the Requirement?
H. Ray Van Dyke's application' for
a conditional use, of the applicable 1970 and.1974 ordinances. Shown
permit for a trailer park and site
plan approval was . here are attorney Lewis Costello (left) and Board'
tabled and referred back to the planning
commission Chairman S. Roger Koontz at the site plan. Sitting are
last night by the Frederick County Board of Super-. supervisors Thomas Rosenberger (left) and Dr.
visors. The board said there were
still more questions Raymond Fish.
to be answered on the site plan and the requirements
Trailer Permit
Is Tabled Again
By TOM McCABE
questions can be answered through that tfinent expressed at past meetings; Van
StarStznWrlter
body. Dyke, in good faith, is willing to meet
Still seeking the answers to more
The planning commission recommended additional desired of the board on the site
questions, the Frederick County Board of
denial of the application last week, plan above the requirements of the or -
Supervisors last night tabled H. Ray Van
Rosenberger said the application was d manes decreed by the court. .
Dyke's application for a conditional use,
being presented, "as though it's already They said that in some cases this has
permit for a 485•space trailer park in the
signed, sealed and delivered and I don't already occurred with a wider road and a
Stephens City area.
think it's that simple." reduction recently in the number of trailer
Lewis M. Costello termed the latest
Rosenberger's comments refer to - a spaces:
series of hearings with county bodies on
recent court order declaring that Van .-ti Continued on Page 2
the application, "ping pong."
Dyke could develop the land in compliance .
Costello is the attorney for T.G. Adams
with the applicable ordinances of 1970 and
who owns the 123 acre proposed site on
1974.
which Van Dyke has an option.
, He said after the board questioned him
IN 1970 Van Dyke obtained a conditional
on several aspects of the proposed site
plan, "You can look for technical things in
it
use permit from the board for 173 trailer
Spaces on 123 acres. Then in 1974 he sought Trailer Permit
the plan and we can correct and come
additional trailer spaces and an additional
back three or four times playing ping pong
13 acres added to the plans and was denied
with Mr. Berg(County Planner Ronald
b the board. continued on Page,
told the attorney he was "out of
The
Berg) lookingfor smaller paragraphs in
matter was then brought to when initially
g y presented to order."
the ordinances each time."
litigation and Judge Robert K. Woltz ruled ie planning commission last Koontz said the comparison
SUPERVISOR Thomas Rosenberger
early this year. onth, the plan called for 491 was improper since the'.
He said that for'the original 123 acres taces, this has been reduced to Frederick board is not the one in
made the motion that it be tabled on the
and 173 spaces Van Dyke must only 3• an adjoining county.
grounds that there are still "a lot" of
questions to be answered. Included in the
comply with the ordinance of 1970. And for Costello immediately
any additional spaces, the ordinances in AFTER the vote to table any apologized and said he agreed
motion was referring the application back
effect in 1974 must be complied with. !tion on the application, with Koontz that it was im-
to the planning commission so those
Last night the board queried Costello on Tstello compared that action proper.
recreational facilities, water and sewer c similar to the "board in ,
and bonding. iother county that is killing
�ople by making the cost so
mgh. .
i Costello was cut off by board
chairman, Roger Koontz who
Planni g Commission
BY•
101,
Secretary
Action of the Board of Supervisors on
ie Governing Body took the following action on ttie application of
requesting a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
PROVED with the following conditions:
T APPROVED for the following reasons:
BY:
v:
Board of Supervisors
Zoning Administrator
(PC.06/02/76) P. 2
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of said County of the Con-
ditional Use Permit Application No. 64 submitted by Mr. James A. Sandy, T/A White Oak
Trading Post and Campground to erect one (1) directional sign (2' X 3') on 10.470 acres
(owned by Exxon Company, U.S.A.) located South side of Route 277, one -tenth (1/10) mile
East of Stephens City Interchange No. 78, Opequon Magisterial District, B-1 Zoning.
Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park) - CUP Appl. No. 62, Opequon Magisterial District,
A-2 Zoning, 485 spaces, 123 acres, by H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corp.
Action - Recommended Denial
Mr. Lewis M. Costello appeared before the Commission and stated that he believed
that the Planning Commission's requests addressed in the new plat were met as outlined.
Mr. Costello listed the changes:
a) Road has been widened;
b) Of 485 total lots 172 are 30', 260 are 40' or more, 52 are 50' or more;
c) Approximately 2.6 miles of street shown on the plat;
d) Plat shows 70 developed acres and 36 non -designated acres; and
e) Typical sections of finished gf'ades have been shown.
Mr. Bruce Edens, P.E., stated that what is not presently a 5% slope gradient will
be cut or filled to comply with the Ordinance.
Mr. Williams asked if the proposed sewage treatment plant would discharge into or
onto adjacent property.
Mr. Edens stated that the point of. discharge would have to be below the dam.
The Chairman asked if the sewage lines would be through the lake.
Mr. Edens stated that the effluent line (cast iron with mechanical joints and
watertight) going under the pond to the discharge point.
Mr. Costello stated that lots within the drainage area have been eliminated.
Mr. Venskoske asked if any work had begun yet on the project.
Mr. Costello replied that any work accomplished had been done under the first permit.
Mr. Golladay asked if they had contacted the State Department of Highways and Trans-
portation re safety of Route 636.
(PC 06/02/76) P. 3
Mr. Costello replied that they had contacted the department. He also stated that
anything, in his opinion, on state property is not a private citizen's responsibility.
He elaborated that availability of access is not criteria for approving or rejecting
a plat.
Mr. Berg asked'how the mobile homes would be tied down on "fill" land.
Mr. Costello answered that this would be accomplished as required by the Ordinance
which might be subject to some variation for each individual site..
Mr. Berg stated that the state requires that the tiedowns be below the established
frostline on stable soil.
Mr. Costello, during the ensuing discussion, stated that they proposed to dig down
until they hit solid ground and then use concrete, or whatever is required.
The Chairman asked Mr. Costello to estimate, if possible, what percentage of the
lots might be affected by severe gradients requiring fill.
Mr. Costello submitted, with regard to the Site Plan approval, this did not apply;
they would not know until faced with individual lot construction; and any lots that
could not be used certainly would not be used. He stated that he did.not recognize
the question as being legal, rather as being economic or practical.
Mr. Rosenberger stated that he had visited the site and that he considered it to
be, visually, one of the most undesirable sites in Frederick County with grades and
hollers, a very narrow and winding road, and a steep gully through the entire property.
Mr. Costello contended that desirability of the site for trailers is not an issue
in this case because zoning had already been determined. He stated that access roads,
as.a legal matter, cannot influence a decision.
Mr. Costello emphasized that the issue was only of whether the Site Plan meets
technical requirements of the Ordinance in effect at the time the proposal was
originally reviewed -- none of these questions were asked then.
Mr. Costello also stated that the site was selected in part because of its sec-
luded location and in consideration of the interests of the Board of Supervisors.
(PC 06/02/76) P. 4
Opposition
Mr. Mason Larwood appeared before the Commission (The Frederick County Environmen-
tal Council, Inc.) and stated that he did not understand why the access road would.
have no bearing on the proposal because if it were inadequate it would involve traffic
safety.
Mr. Golladay, discussed with Mr. Costello the difference between 173 and 491 trailer
spaces.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved
by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback - YES,
Williams - NO:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of said County of the Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 62 submitted by H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Cor-
poration for a trailer park consisting of 485 spaces, 123 acres, A-2 Zoning, Opequon,
Magisterial District, and entitled Forest Lake Estates, for the following reasons:
a) land contour,
b) access roads,
c) sewage treatment plant feasibility, andd
d) isolation lends easily to crime.
Mr. Costello requested the reasons be stated in writing by the Commission to the
applicants.
The Chairman directed the secretary to do so.
Mr. DeHaven commented that it is up to the Commission to protect thecommunityas
far as the roads are concerned.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 016-76 of Opequon Estates, Inc., Route 7, Box 81,
Winchester, Virginia hereby requests that 76.788 acres, more or less, located North
of Burnt Factory, fronting the East side of Route 664 and South side of Route 660,
now zoned Agricultural -General (A-2) be rezoned: Residential -Limited (R-1). This
parcel is designated as No. 2 on tax map 56(A) and is in Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Berg stated that the property is located five (5') miles Northeast of Win-
chester upon which the applicants propose thirty one (31) lots ranging in size from
two (2) acres to three -point -two (3.2) acre,--.
Mr. James R. Wilkins appeared before the Commission and stated that he is preside
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, May 19, 1976
PRESENT C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Elmer Venskoske;
Keith Williams
ABSENT: Thomas B. Rosenberger
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of
Business:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park) Conditional Use Permit Application No. 62,
Opequon Magisterial District, A-2 Zoning, 491 spaces, 123 acres, by H. Ray VanDyke
and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corporation.
Action - Tabled until June 2, 1976 for Plat Revision
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved
by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby adjourn for Executive Session to discuss legal matters.
REGULAR SESSION
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskosek; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby return to Regular Session from Executive Session.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the Conditional Use Permit
Application No. 62 of Forest Lake Estates.
Mr. Lewis M. Costello, representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the plat proposed is for 491 spaces of which 161 have thirty-foot
(30') width in accordance with the court's decree. He stated that the engineers had
informed him that the plans include approximately 70 acres for development, approxi-
mately 17 acres for the lake and 36 acres undeveloped that would qualify for recreational
use.
(PC 05/19/76) P. `?
Opposition
Mrs. Laura F. Pifer, secretary, Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.,
appeared before the Commission in opposition and quoted the following letter:
"The Frederick County Environmental Council in its regular monthly meeting on May
17, 1976 has once again discussed in considerable detail the subject of the proposed
Trailer Court to be located on Route 636 in the Opequon District and the opposition
to such a project. We would like for the following comments to become apart of the
record for the Planning Commission so that the project can be viewed from an over
all stand point.
We consider the effluent from a central sewage. treatment plant required for the
proposed development should be discharged into a stream which flows continuously_
The tributary of Crooked Run which runs through the area is frequently dry. We have
photographs taken on July 17, 1974 by David Smith of the Winchester Evening Star
accompanied by a notarized affidavid showing this stream bed at a point where it
crosses Route 636 a couple of miles down stream from the proposed mobile home devel-
opment. You may be assured that this stream is frequently dry particularly in the
summer when effluent odors are the most noticeable.
Mobile homes have historically been the scene of very violent and destructive
fires. 'The development site is located in a large ravine or draw in a wooded area.
We quote from a publication of the University of Colorado written during the summer
of 1972 under a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation whose title is "residential
Development in the Mountains of Colorado - A Survey of Issues" /sic/. Under the
heading "Fire Danger" on page 33 it states: "Some areas.should not be developed
because of their natural fire danger. A prime example is described as a fire
chimney. Such areas are ravines or draws characterized by steep slopes and dense
vegetation." We submit that with the number of mobile homes proposed, their loca-
tion in a densely wooded fire chimney -type area; the tendancy of children to build
fires; and the distance from firefighting equipment, the fire hazards are too great
to permit closely sited mobile homes as proposed.
It is understood that a private water system is planned using several wells and a
central storage system. For the number of families contemplated such wells would
need to be quite deep. There is a history of an increasing number of new wells in
the vicinity having water of high sulfur and iron content. This would be difficult
to treat and could become very costly. We are also concerned about lowering the
water table as a result of increased draw down caused by more concentrated population
densities.
Public road access to the site is only via Route 636 located between Route 277 and
Route 641 (The Double Churches Road). The Route 277 end of Route 636 is a macadam,
fairly narrow but winding road with many sharp turns that becomes a dirt road about._.
half way to the Double Churches Road. Those individuals living in the mobile home
park working in or having the occasion to go to Front Royal would naturally take
Route..636 and the Double Churches Road to Ninevah on Routes 340 and 522 as a short
cut. The unpaved portion of Route 636 is narrow with frequent sharp turns and
traverses a hill through a cut. The road in the cut is very narrow without enough
room for two cars to safely pass. The widening of this section of road has been
requested at the Board of Supervisors Road hearings the past two years to no avail.
Several vehicles have failed to negotiate one narrow section of this road and turned
over or slid into the gulley below. In vie. of this we can only conclude that the
existing public road (Route 636) is inadequate for the extensive use that would
accompany this development. The availability of state road funds is not known at
this time but from the fiscal problems emerging from Richmond, it does not appear
4 that one can count on the repair of this road in the near future. . , An analysis of the number of calls for police assistance to the Sheriffs depart-
ment reveals that there is about one call per mobile home per year and less than
half of this from residents not living in mobile homes. The activation of this
mobile home park could mean a significant increase in activity of the sheriff's
(PC 05/19176) P. 3
department whose members are already spread pretty thinly over the county.
The school situation and the burden put upon it should also be a vital considera-
tion as Dr. Wright has expressed that the present school system is inadequate for
the existing school population.
If all of these areas are given a complete study and then compiled for an accurate
picture of the full impact of such a project on this portion of Frederick County,
we do not see how the Planning Commission could act in favor of having this trailer
park considered as an asset to our community. We, therefore, urge you strongly to
vote against this proposal and help the citizens to protect and preserve the environ-
ment of this county. Sincerely, /s/ Laura F. Pifer, Secretary"
(Letter from The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc. to Mr. Ronald Berg,
dated May 19, 1976, submitted to the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 19, 1976)
Opposition
Mr. Mason Larwood, The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc., appeared
before the Commission in opposition and stated that he strongly recommended that
both bodies and Judge Woltz jointly visit the site in order to make a more intelli-
gent decision. He objected to the 460-foot elevation of the proposed treatment
plant as being very close to the lake's water level; and asked if this would
constitute interference with the stream's water flow.
Mr. Costello stated that he believed the State Water Control Board's requirements
would have to be met before the project could be developed; and, the Chairman stated
that the Commission appreciated the point of opposition Mr. Larwood wanted to make,
even though it was not relevant to the Conditional Use Permit application.
Mr. Williams stated that the plat did not indicate the original 173 lots permis-
sible. -
Mr. Doug Legg, C.L.S. (Greenway Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc.), for the
applicant, stated that Lot Numbers 1-109, 223-256, 120-132, 433, 411, 406, 328, 363,:_
261 were shown, and that Lot Number 285 was deleted (where Lake Prince Drive comes.
in) of the lots on the original plat; and 122 lots have widths of fifty feet (50')
or more.
Mr. Williams inquired about the discrepancy of 14 lots out of 187.
Mr. Berg stated that Lot Numbers 1-109, 223-256, 149-156, etc., totaled 187 lots
as found by the staff; and Lot Numbers 151 and 157 were too narrow to meet the thirty-
foot (30') requirement.
The Chairman noted that the lots totaled 160 by actual count rather than 161.
(PC 05/19/76) P. 4
Mr. Williams noted that the balance of the subdivison now totaled 172 rather than
173 lots.
Mr. Costello maintained that the prior requirement was not footage, but square feet.
He further stated that they did believe they had exceeded the permissible 173 lots,
but that they would eliminate lots on the plat if necessary to meet requirements.
Mr. Williams suggested that the original 173 lots should be sharply defined on
the plat.
Mr. Williams stated that the contour map appeared to have gradients much in excess
of 5% slope that would interfere with required mobile home tiedowns.
Mr. Costello (referring to lot size) stated that if the lots on the plat exceeded
the maximum authorized they would voluntarily amend the petition.
Mr. Costello (referring to the gradient) stated that specifications were not in
the conditions of the surface at this time, but rather a matter that must be met
under the continuing police power of the Trailer Ordinance after the Site Plan is
approved. He said that he was aware that the gradient other than on the insert show-
ing the typical layout would be a matter shown on the Preliminary Plan. He noted that
this matter would be under the Ordinance section dealing with the mobile home placement
requirements -- not a detailed plan requirement for each lot.
Mr. Berg emphasized that wherever the slope exceeded 10% it was germain that the
applicant clarify how he proposed to handle it.
Mr. Williams said that the Commission needed assurance that the plan could be imple-
mented in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Costello stated that they wished to present the plan in conformance with the
court's decree under the applicable Trailer Ordinance; however, that they were privileged
to have this application reviewed in the same manner as other applicants were reviewed
at the time. He said that when this application was before this body before with the
construction in the same area this point was not raised, nor was it deemed a requirement.
He continued that they would have to meet grading requirements for each lot before a
trailer could be placed; that it should not be a prerequisite or consideration of the
Site Plan because the gradient is subject to adjustment on the surface by engineering.
(PC 05/19/76) P. 5
Mr. Costello emphasized that placement gradient would be required before a Certificate
of Occupancy could be issued (8 20-38).
Mr. Williams quoted from Judge Woltz's Opinion:
"...However, in the use of any such remaining area as there may be which in effect will
constitute an enlargement of the park in units though not in area, he shall comply with
the requirements of all applicable ordinances, as to filing of site plans, size of lots,
density of units, construction standards and the like, as those ordinance existed when
the Board denied his 'conditional use permit' April 14, 1974."
(Circuit Court of Frederick County case of H. Ray VanDyke v. The Board of Supervioors
of Frederick County, Opinion by Judge Robert K. Woltz of February 19, 1976, p 6, 3rd
paragraph, 6th sentence)
Mr. Williams then stated that the Commission could not in good conscience make an
approval recommendation to the Board of Supervisors of this proposal with this existing
terrain; that it (the Commission) had previously made such requir ements of applicants.
Mr. Costello stated, for the record, that the applicants are entitled to a review
in the same way as previously reviewed for the same tract and lots; which did not
include a question of gradient. He said that they did wish to, wihtout admitting it
is necessary, be cooperative about this issue. He asked that the lots in question be
specified so that an answer may thuT-be addressed.
Mr. Williams stated that evidence should be submitted that this is an accomplishable
fact to the staff prior to further review by the Commission, with all property designated.
Mr. Costello maintained that this Plat was initially the same as previously reivewed;
except that some lot lines were changed. He said that the building areas were substan-
tially the same as before, and that the same criteria applied as before.:
Mr. Berg indicated areas with a slope of 10-15%, 15-25% and 25% or more.
Engineer Legg stated that the requirement of 0-15% grade is for the mobile -home
stand -- not for the lot, as he understood the Ordinance.
Mr. Costello quoted from the Tailer Ordinance:
..."There shall be 0-5% longitudinal gradient and adquate crown of cross gradient for
surface drainage of the mobile home stand."...
He said that the purpose is not to provide more than 5% gradient; and that gradient
of the entire lot was not necessarily applicable under the Ordinance, too. He suggested
that it might be advisable to defer action, while again stating that they did agree
to amend in any way to bring the plat into conformance with the Ordinance. �.
(PC 05/19/76) P. 6
Mr. Costello said that his clients wanted to accomplish the best that could be done
with the area, as well as be in compliance and answer all questions as best they could.
He mentioned that previously the questions had been other than technical considerations.
He suggested the requirements by the Commission be put in writing, and that the proposal
be tabled until June 2, 1976. He said that if adjustments could not be made by that
time, they would advise time enough in advance of that meeting date.
Mr. Williams suggested that Mr. Berg address a letter to Mr. Costello outlining
the items that the Commission would like the applicant to comply with.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby table, per applicant's counsel's request, until Regular Meeting date of
June 2, 1976 the Conditional Use Permit Application Number 62 of Forest Lake Estates
(H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corporation) so that they may adjust the
Plat in compliance with said Commission's requests.
SUBDIVISIONS
Golliday - RT 625 & RT 638 LOTS, 2 lots, Opequon Magisterial District, at the inter-
section of Routes 625 and 638, A-2 Zoning, approved by Frederick -Winchester Health
Department and State Department of Highways and Transportation, submitted by Larry S.
and Catherine C. Golliday.
Action - Recommended Approval by a vote of 2:1
James Golladay, Jr. stated that he wished to abstain from all participation and
voting because he and Mr. Golliday are relatives.
Mr. Larry S. Golliday appeared before the Commission and stated that he had pur-
chased this tract from a five (5)- acre plot belonging to his father. He stated that
he intended to build a home -for his family for which he had applied to the .Building
Inspector's office for a Building Permit without knowing the Ordinance regulations.
He said that the house in which he and his family presently reside is on the market
for sale.
Mr. Berg stated that the question was raised at the meeting of May 5, 1976 of
future development of the three (3) tracts.
Mr. L. S. Golliday stated that there would be no more subdividing. He said that
this parcel is the balance of the family -owned land in that area.
a�Qy
)71,,,. (P"ct 4
�C. NR' tic
May 21, 1976
Lewis M. Costello, Esquire
Twenty South Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
In Re: Amendment to Site Plan of Forest Lake Estates
a
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 62 for mobile home park
H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corporation
Dear 'Hr. Costello:
Following our meeting of May 20, 1976 with yourself, 11. Ray VanDyke
and three (3) of your engineers; we are agreed that the Site Plan of Forest
Lake Estates should be amended to give the inforuation listed below:
1) All lots of less than forty -foot (40`) width shall be defined with bold
outline.
2) Well lots shall be so indicated.
3) Profile of all streets shall be provided.
4) A typical section of the final lot gradients for 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%,
existing lot slopes, and the method for achieving; stated gradient.shall
be provided.
5) Lettering shall indicate fire plugs that will be provided, not more than
800 feet (3001) apart.
6) Lots 151 and 157 shall be corrected because their width appears less than
twenty feet (20°).
7) Lots #11 and 201 shall be deleted due to their location in drainage areas.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
dee-It..
H. Ronald Berg
Secretary
Planning commission
HRB : fmd
CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
May 19, 1976
Mr. Ronald Berg
c/o Rrederick County Planning Commission
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Berg,
The Frederick County Environmental Council in its regular monthly
meeting on May 170 1976 has once again discussed in considerable detail
the subject of the proposed Trailer Court to be located on Route 636
in the Opequon District and the opposition to such a project. Vie would
like for the following comments to become apart of the record for t he
Planning Commission so that the project can be viewed from an over all
stand point.
We consider that the effluent from a central sewage treatment plant
required for the proposed development should be discharged into a stream
which flows continuously. The tributary of Crooked Run which runs through
the area is frequently dry. Vie have photographs taken on July 17, 1974
by David Smith of the V, inchester Evening Star accompanied by a notarized
affidavid showing this stream bed at a point where it crosses Route 636
a couple of m'.les down stream from the proposed mobile home development.
You may be assured that this stream is frequently dry particularly in the
summer when effluent odors are the most noticeable.
Mobile homes have historically been tLe scene of very violent and
destrixtive fires. The development site is located in a large ravine or
draw in a wooded area. V've quote from a publication of the University of
Colorado written during the sumrler of 1972 under a grant from the Rockefeller
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Page two
Foundation whose title is "residential Development in the Mountains of
Colorado - A Survey of Issues". Under the heading "Fire Dangertt on page
33 it states: "Some areas should not be developed because of their
natural fire danger. A prime example is described as a fire chimney.
Such areas are ravines or draws characterized by steep slopes and dense
vegetation." We submit that with the number of mobile homes proposed,
their location in a densely wooded fire chimney -type area; the temdancy
of children to build fires; and the distance from fire fighting equipment,
the fire hazards .are too great to permit closely sited mobile homes as
proposed.
It is understood that a private water system is planned using several
wells and a central storage system. For the number of families contem-
plated such wells would need to be quite deep. There is a history of an
increasing number of new wells in the vicinity having water of high
sulfur and iron content. This would be difficult to treat and could
become very costly. We are also concerned about lowering the water table
as a result of increased draw down caused by more concentrated population
densities.
Public road access to the site is only via Route 636 located between
Route 277 and Route 641 (the Double Churches Road), The Route 277 end of
Route 636 As a macadam, fairly narrow but winding road with many sharp
turns that becomes a dirt road about half way to the Double Churches Road.
Those individuals living in the mobile home park working in or having
the occasion to go to Front Royal would naturally take Route 636 and the
Double Churches Road to Ninevah on Routes 340 and 522 as a short cut.
The unpaved portion of Route 636 is narrow with frequent sharp turns and
It
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Page three
traverses a hill through a cut. The road in the out is very narrow
without enough room for two cars to safely pass. The widening of this
section of road has been requested at the Board of Supervisors Road
hearings the past two years to no avail. Several vehicles have failed
to negotiate one narrow section of this road and turned over or slid into
the gulley below. In view of this we can only conclude that the existing
public road (Route 636) is inadequate for the extensive use that would
accompany this development. The availability of state road funds is not
known at this time but from the fiscal problems emerging from Richmond,
it does not appear that one can count on the repair of this road in the
near future.
An analysis of the nmber of calls for police assistance to the
Sheriff's department reveals that there is about one call per mobile
home per year and less than half of this from residents not living in
mobile homes. The activation of this mobile home park could mean a
siglificant increase in activity of the sheriff's department whose members
are already spread pretty thinly over the county.
The school situation and the burden put upon it should also be a
vital consideration as Dr. Wright has expressed that the present school
system is inadequate for the existing school population.
If all of these areas are given a complete study and then compiled
for an accurate picture of the full impact of such a project on this
portion of Frederick County, we do not see how the Planning Commission
could act in ,favor of having this trailer park considered as an asset to
ur
you
our community. We, therefore, rrtrongly to vote against this proposal and
help the citizens to protect and preserve the environment of this county.
S cerel��y
S,r
i
f
161
N
048 V I R G I N I A i
C./.eat
3/25/76 I14 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY i
H. RAY VAN DYKE,
Complainant
V. IN CHANCERY NO. 4944
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY,
e Defendant
O R D E R
Pursuant to the Opinion of this Court rendered the
e Y
19th day of February, 1976, and for the reasons therein
A - ,��C" expressed and upon the findings therein contained, it is
N
ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED:
s ' 1. That T. G. Adams and his successors in interest
by virtue of the action of the Board of Supervisors of
a+r September 14, 1970, and by issuance of a conditional use permit
by.the Zoning. Administrator and the Commissioner of Revenue by _t
r
letter of September 17, 1970, did obtain a conditional use permit
. for the construction of a mobile home park on the one hundred
twenty-three (123)`acres which were the subject of the applica
r tion'and the subject matter of this suit.
M1�rs '^r
2. That such conditional use permit became a vested
right upon the expenditure of substantial sums in reliance '4[
thereupon for survey, design and engineering %fork, clearing
l
streets and lake sites, putting in streets and an entrance way'
from the highway, obtaining a right-of-way easementand'doing
other work at that location.
'[[.. 3. That such a conditional use permit, and vested
h�FF:
right, are transferable and were transferred by the contract of
sale to H. Ray Van Dyke and his successors in interest and all
Y benefits thereof may be exercised by H. Ray Van Dyke and his
successors in interest.
r.
4. That the Board of Supervisors of rrcderick C.)unty
be, and they are hereby perpetually enjoined from in t^riF.ering
with the use of said one hundred and twenty-three (123) acres
as a mobile home park for the use and construction of mobile_
home facilities.
5. That by virtue of action of the Board of Supervi
,sors, September 14, 1970, pursuant town application for trailer
or trailer court location, filed by T. G. Adams and the approval
thereof, September 14, 1970, by execution of the Commissioner of
Revenue, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, T.-G.
Adams and his successors in interest did acquire a trailer park
permit under the trailer ordinance in force in 1970 when the
permit was issued. No limitations having been imposed upon the
one hundred and seventy-three (173)'spaces, the size of lozs,
layout and such matters in actual construction shall be in
compliance with the ordinances in force in 1970 when the permit
was issued.
6: Any remaining portion of the one hundred and
twenty-three (123) acres may be used for the same purposes as
a mobile home park, but in the utilization thereof, H. Ray van
Dyke shall comply with the requirements of all applicable
ordinances as to filing of site plans, size of lots, density of
units, construction and standards and the like as those ordinan-
ces existed when the Board denied his conditional use permit on
April 14,_1974.
7. In the application for a`change in such matters'
.under the trailer park ordinance or anv other ordinance except
the zoning ordinance, the ordinance shall be complied with "only,
in meeting the standards set up in said ordinances and the
standards and requirements thereof are administrative require-
ments to be applied administratively to the applicant and not as
a discretionary matter: by any authority involved.
-2-
15•tA
'1
is
M
8. Should H. Ray Van Dyke not seek administr.ati-/e
approval within sixty (60) days of the date of this order_ for
all the remainder of the one hundred and*t�wrenty-three .(123) acres;
L'
for a mobile home park, than at such time in the future as
application thereforis made the applicable ordinances shall appl{
as they exist at the time of application seeking enlargement of
y
the number of units to be provided in the tract, but such
,r.
approval remains administrative approval and not discretionary.
9. That all ordinances of the County have been cos
w""
plied with to permit the establishment of a mobile home park
r
r:
under the permits of September 14, 1970, and by application for
site change in 1974 and that the Board of Supervisors of
Frederick County or their agents, do not have authority to
o-
discretionarily prevent the establishment of a central -water and
sewer system so long as the same is constructed in compliance.,
-with the regulations of the State Water Control Board, and that
this Order is authority for the establishment of the mobile home
,r
d
park so that the central water and sewer systems may be consid-
ered by the State Water Control Board for approval.
@'
10. `That Complainant's allegation of a right to use
of the additional. thirteen (13) acres by virtue'of the amend
rib
sent evidenced by letter of the Commissioner of`Revenue, +4
~77
August 10, 1971;• is denied.
„M
11. ..That this cause is continued on theactive docket
*�4
in the Circuit Court of Frederick County for further proceedings
in conformance with the Opinion of this Court delivered the 19th
,4tw°
day of February, 1976, which is incorporated herein by reference
}
as a art of this Order.
p
ENTERED the' day of 1976.
Judge
-3- d�
{
%
ti G`t .P +
R
BOOK
54 ka- 541
V I RG I N
I A
i
s
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FREDERICK COUNTY
1
r
OF
a*x #20,048
H. RAY VAN DYKE,
a LMC/ram
#- W. ,4/9/76
Complainant,
MA
V.
IN CHANCERY NO. 4944
l{
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF FREDERICK COUNTY, ;
Defendant
*.
O R D E R
The final order having been entered in this cause,
atj
permission is hereby given to withdraw any document made a part
s.,
�
of the record in this case upon substitution of a photocopy
�R
therefor as to all documents except plats, and said plats
`
presented by any official of the County may be released to said
official upon his receipt and acknowledging_ responsibility
a
therefor.
:T
ENTERED this %-sT1. day of 1976.
Jl
Jug r
U a
w
SEEN .
Reae3ved Prom George B White4+re
,.tx.."
R/]�C.C%/'Lf s5F4ti Clf3rlt_ thw '}`n7lrnrt„f, 1iw.t.:a..si I
,.Laws coot ac..-eu,w,.vyi riaL8
-Commonwealth Attorney
• w
x;
Plat Drawn byy $riicaT Ed
G 8-16-70 Forest Lake F
Plat Drawn by GreenwAv�
fl T�
x. ruge
Gunter. 'esq.
1-�j (w Forest Lake Estates
'
Counsel or Complainant Van Dyke"
Plat Drawn by Bruce Edens::
f�
8-10-71
Forest Lake Estatesl,
Costello, Esq.
Plat Drawn By Bruce Edens 7 3D-7:
Lewis M.
Counsel for Complainant Adams
Forest Lake Estates
Ronaldr3
Planning Director
_t
�"
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. Q. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
e April 14, 1976
The• Frederick County Planning Commission
Frederick County, Virginia
{ Dear Sirs:
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc« in its regular
monthly meeting on March 15, 1976 discussed in considerable detail
the subject of the proposed Trailer Court to be located on Route 636
In the Opequon District. The Council was in complete agreement as it
strongly expressed its `opposition to the proposed project for environmental,
F ecological, safety and economic reasons which were stated on tine 14th of
March at the public hearing on this subject which was held by the Board
'. of Supervisors.
Also, the Council noted at this same public hearing the use of
quasi legal evasive tactics of the eouncel for the developer in refusing
-to reveal his development plans. We feel that such behavior is,, unfortu-
nately, ind icat ive of the type of action the County may expect from this
developer if he were permitted to proceed without 'closed monitorship by
all interested parties.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the recent court opinion permits
_. 173 trailer spaces in the 123 acres with additional spaces being allowed
in that same acreage provided that the ordinances in effect in April 1974
are complied with. It is noteworthy that the opinion does not address
itself to the additional 13 acres which the developerwishes to add to
the 123 acres.
{
' 771,
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 4. Sox 327 y
Stephens City, Virginia 22655 3
April 14, 1976
Page two
We., therefore, would like to recommend that the "Frederick County
Planning Commission take the following action: `
1, Request that the developer provide his development plans -to
the Commission and to the public based upon his utilization of
only the 123 acres addressed in the court opinion;
2. Consult with the Commonwealth Attorney and the County
Administrator to determine whether the developer's plans
Include more than the 173 spaces; and if so, whether such
plans would comply with the County ordinances in effect in
April 1974 as 'well- as the state laws;
3. In accordance with the promise of the Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors at the March loth meeting, we further recommend
that a public hearing be held after the public has been
given the details of the developers plans-- and the consultations
and attendant research outlined in Step#2 above have been
completed. Priorto the' public hearing, the developer should
be required to make available an envirornnental and economic
Impact statement for county and public review.
Sincerely.,
Laura ' F P er
(Mrs. Robert I. Pifer,
Secretary
cc;Freder ick County Board of Supervisors
r
The Frederick CountyEnvironmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Sox 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
April 14, 1976
Page two
We. there -'ore, would like to recommend that the Frederick County
Planning Commission take the folloviino action:
1, Request that the developer provide his development plans to
the Commission and to the public based upon his utilization of
only the 123 acres addressed in the court opinion;
2. Consult .with the Commonwealth Attorney and the County
Administrator to determine whether the developer's plans
include more than the 173 spaces; and if so, whether such
plans would comply with the County ordinances in effect in
April 1974 as •well as the state laws;
^~ 3. In` accordance with the promise of the Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors at the March 10t'n meeting, we further recommend
that a public hearing. be held after the public has been
given the details of the developers plans; and the consultations
and attendant research outlined in Step#2 above have been
completed. Prior to the public hearing., the developer should
be required to make available an environmental and economic
Impact statement for county and public review,
Sincerely,
Laura' F. P'der
Ors. Robert 1. Pifer.,a
Secretary
cc:Frederick County Board of Supervisors
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
-_ P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
April 14, 1976
The Frederick County Planning Commission
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Sirs:
The Frederick County Fnvirormtental Council, Inc, in its regular
monthly meeting on March 15, 1976 discussed in considerable detail
the subject of the proposed Trailer Court to be located on Route 636
in the Opequon District. The Council was in complete agreement as it
strongly expressed its opposition to the proposed project for environmental,
ecological, safety and economic reasons which were stated on tLhe loth of
March at the public hearing on this subject which was held by the Board
of Supervisors.
Also, the Council noted at this same public hearing the use of
quasi legal evasive tactics of the councel for the developer in refusing
to reveal his development plans. We feel that such behavior is, unfortu-
nately, indicative of the type of action the County may expect from this
developer if he were permitted to proceed without closed monitorship by
all interested parties.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the recent court opinion permits
173 trailer spaces in the 123 acres with additional spaces being allowed
in that same acreage provided that the ordinances in effect in April 1974
are complied with. It is noteworthy that the opinion does not address
Itself to the additional 13 acres which the developer wishes to add to
the 123 acres.
ORIGINAL - PC Agenda of 05/05/76 - letter from The Frederick County Environmental
Council,,Inc. = dated April 14, 1976
Page 1 of 2
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
April 14, 1976
Page two
We, therefore, would like to recommend that the Frederick County
Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Request that the developer provide his development plans to
the Commission and to the public based upon his utilization of
only the 123 acres addressed in the court opinion;
2. Consult with the Commonwealth Attorney and the County
Administrator to determine whether the developer's plans
include more than the 173 spaces; and if so, whether such
plans would comply with the County ordinances in effect in
April 1974 as well as the state laws;
3. In accordance with the promise of the Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors at the March loth meeting, we further recommend
that a public hearing be held after the public has been
given the details of the developers plans; and the consultations
and attendant research outlined in Step#2 above have been
completed. Prior to the public hearing.. the developer should
be required to make available an environmental and economic
impact statement for county and public review.
Sincerely,
AUnOer'
(Mrs. Robert L. Pifer,$.
Secretary
cc:F'rederlek County Board of Supervisors
ORIGINAL PC Agenda of 05/05/76 - letter from The Frederick County Environmental
Council, Inc. - dated April 14, 1976
Page 2 of 2
ti
The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
P. 0. Box 327
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
August 11, 1976
Mr, Ronpld Berg
Planning Commissioner
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg,
r
On behalf of the Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.,
I would like to request that the Council be Tticed on the agenda for
the next meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission on
August 18, 1976 at 2 P.M.
The Council at this time would like to express opposition to the
plans for ftvest Lake Estates as being presented by Mr. Adams and Mr.
H. Ray Uan-Dyke.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at my home number -
869-3363. Thank you.
Sincerely,
aura F. P r
Secretary
RECE I V ED A U 6 1 71976
�rr:�.ertxlz �.iittxC��l
Beyar#ment of Flannins azt%_plefa-clop men#
P. O. Box 60i
JOHN RILEY 9 COURT SQUARE
tlAwaiaG Dta crow WINCHwIrER, VIRGINIA 22601
April 14, 1980
Mr. T. G. Adams
Stephens City
Virginia 22655
Dear Mr. Adams:
This letter is to inform you of the position of this office in
relation to your site plan of Forest Lake Estates, The site
plan you submitted in 1976 and which was approved by the Board
of Supervisors on. 8/25/76 has expired as per Section 21-149(1)
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. A new site plan, there-
fore, must be submitted to this office for approval. I would like
to emphasize, however, that this approval will be purely on an
administrative basis and will not involve any action by the Board,
This office has no intention of hindering the development of a
Mobile Home Park on the full 123 acre site and recognizes your
legal right to do so. We do feel, however, that all sites in
excess of the 173 granted under the 1970 regulations must meet
the 1974 standards. There are some relatively minor adjustments
that may need to be made on your new site plan and this office
would be glad to discuss them with you or your representative.
Please contact this office if you have any questions.
Thank you.
SVerel,
J..Horne
Drector
JTPH:bjs
cc: Mr. James M. White, County Administrator
703/662-4532
H. RONALD BERG
PLANNING DIRBCTOR
J. WILLIAM RILEY. III
ZONING CODS ADMINI:TIRIATOR
�xE�'EXtt�t fdnnn#g
,btpartmen# of f lanning an.b P-dadnpriten#
m e m o r a n d u m
May 12, 1976
g COURT SQUARE
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
TO: Mr. R. C. King, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
FROM: H. Ronald Berg, Planning Director, County of Frederick, Virginia
SUBJECT: Zoning Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Review and Comment Request Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park)
OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, A-2 Zoning
(prepared by Greenway Engineering & Surveying Company, Inc.)
Please review and comment (below) on subject Conditional Use Permit application.
HRB: fmd
CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
Enc: 2 each proposed layouts
for your comments:
The Developer will be required to improve or reconstruct the entrances to
meet the minimum requirements of the Department of Highways and Transportation
to serve the expected traffic, when all of the lots are occupied by a dwelling,
traffic in excess of 3,000 vehicles per day may, develop.
for your signature:
It
703/662-4532
dater May 24, 1976
RECEIVED Mr. John T. P. Horne April 28,1980
Frederick County
Department of Planning & Developement
Po Box 6o1
Winchester, Virginian 22601
Dear Mr. Horns
In reference to your letter of April 14 and my conference with you, John Riley and
Bruce Edens Tuesday April'22nd.
In your letter you state the site plan approved in 1976 has expired and refer to
Section 21-149(i) of the Frederick County zoning ordinance.
I appreciate your statement in the letter and again at the conference that"your
office has no intention of hindering the devel6Aememt of a mobile home park on the full
123 acre site and recognize my legal right to do so".
I appreciate your kindness in furnishing see with a copy of the Frederick County.
zoning ordinance containing the section cited above. In extunining the copy I find it is
dated July 1978 and this poses a problem or question for me._As you know there was a court
order involving this property in 1976 and it cited the ordinances we are to follow. Now;
to follow later ordinances or to do anything contrary to the ordinances we are bound by
- may, or may not open the door to lose that which we have all ready accomplished. This I do
not want to.do.
.. pe .
I do want to m fain a;spirit ofcoo ratipn`rrith•;you.Those things you mentioned
to;Oruce and as are things we plan to do any way and as stated in your letter are relatively
minor. When Bruce 44s put.ihem on the site"..plan;that`was'approved in compliance with the
order in 1976, we -will be glad to` supply you with -a copy. We do this with a complete
understanding that we are not yielding to any ordinances except those we are bound by and
cited}in the above mentioned court order.
Thanking you far your cooperation.
Sincely,
T. GADAI
No,arch K, 1976
L'-_-rVios IHO Cost-ello, Esquire
2
�) Eou' 'th Caimeron Street
7inichester, 'Virainia 22601
Re,: H. Ray VanDyke
'E.-'ear \/1, r. 'Costello:
- '3
With regards to your telephone conversation last TnU.'zN av
concerning v;ater and sewerage facilities for the JH. Rzay
C.)
Trailer Par'k, f have checked wWa the Planning Director and, 'County
Administrator about the sub-zinission of plans for these facilides.
it will be necessary for Mr. Van'.)yrke to submit v;ith his Isit-e- plan
the data set forth in Sections 2 - 3 and 3 - 2 of ordinanc,-.
Only preliminary engineering plans need be submitted. -Fhe --'iris
should show the approximate location of all lines and appurrf=nances
as well as the proposed site of the ,,-,iqter Supply and
treatment .works. My approval Of these plans is necessary n-:fore
the planning commission approves the site plan. As you stat--03
over the phone, this is purely administrative in nature and 1 see
no problems that would hamper Nir. VanDyke's procrress.
If I can answer any further questions, please contact my
office,
Sincerely,
W. 1?. 'ones, F. E.
Engineer -Director.
_ FREDERICK COUNTY C-NITATION AUTHORITY
TOOT OPFI, IDOX 010
PubI-to L. DOWMAN. CHAIRMAN V COUP" SQUARE
8. RO",.n KOONTZ. VIC[•CHAMMAN WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22GO1
T. 0. .AOAMSf nac.-TRL4l.
JAMK3. H. DIEHL
WML1AM A. MORnisoN YHON6 703 — 607.0309
Marcel 1, 1.974
M.r. H. Ray Va1lDyke
Route 3 Box 252A
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. VanDyke:
Per your request this letter is sent stating the Sanitation
ALIthol-ity's action Colncerning your rcqucSt fol- the l-ropOSIC>d .forest
kakc l;statcs Development. I'he Authority's ,ICIA 11 at a Special
Mccti.iig held On February 16, 1974 was as follows:
That the request of Mr. VanDyke for a sewage treatment plant
ix; a pprovcd i f:
1. the plant cost, as certified by a registered
engineer, be amortized on a straight line
basis over 15 years,
2. the Authority shall have the right to purcliase
the plant at any time from its completion to the
end of its amortized life for- the unamortized cost.
3... that necessary eas&inctlts be gra nted t(11'c.)uglr the
t'f?]'Cyt f,dke LE,tatcs litope'tty te, the: Atltlu,rit.y in
rhea ticljoinln;; lltc,l���l-tic s Illr;t:tc�fllit l,o ;lcl'vc cl.
4. HIM' tll(!H(! 10,1111H tIIV Fnll).JC't. tO 1110 nl)l)rctvnl c,f ille
l� rccic.I ri�:k-�'Uinchcvtcr Scrt•vicu Atlt:hc,i•ity
5. dint' th-Is approval is llot to ho consiclurcd tt:s any
kind of z'cconinicndation to the l3oard of Sulx:r-
visors but is stating conditions only for the
proposed sewage treatment plant. -
This action was passed, 4a4-.QQ on a motion duly made
and seconded.
Should yoll. hnv(2 any questions or dcsia-c additional
illforl"IMtlOn p1CasC COtltaCt me.
I , :c C'l�� VO t ',
I:ngiuec r-l�trcctor
DON H. KRUEGEn. P.E.
ENOINK[R • DIR[C.TOR
DE, K:ton1
FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY
° 3' M
JAMES L. BOWMAN, CHAIRMAN
S. ROGER KOONTZ. VICE-CHAIRMAN
T. G. ADAMS, Sac.-TRa".
JAMES H. DIEHL
WILLIAM A. MORRISON
Mr. H. Ray VanDyke
Route 3 Box 2 52A
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. VanDyke:
POST OFFICE sox 618
S COURT SQUARE
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601
PHONE 703 - 667.0369
March 1, 1974
Per your request this letter is sent stating the Sanitation
Authority's action concerning your request for the proposed Forest
Lake Estates Development. The Authority's action at a Special
Meeting held on February 16, 1974 was as follows:
That the request of Mr. VanDyke for a sewage treatment plant
be approved if:
1. the plant cost, as certified by a registered
engineer, be amortized on a straight line
basis over 15 years.
2. the Authority shall have the right to purchase
the plant at any time from its completion to the
end of its amortized life for the unamortized cost.
3. that necessary easements be granted througl►the
1��orest Take Estates property to the Authority in
ordv i. thr t I d joill i.ng propc i-t is .",
4. t:httt tc1111N 111e Hill)
j00 10 (1W ;Il)pcuvtl1 c,l' 11le
I rule hick-Wlttcl e ;ter So e-vice AIlthur-it:y
5. that this approval. is not to be considered as any
kind of recommendation to the Board of Super-
visors but is stating conditions only for the
proposed sewage treatment plant.
This action was passed, zak" on a motion duly made
and seconded.
Should you have any questions or desire additional
information please contact me.
'y/ryj�e re yo t ,
Don I ge r . E.
' ingineer-Director
DE K : tam
DON E. KRUEGER, P.C.
ENGINIMR - DIRSCTOR
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY
H. RAY VAN DYKE
V. IN CHANCERY NO. 4944
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY
OPINION
This suit for declaratory judgment, Code9)8-578 et seq.', was insti-
tuted by the complainant against the governing body of Frederick County for
a determination of his rights under a "conditional use permit" issued to his
predecessor in interest in 1970 in connection with the latter's desire to
1
establish a mobile home park or trailer camp. The matter is complicated
by the interplay of two ordinances existing at the time, the zoning ordinance
and the trailer ordinance, and the difficulties are further compounded by the
continuing interplay of these ordinances in the process of subsequent alter-
ations to their provisions.
In 1970 Frederick County had a trailer ordinance which was adopted
pursuant to enabling legislation found in Chapter 6, Title 35 of the Code
(§§35-61 et seq.) §35-62 authorizes counties "to regulate by ordinances the
location and operation in the county of trailer camps, " and to prescribe by
ordinance "the lots or areas of the county where such trailer camps may be
located. "2 The section further delegates authority to impose license taxes,
regulate lot sizes and provide for the general health, safety and welfare
relating to such camps, including requirements for water supply, sewerage
and garbage disposal and the like.
In 1970 Frederick County likewise had a zoning ordinance, adopted
pursuant to enabling legislation found in Article 8, Chapter 11, Title 15. 1
of the Code (§ § 15. 1-486 et seq. ). § 15. 1-486 gives the governing body of a
county or municipality the authority, by ordinance. to "divide the territory
under its jurisdiction . . . into districts" for land use and zoning purposes
and to "regulate, restrict, permit, prohibit and determine" as to each dis-
trict various matters specifically set out touching upon land use. Following
sections set out detailed matter of substance and procedure controlling
localities in their zoning function; which function is legislative in nature and
may be delegated to the localities by the State. Andrews v. Board of Super-
visors, 200 Va. 637 (1959); Chesterfield Civic Association v. Board of
Zoning Appeals, 215 Va. 399 (1974).
One perceives some overlapping or even potential conflict in -the
trailer camp statute enabling the counties to regulate the location of trailer
camps in the county, and the zoning statute enabling the counties to divide
the county into districts and to control the use of land within the several .._
districts. This overlapping in the enabling legislation is reflected in the
Frederick County ordinances on the'two subjects.
In 1970 T. G. Adams, complainant's predecessor in interest, filed
his "Application for Trailer or Trailer Court Location" with the Board of
Supervisors (hereinafter Board), in pursuance of §§20-17 and 20-18 of the
trailer ordinance. . The first section forbids anyone to "locate, construct,
maintain, operate or enlarge" a trailer camp without first obtaining "a
certificate of approval" therefor. The second section requires as pre-
requisite to obtaining a certificate of approval submission of a written
application, ion a form furnished by the Board, containing certain inform-
ation, including the number of trailer spaces to be included in the trailer
camp. All this Adams complied with, showing the "number of trailers ,
.proposed" as 173. He also submitted with the application a plat showing
a plan for 173 lots.
On September 14, 1970 the Board took the following action: "Be it
resolved, that the Trailer Park Permit be granted to T. G. Adams, owner
of Forest Lake Estates near Stephens City, " and the application filed by
Adams was the same day stamped as approved by the Board with its chair-
- 2 -
man's signature. Despite the vagueness of the resolution it is clear from
the exhibits and other evidence that these actions constituted the granting
of a "certificate of approval" under the ordinance to T. G. Adams for 173
trailer spaces at a proposed trailer camp to be known as Lake Forest
Estates containing 123 acres.4
By §20-20 of the ordinance issuance of a certificate of approval en-
titled the applicant to "locate, construct, maintain, operate or enlarge the
trailer camp lot or trailer lot camp in question" provided there was com-
pliance with all other provisions of the ordinance, which involved health
permits, inspections, payment for licenses and a number of other matters
regulatory in nature. This ordinance made no mention of a "conditional
use permit."
Frederick County at the time had a zoning ordinance in effect, by
which the area where Forest Lake Estates lay was zoned "Agricultural,
General, District A-2." This ordinance, §3-1, set out permitted uses in
the A-2 zone, and by §3-1-26 permitted "mobile home park in accordance
with a conditional use permit and provisions contained herein." §11-3
provided that where mobile home parks and certain other uses were per-
mitted by the ordinance, in addition to a zoning permit and certificate of
occupancy, a conditional use permit was required and that such permits
"shall be subject to such conditions as the governing body deems necessary
to.carry out the intent of this ordinance." §11-7 repeated the requirement
of a conditional use permit for mobile home parks, indicated such was to
be issued by the governing body and in subsections set out various require-
ments including.area and width of mobile home spaces and minimum distance
between such homes.
I I
Having received the "certificate of approval" under the trailer ordi
nance, in response to a request of Adams' attorney the zoning administrator
and the commissioner of revenue sent a letter of September 17, 1970 to
Adams which referred to "our consideration of Sept, 14" and a conditional
use permit under §11-3 of the zoning ordinance. The letter continued:
"The area involved for the location of a mobile home park, referred to ascy�
Forest Lake Estates, is zoned A-2 to permit such use. It is our opinion ���,���,� �r� „�•� v .--`
`n�
Forest Lake Estates have complied with said ordinance and do hereby offer
this letter as a conditional use permit." No conditions to which the permit
might be subject were mentioned. 5
Thus armed, Adams expended substantial sums for survey, design
and engineering work, clearing street and lake sites, putting in streets and
an entrance way from the highway, obtaining a right of way easement and', > �;
doing other work at the location. He also exercised his option to purchase f k a
the land involved for a $37, 800 consideration. All this was done in further WIN
ante of the proposed mobile home park. In my opinion Adams'.rights,i1'f� s4M i
whatever they were, under the certificate of approval and conditional use
permit, thereby became vested under the general principles. ennunciated
in Fairfax County v. Medical Structures, 213 Va. 355 (1972).
October 22, 1973 Adams granted a purchase option to the complain
ant for the entire tract. The fact that this was effective to transfer any
vested rights of Adams to the complainant is not contested. A new zoning`!.��.
ordinance became effective November 1, 1973 and a new trailer ordinance
On' December 12, 1973. Under the new trailer ordinance, 9§2 and 20-14,
a conditional use permit (rather than a certificate of approval) issued by
the Board and subject to such conditions as the Board might impose was -
Made a prerequisite to locating, constructing, etc., a trailer camp or
mobile home park. §20-15 required a site plan to be filed with the con-
ditional use permit application, and §20-22 required the site plan to be
the same as that required in the zoning ordinance. There were othersgy'00
changes or as to density of units per acre, increased minimum size Y
-4-
yk.
of lots, space between units and the like as well as more detailed pro-
visions on the physical aspects of establishing a mobile home park.
§§16-1 et seq, of the new zoning ordinance dealt in considerable
detail with site plans and the information to be included therein. §3-1-24
permitted mobile home parks as a permitted exception with conditional
ise permit in A-2 zones, and the area involved in this litigation remains A-
Z §18-3-1 vested in the Board authority to approve or disapprove condition-
al use permits. The Planning Commission might recommend and the Board
vhen granting the permit might impose various conditions thereon.
During 1974 complainant was notified by the Frederick County Sani-
:ati.on authority that his proposed sewerage treatment plant at the site was
acceptable; then was informed by the county administrator approval of the
Board would also be required and suggested complainant also contact the
planning director concerning the proposed use of the land; complainant
subsequently filed a "Zoning Application for Conditional Use Permit" cover-
.ng 136 acres, both the 123 acre tract and a 13 acre tract (as to which see
:ootnote 4, supra); the planning commission recommended approval and:
;ranting of the conditional use permit but the Board denied it. Thereafter
.his suit was instituted.
As stated above zoning is a legislative. function, delegable by the '.
sovereignty.. Issuance of use permits so far as it is a part of zoning is 't
likewise a legislative function. Chesterfield Civic Association v. Board ,
:)f Zoning Appeals, supra. Complainant as a result of zoning actions and
through transfer from his predecessor in interest held certain vested
rights when the Board refused his request for _conditional use permit for
his proposed mobile home park, when he was already through his pre-
decessor the holder of such a permit. A permitee with vested rights to
land use described in a use permit cannot be deprived thereof by subse-
;uent legislation. Fairfax County v. Medical Structures, supra. In
- 5 -
addition §15.1-492 of the zoning enabling act states that the act shall not
"be construed to authorize the impairment of any vested right.... " The
action of the Board in refusing a second use permit covering the same
land area would have the forbidden effect.
The question arises, however, as to what vested rights Adams had
which by transfer became complainant's vested rights. Adams had,. and
complainant received from him, a right to use the 123 acres in question
for a mobile home park, such use being controlled in accordance_ with
the provisions of ordinances existing in 1970; but this right was restricted
so to 'use this area by the certificate of approval which he held, that is to 173
trailer spaces.
As a. consequence the complainant is free to locate and use the 123
acres or any part thereof for a mobile home park. In doing so to the extent
of 173 spaces the size of lots, lay -out and such matters must be in compli-
ance with the ordinances in force in 1970 when the permit was issued.
Should he not use the whole area for the 173 trailer spaces, the remaining
area may also be used for the same purpose as authorization therefor
already. exists. However, in the use of any such remaining area as there ma
be which in effect will constitute an enlargement of the park in units though
not in area, he shall comply with the requirements of all applicable ordi-'
nances, as- to filing of site plans, size of lots, density of units,construc-
tion standards and the like, as those ordinances -existed when the Board
denied his "conditional use permit" April 14, .1974.
=ng a conditional use permit already, complainant need comply
with the applicable ordinances only in meeting the standards setup in them
and the administrative requirements thereof which standards and require-
ments are to be applied administratively to him and not as a discretionary
- 6 -
matter by any authority involved. Should he not seek such administrative
approval at this time for all the remainder of the- 123 acres for a mobile
home park, then at such time in the future as he may do so the same
principles shall apply but under the applicable ordinances existing at the
time he seeks enlargement of the number of units to be provided on the
tract.
Consistent with the rights of the complainant as declared in the lire -
ceding two paragraphs of this opinion is the fact that as contrasted to
zoning, a legislative function, approval of site plans, issuance of build-
ing permits and the like are ministerial acts, which as a resu.lL can be
enforced by mandamus. Board of Supervisors v. Horne, 216 Va_ 113
(1975).
19 February 1976/� /-
fJudge
i
1. A second count of the motion seeks an injunction against the governing;
body to restrain it from denying complainant a conditional use permit for
the same land. use at the same location under a more recent zoning ordi-.
nance of the county. In view of the determination of the issues under the-
first count, the injunctive'relief issue would appear to be mooted.
2. The "trailer" and "trailer camp,' now more euphemistically anal -per-
haps more accurately the "mobile home" and "mobile home part:," consti--
.tute a phenomenon of recent American history. With increased use of the
motor vehicle and concurrent improvement in highways and a Populace- ' .
which apparently both desired and needed to be more mobile the trailer
became a significant social factor in this country. The phenomenon re-
ceived great impetus from preparations for and waging of World War IL
when rapid and changing concentrations of people occurred in localities
without sufficient housing available. §§35-61 and 35-62 appear to be the
first Virginia legislative enactments on the aggregation of trailers in.
camps or parks. Significantly these provisions became effective in 194?.
during the #everish-industrial and military activities just a few months
prior to actual entry into war.
-7-
..:,;ems
1 • Fullowing World War II the trailer horne became a way of life for an
increasing number of persons. The homes themselves reached far greater
sophistication, and more and more tended to be permanently located as
contrasted to "over -the -road" shelters here today and gone tomorrow or
next year. The dramatic post war and continuing rise in the cost of con-
ventional housing, making such increasingly difficult financially for many
to obtain, gave further push toward use of the mobile home as permanent
housing, more or less permanent in location.
3. "Divide" was changed to "classify" by Acts of Assembly, 1975,
Chapter 641.
4. In a suit instituted simultaneously by the complainant against the Board
involving an adjoining 13 acre tract complainant sought mandamus against
the Board to require it to reform the records of its proceedings to show
this tract as approved for trailer camp use, Adams introducing purported
written authorization therefor from a county administrative official though
no approval of such authorization appeared in the Board's minutes. After
extensive evidence the writ was denied on the ground that the plaintiff in
that proceeding had failed in the burden of proof necessary to require
reformation of the record of proceedings of the governmental body.
5. No evidence was introduced to show that the governing body ever acted
on a conditional use permit, nor that as an administrative routine when a
certificate of approval (under the trailer ordinance) had been granted by
the Board the commissioner of revenue as the administrative officer under
that ordinance and the zoning administrator were thereby authorized by the
Board to issue a conditional use permit (under the zoning ordinance). It
may be that no clear understanding of the distinction and relationship between
the "certificate of approval" and the "conditional use permit" under the
ordinances was perceived by the Board or its administrative agents. The
litigants have both treated the conditional use permit as validly issued and
no issue has been raised on the point in the pleadings or argument and hence
the court will assume its validity in that respect.
- 8 -
'M
AREAS OF CONSIDERATION for the FOREST LAKE ESTATES Site Plan
ITEM I:
§ 20-37. Playgrounds.
There shall be provided areas and facilities for recreational purposes appropriate
to the needs of the occupants.
1. Minimum size: Each mobile home park must provide not less than one (1)
multiple purpose playground of four thousand (4,000) square feet. Any camp or park
containing more than eighty (80) units or having an area of more than ten (10) acres
shall provide a minimum of one (1) acre and an additional minimum of fifty (50) square
feet of playground space for each additional mobile home lot over eighty (80). When
additional playground space is required, it may be provided in lots which shall not be
less in size than one thousand (1,000) square feet.
(Frederick County Trailer Ordinance, adopted December 26, 1973, as amended, pp 13-14)
ITEM II:
§ 16-2-10. Existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities indicating
all pipe sizes, types and grades and where connection is to be made
to an existing or a proposed central water and sewer system.
§ 16-3-6. Plans and profiles shall be submitted for all sanitary and storm sewers,
streets, and curbs adjacent thereto, and other utilities, and shall be
submitted on standard federal aid plan and profile sheets. Special
studies as required may be submitted on standard cross section paper
and shall have a scale of one inch (1") equals fifty feet (50') hori-
zontally and one inch (1") equals five feet (5') vertically. No sheet
size shall exceed forty-two inches (42") by sixty inches (60"). Flood
plain limit studies required shall be shown on profile sheets with
reference to properties affected and centerlines of stream.
® 16-4-2. Prior to approval of any Site Plan there shall be executed by the owner
or developer an agreement to construct required physical improvements
located within public rights -of -way or easements or connected to any
public facility together with a bond with surety approved by the
Governing Body in the amount of the estimated cost of the required
physical improvements as determined by the agent for Frederick County.
The agreement and bond or condition shall provide for completion of
all work within a time specified to be determined by the agent.
(Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, adopted November 1, 1973, as amended, pp 62,63,65)
AmeN DED
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AN ORX:NANCE PASSED MARCH 8, 1971, TO REGULATE THE LOCATION,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TRAILER CAMPS IN-FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
Whereas, Title 35, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended,
the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia is authorized to adopt regulations
of trailer camps, trailer lots, mobile homes and travel trailers as follows:
(A) Assessment and collection of, license taxes upon the operation of
trailer camps and trailer parks and the parking of individual trailers on individual
lots not in trailer parks and camps; and
(B) As a condition to issuance of such licenses, or as a condition to the
operation and occupancy of such trailer camps, the governing body may prescribe the
lots or areas of the County where such trailer camps may be located, may prescribe
the size of the lots to be used for such trailer camps, may prescribe the water
supply, sewage and garbage disposal facilities to be maintained at such trailer
camps, provided such sanitary regulations are not in conflict with the lawful re-
gulation of the State Board of Health, and may prescribe such other measures as are
necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the County and
,,the occupants of such trailer camps.
ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS
1. Board of Supervisors "Board of Supervisors" means the Board.of Supervisors
of the County and its duly authorized representatives.
2. Conditional Use Permit: "Conditional Use Permit" is a certificate issued by
the Board of Supervisors to evidence its approval of the location of a trailer lot
or a trailer camp subject to any'conditions the Board may impose.
_3. Dependent Trailer: "Dependent Trailer" means a trailer which does not have a
toilet and a bathtub or shower.
4. Health Officer: Director of the Lord Fairfax Health District.
5. Independent Trailer: "Independent Trailer" means a trailer that has a toilet
and a bathtub or shower.
a� 6. :Mobile Home: "Mobile Home" means a dwelling designed for transportation, after
fabricatiori,�on streets and highways on its own wheels, built on a metal chassis or
underframe and arri-ing at site where it is to be occupied as.a dwelling complete
and ready for occupancy; except for minor and incidental• unpacking andassembly
operation, location on jacks or permanent foundations, connection to utilities and
the like. These units are titled by Virginia State Division of Motor Vehicles, and
carry the seal of the Mobile Home Manufacturing Association, as well as the State of
`F grub ,, ..+, vFaurv� a .... .. .wta°.:.- .. ,+. ....,... .... v .. ,. .f:Y..Meis.+x..a,e.,....reee�:,.,i::s•.m:+:w�Y:. ..-.. ..Ysiu.*.�iili➢iu� ,.: i�
Virginia. {
s
7. Mobile Home Lot: "Mobile Home Lot" means any site, lot, field, or tract of land
upon which is located a single trailer.
8. Mobile Home Park: "Mobile Home Park" means any site, lot, field, or tract of land
upon which is located two (2) or more trailers, mobile homes, (regardless of duration
of stay or whether or not compensation of any kind is made for such location), but
not including trailers parked by a licensed dealer who shall offer the same for sale
and not occupancy. -. ..
-
9. Mobile Home Park Operator: "Mobile Home Paris Operator'B means any person who, as
-owner, lessee or in any other capacity, maintains or operatass a trailer camp.
10. Trailer: "Trailer" shall mean:
a. Any vehicle used or constructed for use as a conveyance upon highways,:
so designed and constructed as to permit occupancy thereof as a dwelling
or sleeping place for one or more persons;
b. A mobile home; or
c. An office or a place of business as in 7a" above.
11. Trailer Camp "Trailer Camp" means a Mobile Home Park,
12. Trailer Permit: That protion of the conditional use permit -that must be approved
by the Health Officer and the Board of Supervisors.
13. Travel Trailer: A trailer less than 31 feet in length and less than 4,500
pounds in weight which is designed for human habitation.
ARTICLE 11 a GENERAL
SECTION 20-1. Operation in accordance with Article 2, Chapter 6, Title 35, Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended.
The operation of a Mobile Home Park or Mobile Home lot shall be in accordance
with Article 2, Title 35, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, and the rules and
regulations of the State Department of Health relative to Mobile Home lots and
Mobile Home Parks.
SECTION 20-2. Where Mobile Homes may be parked.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no Mobble Home shall be parked
in the County; provided, however, that Mobile Home may be parked on a Mobile Home lot
,..� .era..• -. .. . _. _.. ,. ._ .. _ .... �:. .,... .. _„� .u:.....,�...,::... �,i,�,r<,.,.�._..�„=—_vim'
A
or in a Mobile Home Park for which a valid health permit, issued as provided in
Section 20-11, and a conditional use permit, issued as provided in Section 20-15,
are in effect.
SECTION 20-3. Application of chapter to trailers parked for sale or storage.
This chapter shall be applicable to trailers which are parked for sale
or storage and not being then inhabited; provided, however:
1. That the owners of such trailers shall be required to purchase the
merchants' or dealer's license, as prescribed by law.
2. No such trailer may be stored on any site where there is neighborhood
objections, except upon specific approval of the Board of Supervisors -
SECTION 20-4. Application of chapter to single trailer located on lot, etc.
Where a single trailer, mobile home or travel trailer is located on a lot,
tract or parcel of land in the County, only Article III, division 3 of this chapter
shall apply except that:
(a) The owner of such lot, tract of parcel of land shall meet all of the
requirements of the Health Officer.
(b) In the event that a trailer or mobile home located on a lot, tract or
parcel of land in the County prior to the date this chapter was adopted is moved by
the owner of the lot, tract or parcel of land in question from the site it occupies
at the time of the adoption of this chapter, neither that particular trailer nor any
other trailer shall be permitted to relocate at such site unless the owner first
comples with, and thereafter continues to comply with, the provisions of this chapter;
provided, however, that a trailer owner desiring to exchange an existing trailer for
a new or different trailer may do so.
SECTION 20-5. Inspection of Mobile Home Parks, Mobile Home Lots, etc., by Health
Officer, etc.
The Health Officer is hereby authorized and directed to make inspections
to determine the condition of Mobile Home Parks, Mobile Home lots, -or nonconforming
trailer sites in order that he may perform his duty of safeguarding the health and
safety of occupants of such parks, lots and sites of the general public,
The Board of Supervisors may designate other persons in the public health,
welfare and safety to inspect Mobile Home Parks, Mobile Home lots and nonconforming
trailer sites and such other persons so designated by the Board of Supervisors
shall have like authority to inspect the same as the Health Officer.
-6. Availability of permits for inspection.
All permits pursuan of this chapter shall be.available~
on and visible from the public right-of-way.
SECTIN 20-7. Regulations made and adopted by Health Officer for Enforcement of
chapter, e
The Health Officer is hereby authorized to make, and, after Public Hearing,
to adopt, such written regulations as may be necessary for the proper enforcement of
the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, that such regulations shall not
be in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Such regulations shall have the.
same force and effect as the provisions of this chapter and the penalty for violations
thereof shall be the same as the penalty for violations of the provisions of this
chapter.
SECTION 20-8. Making false statement to obtain permit.
The making, knowingly and intentionally, of any false statement, relating to
a material fact, for the purpose of obtaining a permit, as required in this chapter
shall be a violation of this chapter.
SECTION-20-9. Making false statement upon records.
The making, knowingly and intentionally, of any false statement, relating
to a material fact upon records required to be kept under the provisions of this
chapter shall be a violation of this chapter.
SECTION 20-10. Penalty. for violation. of chapter or regulation.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any provisions of
any regulation adopted by the Health Officer pursuant to authority granted by Section
.
5
r
20-7 shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars
($10.00) nor more than three hundred dollare ($300.00) or imprisonment in jail for
not more than thirty (30) days, or both, andeach day's failure of compliance with
any such provision shall constitute a separate violation.
ARTICLE III - PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
DIVISION 1.- TRAILER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, ETC., OF MOBILE HOME PARKS
OR TRAILER LOTS.
SECTION 20-11. Required.
No person shall construct, maintain, operate or enlarge any Mobile Home
Park or Mobile Home lot in the County unless he shall hold a valid -trailer permit
approved by the Health Officer in the name of such person for the.particular Mobile
Home Park, Mobile Home, or Trailer involved in each case.
SECTION 20-12. Application therefore.
Any person desiring a trailer permit, as required in Section 20-11, shall
file an application therefore with the appointed representative of the Board of
Supervisors, in such form and setting forth such information as may be required.
SECTION 20-13. Issuance, suspension or revocation.
The Health Officer may approve trailer permits, as required in Section 20-11,
for a Mobile Home Park, Mobile Home, or Trailer which conforms with thia.chapter. He
shall suspend or revoke such permits for violations off this chapter and regulations
promulgated under Section 20-7 and other applicable State and Local regulations,.
ordinances, or State Statutes.
DIVISION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION, ETC., OF MOBILE -HOME
PARK OR MOBILE: HOME LOT.
SECTION 20-14. Required.
No person shall locate, construct, maintain, operate.or enlarge any Mobile
Home Park or Mobile Horse lot .in the County unless he shall have first obtained a
conditional use permit from the Board of Supervisors, as provided in this Division.
SECTION 20-15. Filing, contents, etc., of application therefore.
Any person desiring a conditional use permit, as required in Section 20-14
shall first submit a written application to the Board of Supervisors, on an
application form.
Such application shall contain, aorong.other things, the following infor-
mation:
(a) The name and address of the person owning the Mobile Home Park,
Mobile Home•or Trailer in question, and ownership.
_;
(b) The name and address of the person operating, conducting or managing
the Mobile Home Park, Mobile Home or Trailer it different from the name of the owner
thereof.
w.
(c) A sketch with description, showing the abutting property owners and
where the proposed Mobile Home Park or Mobile Home lot is to be located, which sketch
shall be on or attached to the application. Each applicant for a conditional use
permit for a Mobile Home Park shall submit a site plan as required in Division 4.
SECTION 20-16. Procedure upon filing of application,
The Board of Supervisors may consider each application, filed as provided
in Section 20-15, and shall require a public hearing for a Mobile Rome Park and
nay require a public hearing for a Mobile Home lot. Such hearing shall be held
after first publishing notice of the hearing two (2) times in a newspaper having a
general circulation in the County.
In deciding whether to approve or disapprove the application, the Board of
Supervisors shall consider the general health, safety and welfare of the community
in which the proposed Mobile Home lot or Mobile Home Park is to be located; and
sanitary or health problems that may be caused by the approval of such application;
the drainage of the proposed area covered by such application; the effect that the
granting of such application will cause upon the values of the surrounding real
estate in the area) the opinion of other.landowners in the area as to the approval
of such an application; and any other factors consistent with tfie ones elaborated
above.
e
ri
r
SECTION 20-17. Issuance of and rights thereunder.
If an application, filed as provided in Section 20-15, be approved., the
Board of Supervisors shall issue to the applicant a conditional use permit, which
shall entitle the applicant to locate, construct, maintain, operate or enlarge the
Mobile Home Park or Mobile Home lot in question; provided such applicant complies
with all of'the provisions of this chapter and the stipulations of the conditional
use permit.
SECTION 20-18. Prerequisite to permit or license under chapter.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a conditional use permit,
issued as provided in Section 20=17, shall be a prerequisite to the obtaining of
any permit or license as set forth in this chapter.
.
There is hereby imposed upon the owner or licensee of a mobile home in
County an*annu license tax of $15.00 per mobile home or trailer. Such t shall
be payable on i-he firs day of January of each calendar year. The er or licensee
of any trailer placed after M h 1 of any year shall re o the Commissionex of
Revenue within fifteen (15) days to p a license f or the remainder of the year
prorated for fractional periods of years as forth by the guidelines of the Code
of Virginia, (1950), as amended, in Lion 46.1-16 . It shall be unlawful and shall
constitute a misdemeanor for Mobile Home Park or Mobile a lot owner or licensee
to rent or otherwise vide space for a trailer not licensed by F erick County.
It shall be un ful and shall constitute a misdemeanor for any person to 1, lend
or giv trailer, or more a trailer within Frederick County that is not licensed
ederick County.
22
Evidence of -"pa the annual license tax provided for in Se
shall consist of a receipt issued urer ounty. Such receipt shall
ently exhibited in a window of the mobile home, which window shal
C
DIVISION 4. SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO MOBILE HOME PARKS.
SECTION 20-21. The location of a new mobile home park shall require in addition to
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, a con-
ditional use permit issued under Article III, Division 2 of this
Chapter. `
SECTION 20-22. Master Plan.
Each conditional use permit application for a trailer camp, mobile home park,:
shall include a Site Plan as set out in Article 16 of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance.
SECTION 20-23. Maximum Density.
The total density of any mobile home park shall not exceed eight (S) units
per gross acre, and the net density on any particular acre within such park shall not
exceed ten (10) units per acre.
SECTION 20-24. Minimum lot size.
'.1. Area: The minimum area for individual mobile home space shall be four
thousand (4,000) square feet inclusive of the ground underneath such unit.
2. Width: The minimum width for each mobile home lot will be forty (40)
feet except that for any mobile home unit greater than fifteen (15) feet in width,
a minimum of one (1) foot shall be added for every additional foot of width of the
mobile home.
SECTION 20-25. Yard and setback requirements.
1. Minimum distance between mobile homes: No mobile home shall be placed
within fifteen (15) feet of, another; provided, that with respect to mobile homes
parked end -to -end, the distance between mobile homes parked shall be not less than ten
(10) feet.
2. Yards abutting.common areas: The distance from the line or corner of
the mobile home stand to a common parking area, a common walk or other common area
shall be ten (10) feet minimum. Patios and carports shall be disregarded in deter-
mining yard widths.
9
3. Distance mobile homes to be located from park boundary and public
streets: No mobile home shall be placed a lesser distance from the mobile home
park boundary than the: side yard required in the zoning district.
SECTION 20-26. Mobile Home Stand.
That part of an individual lot which has been reserved for the placement.
of the mobile home.
1. Placement: The mobile home stand placement shall provide for the
practical placement on and removal from the lot of both the mobile home, its ap-
purtenant structures and the retention of the home on the lot in a stable condition
and in satisfactory relationship to its surroundings.
2.- Size: The size of the mobile home stand shall be suitable to fit
dimensions of mobile homes anticipated, including mobile home appurtenant structures
or appendages.
3. Location: The location of each mobile home stand shall be at such
elevation, distance and angle in relation to the access street and the mobile home
accessway that placement and removal of the mobile home is practical.
4:. -Construction: Appropriate material, properly graded shall be placed
and compacted so as to be durable and adequate for the support of the maximum antici-
pated loads during all seasons.
5. Gradient: There shall be zero to five per cent longitudinal gradient
and adequate crown or cross gradient for surface drainage of the mobile home stand.
SECTION 20-27. Markers for mobile home lots.
Every mobile home lot shall be clearly defined. There shall be posted
and maintained in a conspicuous place on each lot a number corresponding to the
number of each lot.
SECTION 20-28. Tenant Storage:
Storage facilities may be provided on or conveniently near each mobile
home lot and if not provided, permitted for (1) - the active storage of outdoor
• 10
equipment, furniture and tools, and (2) - the inactive storage of such other material
as is used only seasonally or infrequently by the tenant and cannot be conveniently
stored in the mobile home.
1. Size: There may be a minimum of one hundred (100) cubic feet provided
for general storage for each mobile hone lot.
2. Design and location of storage facilities: Storage facilities may be
provided on the lot or in compounds located within a reasonable distance, -not more
than one hundred (100) feet from each stand located, not closer to private streets
and public streets than the mobile unit itself. Storage facilities shall be de-
signed in a manner that will enhance the appearance of the park and shall be con-
structed of suitable weather resistance materials appropriate for the use and
maintenance contemplated.
SECTION 20-29. Private streets.
1. General requirements: The minimum lane or --private street on which an
individual mobile home lot fronts shall be thirty (30) feet in width. In cares
where private streets dead-end a cul-de-sac, the minimum radius shall be forth (40)
feet. The minimum material that will meet these requirements will be a.prime
and double seal bituminous treatment applied on base of not less than six (6) inches
of compacted gravel. All private streets or lanes shall have unobstructed access to
a public street or highway.. Private street entrances to mobile home parks from any
public street shall conform to the current standards of the Virginia Department
of Highways. Any public street within the mobile home park shall conform to all
Department of Highways' standards.
2. Pavement widths (for private streets): Pavements shall be of adequate
widths to accomodate the contemplated parking and traffic load -in accordance with
the type of street, with ten-(10) foot minimum moving lanes for collector streets,
ten (10) foot minimum moving lanes for minor streets, eight (8)Ffoot minimum lane
equipment, furniture and tools, and (2) - the inactive storage of such other material
as is used only seasonally or infrequently by the tenant and cannot be conveniently
stored in the mobile home.
1. Size: There may be a minimum of one hundred (100) cubic feet provided
for general storage for each mobile hone lot.
2. Design and location of storage facilities: Storage facilities may be
provided on the lot or in compounds located within a reasonable distance, -not more
than one hundred (100) feet from each stand located, not closer to private streets
and public streets than the mobile unit itself. Storage facilities shall be de-
signed in a manner that will enhance the appearance of the park and shall be con-
structed of suitable weather resistance materials appropriate for the use and
maintenance contemplated.
SECTION 20-29. Private streets.
1. General requirements: The minimum lane or --private street on which an
individual mobile home lot fronts shall be thirty (30) feet in width. In cares
where private streets dead-end a cul-de-sac, the minimum radius shall be forth (40)
feet. The minimum material that will meet these requirements will be a.prime
and double seal bituminous treatment applied on base of not less than six (6) inches
of compacted gravel. All private streets or lanes shall have unobstructed access to
a public street or highway.. Private street entrances to mobile home parks from any
public street shall conform to the current standards of the Virginia Department
of Highways. Any public street within the mobile home park shall conform to all
Department of Highways' standards.
2. Pavement widths (for private streets): Pavements shall be of adequate
widths to accomodate the contemplated parking and traffic load -in accordance with
the type of street, with ten-(10) foot minimum moving lanes for collector streets,
ten (10) foot minimum moving lanes for minor streets, eight (8)Ffoot minimum lane
11
for parallel guest parking and two (2) additional widths for pedestrial use where
an adjacent sidewalk is not provided. The minimum paved radius for cul-de-sac shall
be thirty (30) feet.
3. Alignment and gradient (for private streets): Streets shall be adapted
to the topography and shalt have suitable alignment and gradient for safety of
traffic, satisfactory surface and ground water drainage and proper functioning of
sanitary and storm sewer systems.
4. Intersections (of private streets): Street intersections shall generally
be at right angles. Off -sets at intersections and intersections of more than two (2)
streets at one (1) point :shall be avoided.
5. Improvements (of private streets): The street improvements shall ex-
tend continuously from the existing improved street system to provide suitable
access to the mobile home stands and other important facilities on the property, to
provide adequate connections to existing or future streets at the boundaries of the
property and to provide convenient circulation of vehicles with origins or destinations
on the property.
6. Grading (of private streets): Grading shall be for the= -full width of
the street to provide suitable finish grades for pavement and any sidewalks with
adequate surface drainage and convenient access to the mobile home stands and other
important facilities on the property. -
SECTION 20-30. Parking.
Parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of at.least two (2) car spaces
for each mobile home lot. Required car parking spaces may include one (1) car space
on each mobile home lot and in addition shall include a sufficient number of car spaces
conveniently located in parking bays to bring the total number of parking spaces up
to the required two (2) car spaces per mobile home lot. Each such parking space
shall be surfaced for its entire area with durable, hard material, -suitable for all-
weather use and shall have unobstructed access to a public street or common street
highway. At least one (1) parking space shall be no more than two hundred fifty (250)
feet f = a mobile home.
SECTION 20-31. Water supply.
r
An adequate supply of potable water approved by the Health Department shall
be furnished from a public water supply system or from a private water system con-
forming to all applicable laws, regulations, resolutions and ordinances with. supply
lines Located on each mobile home lot. An adequate supply of hot water shall be
provided at all times to all hot water outlets required by this chapter. No
drinking water containers or fountains shall be located within any room housing
toilet facilities. ;
SECTION 20-32. Sewage.
in each mobile home park, all waste or waste water from a faucet, toilet,
tub, shower, sink, slopsink, drain, washing machine, garbage disposal unit or --
laundry shall empty into an approved sewer system installed in accordance with the
Virginia Department of Health.
SECTION 20-33. Sanitation Facilities.
Each Mobile Home Park which makes or provides accommodations
for dependent or travel trailers as well as mobile homes shall provide toilets,
baths or showers, slopsinks and other sanitation facilities which shall conform to
the following requirements
1. Toilet facilities for each ten (10) travel trailer spaces
a. For males, not less than one flush toilet, one lavatory and one
shower or bathtub with individual dressing accommodations.
b. For females, not less than one flush toilet, one lavatory and one
shower or bathtub with individual dressing accommodations. Such
facilities shall be either in a separate building, or, if in the
same building as the facilities for males:, separated therefrom by
a soundproof wall.
2. For each twenty-five travel trailer spaces or portion thereof;
a. A separate compartment•housing one flush toilet bowl receptacle
for emptying bed pans or ether containers of humen excreta and an
adequate supply of hot running water and a slop sink for cleaning
same.
b. A separate compartment housing one double laundry tray and one
.
13
conventional wringer type washing machine or.one single laundry
tray and one automatic type washing machine.
3. Heating facilities shall be provided to maintain service buildings of
a temperature of at least sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit from the first day of
October to the first day of May and such temperature shall be maintained during
such period.
SECTION 20-34. Garbage and trash disposal.
Corrosion -resistive metal garbage cans or other noncombustible containers,
with tight -fitting covers, shall be provided in quantities adequate to permit dis-
iiosal of all garbage and rubbish. Each mobile home, trailer lot, or travel trailer
lot shall have at least one (1) garbage can or a suitable common container. The
container shall be kept in sanitary condition as determined by inspection of the
Health Director. Garbage and rubbish shall be collected and disposed of as frequent-.
ly as may be necessary but not less than once a week. A central container shall
also be provided for excess garbage and rubbish.
SECTION 20-35. Electric lighting and outlets.
All entrances and exits to mobile home parks shall be lighted at night.
Not less than a three thousand, three hundred (3,300) lumen light shall be provided
at each entrance and exit to the mobile hone park. This receptacle and other
electric wiring shall conform to the Frederick County Electrical Code..
SECTION 20-36. Storage tanks.
1. Gasoline, liquified petroleum, etc.: Gasoline, liquified petroleum,
gas or oil storage tanks shall be so installed as to comply with all county, state
and National Fire Prevention Code regulations.
2. Heating oil: Where oil heating of a mobile home or trailer is pro-
vided, a minimum.of fifty (50) gallon fuel storage facility shall.be provided in each
mobile home in an inconspicuous location or manner. In lieu of this, a central
storage facility may be constructed to serve the mobile home park.
SECTION 20-37. Playgrounds.
14
There shall be provided areas and facilities for recreational purposes
appropriate to the needs of the occupants.
1. Minimum size: Each mobile home park must provide not less than one
(1) multiple purpose playground of four thousand (4,000) square feet. Any'camp or
park containing more than eighty (80) units or having an area of more than ten (10)
acres shall provide a minimum of one (1) acre and an additional minimum of fifty
(50) square feet of playground space for each additional mobile home lot.over
eighty (80). When additional playground space is required,' it may be provided in
lots which shall not be -less in size than one thousand (1,000) square feet.
2. Percent of gross site area: The size of the recreation area shall be
not less than ten (10) percent of the gross mobile home park area. Recreational
facilities shall generally be provided in a central location and shall include
suitable landscaping, fencing and benches. In larger parks, decentralization may
be allowed. Recreation areas shall include space for community buildings and
1
community use facilities, such as adult recreation and child playgrounds, and
natural open space.
SECTION 20-38. Certificate of Occupancy required.
No mobile home, trailer or accessory structure shall be occupied in any
mobile home park until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the
zoning administrator to the effect that the mobile home park or the portion thereof
for which such certificate is requested is in compliance with all applicable
provisions of this chapter. The zoning administrator shall not issue such certificate
until after the same has been approved by the Health Director, and other agencies
concerned.
SECTION 20-39. Mobile Home and Trailer Standards.
1. Plumbing, heating and electrical• Every mcbile home occupied as a
dwelling unit located in the County after the date of the adoption,of this chapter
shall meet the minimum standards for plumbing, heating and electrical systems as
defined by the American Standards Association Project A 119.1, latest revision.
Mobile homes that display the official seal and register number of the Mobile Home
Manufacturers Association and the Trailer Coach Association will be considered to
comply with the American Standards Association Standard -A 119.1. Mobile homes
that do not meet these minimum standards for plumbing, heating and electrical
systems will not be issued a certificate of occupancy permit by the zoning adminis-
trator.
The minimum standards for plumbing, heating and electrical systems as de-
fined by the American Standards Association Project A 119.1, latest revision, are
hereby made a part of any incorporated by reference into this subsection.
2. Exceptions: The requirements of this section will not apply to
occupied mobile homes in the County prior to the adoption of this chapter nor to
units built prior to March 12,1963.
SECTION 20-40. Register of Mobile Home Park. Occupants.
The mobile home park operator shall maintain a register for each lot for
at least the previous three (3) years and such register shall be available at all
times for inspection by law enforcement officers, health officials, the Commissioner.
of Revenue, officials and representatives of the governing body whose duties require
disclosure of the information contained in the register.
SECTION 20-41. The register shall show the following information;
1. The name of each mobile home owner or occupant.
2. The address and lot number of each mobile home owner or occupant.
3. Each motor vehicle or mobile home license number.
4. The name and model of the mobile home.
S. The number of bedrooms of the mobile home.
6. The number of occupants of.the mobile home.
7. The dates of arrival and of departures of each mobile home.
SECTION 20-42. EACH MOBILE HOME PARK OPERATOR shall furnish the Frederick County
Commissioner of Revenue a signed copy of the register to be submitted by January 31st
for those Mobile Homes present on January 1st.
Ib
j
SECTION 20-43. Should any article, section, subsection or: -provision of this ordin-
ance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of this ordinance .
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid or un-
constitutional.
SECTION 20-44. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage
This ordinance was.duly considered, following a required Public Rearing
held on December 26,. 1973 and was adapted. by the
governing body of Frederick County, Virginia, at its Regular Meeting held on
December 26, 1973
Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervi.so_,.
ATTEST
County Administrator
Approved by Board of $;,'pervisars
County of Frederick, Virginia
my %�dtninistrator.
a • w
AMENDMENTS
Section20-6. Availability of permits for inspection.
All permits pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall
be available for inspection and visible from the public right-of-
way,
*REPEALED: April 9, 1975 by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors.
DIVISION 3. LICENSING OF MOBILE HOMES, MOBILE HOME PARKS, AND
MOBILE HOME LOTS.
*REPEALED: April 9, 1975 by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors.
Section20-19. Imposition. of annual license tax.
There is hereby imposed upon the owner or licensee of a mobile
home in the County an annual license tax of $15.00 per mobile home
or trailer. Such tax shall be payable on the first day of January
of each calendar year. The owner or licensee of any trailer placed
after March 1 of any year shall report to the Commissioner of Revenue
within fifteen (15) days to pay a license fee for the remainder of
the year prorated for fractional periods of years as set forth by
the guidelines of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, in
Section 46.1-165. It shall be unlawful and shall constitute a mis-
demeanor for any Mobile Home Park or Mobile Home lot owner or
licensee to rent or otherwise provide space for a trailer not
licensed by Frederick County. It shall be unlawful and shall con-
stitute a misdemeanor for any person to sell, lend or give a trailer,
or move a trailer within Frederick County that is not licensed by
Frederick County.
*REPEALED: April 9, 1975 by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors.
Section20-20 . Evidence of payment for mobile home license.
Evidence of payment of the annual license tax provided for in
Section 20-19 shall consist of a receipt issued by the Treasurer
of the County. Such receipt shall be prominently exhibited in a
window of the mobile home, which window shall face upon a public
right-of-way.
*REPEALED: April 9, 1975 by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors.
A'ENDM- ENT
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Approvals:
Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors
3/10/80
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 21, Zoning,
adopted .;uly 12, 1978, to amend Sec. 21-16(v)(8) and Sec. 21-26(x)(20).
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption by the
Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia,
Section 21-16(v)(8) - Garage Public - Provided that the following
conditions shall be met.
- All repair work shall take place entirely within an
enclosed structure.
- All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be
screened from view of surrounding properties by a solid
artificial or compact natural screen of at least five (5)
feet in height, which shall be adequately maintained as
long as such exterior storage is continued.
- The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors may requires=="�1-4
additional screening where it deems necessary to protect
surrounding properties.
- The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall
determine that the proposed use will have no adverse
effects on surrounding properties.
Section 21-26(x)(20) - Garage Public - Provided that the following
conditions shall be met.
All repair work shall take place entirely within an
enclosed structure.
- All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be
screened from view of surrounding properties by a solid
artificial or compact natural screen of at least five (5)
feet in height, which shall be adequately maintained as
long as such exterior storage is continued.
The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors may requirereasarr�
additional screening where it deems necessary to protect
surrounding properties,
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall
determine that the proposed use will have no adverse
effects on surrounding properties.
T. I, § 11-7 APPENDlx T. I. § 11-7-6
case of buildings other than dwellings, spaces may be
located as far away as six hundred feet. Every parcel of
land hereafter used as a public parking area shall be
surfaced with gravel, stone, asphalt or concrete. It shall
have appropriate guards where needed as determined
by the administrator. Any lights used to illuminate said
parking areas shall be so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining premises in a residential district.
(3-8-71.)
1-7.
Permanent mobile home parks.
C
The location of mobile home parks shall require, in
addition to the zoning permit and certificate of
Ca
occupancy, a conditional use permit issued by the
�Kr—
governing body. Operators of such parks shall comply
with the following provisions:
11-7-1.
Area requirements. For each mobile home space,
within a park having a central water and sewer system,
:_-..--.--
and designed to accommodate one mobile home there
`== `====
shall be provided two thousandsquare feet of area or
P
=====
more which shall front on an internal street, road, or
right of way.
11-7-2.
Width. Each mobile home space shall have a minimum
width of thirty feet.
11-7-3.
Distance between mobile homes. Parking spaces for
mobile homes shall be arranged so as to provide a
distance of fifteen feet or more between individual
units, but in no case closer than five feet to the
individual lot line of the mobile home space.
11-7-4.
Sanitary facilities. Each mobile home space shall be
provided with individual water and sewer connections
_
to a public system.
11-7-5.
Electrical connections. Each mobile home space shall
be provided with electrical outlets installed in
accordance with the National Electrical Code.
11-7-6.
Two years are allowed for mobile home parks to bring
their facilities into conformity with these regulations.
Failure to comply shall be grounds for the refusal to
80.35
Supp. # 1, 10-71
-------------------------•.----- .....
.......... _....
--•• .
•....................... ••- .
...................... —
---...----•-----------------•-------------_.-._.
---...---•---------------•-•••-•......._........_...._.
-----•---------------------••••••-_.-----_..---- ..•...-
..--- _.__.._...
-- - -- -- -- ------ - ----
T. I, § 11-8 FREDERICK CiOUNW CODE T. I, § 11-9-1
issue an annual operating' license and to revoke the
zoning permits required.
11-8. Temporary mobile home parks.
Conditional use permits for temporary mobile home
parks may be issued by the governing body, subject to
the following conditions:
11-8-1. That the location of a temporary mobile home park is
necessary for the housing of construction workers
employed on an industrial or highway construction
project.
11-8-2. That the request is filed by or certified to by the
industry or State Highway Department as being
essential to the construction.
11-8-3. That a minimum area of two thousand square feet be
provided for each space.
11-8-4. That sanitary facilities conform to the State Health
Department's "Trailer Camp Sanitation" requirements.
11-8-5. That the period for operating such temporary park shall
concur with the anticipated period of the construction.
Applications for renewal may be submitted if more
time is required to complete the project. However, such
renewal applications must be filed at least ninety days
prior to the expiration of the original temporary use
't
perms .
11-8-6. Bond. The governing body, in granting such a .................................................
conditional use permit, may require the posting of a = .....................
----------------•----------- .-.........
bond to assure that the temporary mobile home park
will be removed and the site left in good order at the ------------------
expiration of the permit. _...-.......
11-8-7. The governing body shall establish such additional
requirements as are in the best interest of the public.
11-9. Restrictions adjacent to airports.
11-9-1. Establishment of approach zaaes. The commission ............:.............................. ..........
shall determine whether there exists any areas which :.......................................
would be involved under the Federal Aviation Agency's
criteria for determining obstruction to air navigation. If
80.36-----------------------------
Supp. # 1, 10-71 _ ........-
• .......................................................
.......................................................
La.� rrrr-- - --------------- =cci_:::
----- :attct2r
............................................................................................................................................................................... ...........................
..............................................................................................._............................-............
_...................................... _.
............................................................................................................................................................•---.................................................................................................................................
TRAILER ORDINAICE OF FREDERICK COUNTY
AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATI
OF TRAILER CAMPS IN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PROMOTING HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE, AND
PROVIDING FOR THE TAXING OF SINGLE TRAILER LO2 SPACES, TRAILER
CAMP LOP SPACES ALA TEMPORARY TRAILER LOT SPACES, AND INSPECTIO
AND PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF SAME. TTHIS ORDINANCE SHAD. BE CI
AS THE 'TRAILER ORDINANCE OF FRE ERICK COUNTY."
ARTICLE I. - DEFINITIONS
1. Board of Supervisors: "Board of Supervisors" se
the Board of Supervisors of the county and its duly authorised
representatives.
2. C6rtificato of -Approvals "Certificate of
approval" swans: i ' certificate issued by the Board of Supervisor
to evidence its approval of the location of a trailer lot or
trailer camp.
3. Dr�on&.mt Trailers !'Dependent trailer" means a
trailer which does not have a toilet and bathtub or shower.
4. Health Permits "Health permit" means a written
permit issued by the health officer authorising the operation ol a
trailer camp or trailer lot under the provisions of this chapte
and regulations promulgated under this chapter.
S. Independent trailers "Independent trailer" means
trailer that has a toilet and a bathtub or shower.
6. Nonconforming use permits "Nonconforming use
permit" means a permit issued for a single trailer in existence
when this chapter was adopted.
-2-
7. Special use permit: "Special use permit" means al
permit issued for a temporary trailer camp that houses construction
workers.
8. Trailer: "Trailer" means any vehicle used or
maintained for use as a conveyance upon highways, or which may t
transported from one place to another, whether containing its ov
motive power or attached to another vehicle, and so designed
and constructed as to permit occupancy thereof as a business pla
or office, or as a dwelling or sleeping place, for one or more
persons, and which may also be called or known as mobile homes,
and whether on wheels or on temporary foundations.
9. Trailer camp: 'Trailer camp" means any site, lot,
field, or tract of land upon which is located two or more traile
or which is held out for the location of two or more trailers
(regardless of whether or not compensation of any kind is made
for such location), but not including property on which is locat
with the owners consent, trailers temporarily parked for a perio
of time not exceeding thirty days, nor does it include trailers
parked by a licensed dealer who shall offer the same for sale
and not occupy the same, nor does it include prop rty on which
is located a temporary trailer camp as p_raYIdad fir under
Article II of -this--chapter.
10. Trailer camp operator: 'Trailer camp operator"
means any person who, as owner, lessee or in any other capacity,
maintains or operates a trailer camp.
-3-
11. Trailer lot: "Trailer lot" means any site, lot,
field, or tract or land upon which is located a single trailer.
12. Trailer space: "Trailer space" means the groundwith:
a trailer camp laid out as a lot for the accommodation of one
trailer.
SECTION 20-2. Operation in accordance with Article 1.1,
Chapter 6, Title 35, Code of Virginia, etc.
The operation of a trailer camp or a trailer lot shall be
accordance with Article 1.1, Chapter 6, Title 35, Code of
Virginia, and the rules and regulations of the State Department
of Health relative toc,trailer lots and trailer camps.
SECTION 20-3. Where trailers may be parked.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no trailer
shall be parked in the county; provided, however, that trailers
may be parked on a trailer lot or in a trailer camp for which
a valid health permit, issued as provided in Section 2Oi5, and
a certificate of approval, issued as provided in Section 20-20,
are in effect.
SECTION 20-4. Application of chapter to trailers parked for sa�
or storage.
The chapter shall not be applicable to trailers which are
parked for sale or storage and not being then inhabited; provided,
however:
1. That the owners of such trailers shall be requi
i
to purchase the merchants' or dealers' license, as prescribed by
law.
C
-4-
2 No such trailer may be stored on any site where
there is neighborhood objections, except upon specific approval
of the Board of Supervisors.
SECTION 20-5. Application of chapter to single trailer locatedlon
lot, etc., prior to adoption date of chapter.
Where a single trailer is located on a lot, tract or parse
of land in the county prior to the date this chapter was adopte
and the owner of such lot, tract or parcel of land occupies sus
trailer, the provisions of this chapter shall not be applicable!
except that:
(a) The owner of such lot, tract or parcel of land
shall meet all of the requirements of the health officer.
(b) The owner of the lot, tract or parcel of land shall
furnish the Board of Supervisors with information showing
his name and the location of the trailer and identifying the tr*ile
(c) If the owner of the lot, tract or parcel of land
complies with items (a) and (b) above, he shall be issued a
nonconforming use permit by the Commissioner of Revenue.
(d) In the event such an existing single trailer is
by the owner of the lot, tract or parcel of land in question
the site it occupies at the time of the adoption of this chapt
neia+lerr-now-any-ot-her *x-_ or ^ha-H-be
permitted too,euch site unless the owirst
complies with, and thereafter continues to comply with, the
provisions of the s r_haptwave , le-r
oSnex_desirin ern existing trailer for a new or
different trailer may do so without 4-
conforming use permit. `II
I
I
C
C"
-5-
SECTION 20-6. Application of chapter to more than one trailer i
located on lot, etc., at the time of adoption
of chapter.
Where more than one trailer is located on a lot, tract or
parcel of land in the county at the time this chapter was adopted,
I
the owner of such lot, tract or parcel of land shall comply with)
all of the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, that h�
i
shall have until the first day of January 1969, to comply
I
therewith. `
i
SECTION 20-7. Inspection of trailer camps, trailer lots, etc., by
health officer, etc.
The health officer is hereby authorized and directed to make
inspections to determine the condition of trailer camps, trailer)
lots or nonconforming trailer sites in order that he may perform
his duty of safeguarding the health and safety of occupants of
such camps, lots and sites and of the general public.
The Board of Supervisors may designate other persons to
inspect trailer camps, trailer lots and nonconforming trailer
sites and such other persons so designated by the Board of
Supervisors shall have like authority to inspect the same as the
health officer has.
SECTION 20-8. Availability of permits for inspection.
All permits pursuant to the provisions of this chapter sha10.
be available for inspection. \ ni,e 1"gho- dF
f''"�
SECTION 20-9. Regulations made and adopted by health officer for
enforcement of chapter.
The health officer is hereby authorized to make, and, after;
I
I
C
I
-6-
public hearing, to adopt, such written regulations as may be
necessary for the proper enforcement of the provisions of this
i
chapter; provided, however, that such regulations shall not,be
intconflict with the provisions of this chapter." Such regulation
shall have the same force and effect as the provisions of this
chapter and the penalty for violations thereof shall be. the same
as the penalty for violations.of the provisions.of this chapter.
SECTION 20-10. Making of false statement to obtain permit.
The making, knowingly and intentionally, of any false
statement, relating to a material fact, for the purpose of obtai inc
a permit, as required in this chapter shall be a violation of th s
chapter.
SECTION 20-11. Making of -false statement upon records.
The making, knowingly and intentionally, of any false
statement, relating to a material fact, upon records required to
be kept under the provisions of this chapter shall be a violatio
of this chapter.
SECTION 20-12. When provisions of chapter to be effective.
This chapter shall be effective from the first day of January,
1969, for taxes and licenses, and from the first day of
July, 1969, for all other requirements and regulations.
&M
SECTION 20-13. Penalty for violation of chapter or regulation.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or
any provision of any regulation adopted by the health officer
pursuant to authority granted by Section 20-9 shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Ten Dollars
nor more than Three Hundred Dollars or imprisonment in jail
for not more than thirty days, or both, and each day's failure
of compliance with any such provision shall constitute a
separate violation.
ARTICLE II. PERMITS, ETC.
DIVISION I. HEALTH PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, ETC., OF
TRAILER CAMP OR TRAILER LOT,
SECTION 20-14. Required.
No person shall construct, maintain, operate or enlarge any
trailer camp or trailer lot in the county unless he shall hold a
valid health permit issued by the health officer in the name of
such person for the particular trailer camp or trailer lot
involved in each case; provided, however, that the foregoing
provisions of this section shall not be applicable to a person
who shall temporarily park a trailer for a period of time not
exceeding thirty days.
SECTION 20-15. Application therefor.
Any person desiring a health permit, as required in sectior
20-14, shall file an application therefor with the health office
i
6
-8-
in such form and setting forth such information as may be requit
by the health officer.
SECTION 20-16. Issuance; suspension or revocation.
The health officer may issue health permits, as required
Section 20-14, for a trailer camp or trailer lot which conforms
with this chapter. He shall suspend or revoke such health
permits for violation of this chapter and regulations promu
under Section 20-9.
DIVIS CERTIFICATE CF APPROVAL FOR LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION,
ETC., OF TRAILER CAMP OR TRAILER LOT.
SECTION 20-12. Required.
No person shall locate, construct, maintain, operate or
enlarge any trailer camp or trailer lot in the county unless he
shall have first obtained a certificate of approval therefor
from the Commissioner--of—Revenue, as provided in this division;
provided, however, that the foregoing provisions of this Sectior
shall not be applicable to a person who shall temporarily
park a trailer for a period of time not exceeding thirty days.
SECTION 20-18 L Filing, contents, etc., of application therefor.
Any person desiring a certificate of approval, as required
Section 20-17, shall first submit a written application therefor
F.
-q_
to the Commissioner -of Revenue of the county, on an application
form to be furnished to such person by the Board of Supervisors.
Such application shall contain,-among-otherr-vh*ngs, the
following information:
(a) The name and address of the person owning the
trailer camp or trailer lot in question, and trailer ownership.
(b) The name and address of the person operating,
conducting or managing the trailer camp or trailer lot, if
different from the name of the owner thereof.
(b) A sketch with description, showing the abutting
property owners and where the proposed trailer camp or trailer 1
is to be located, which sketch shall be on the back of the
application. Each applicant for a certificate of approval for a
trailer camp shall indicate in the description the number
number of
C( Y) G(
trailer spaces the trailer camp will include, and--upon--request
of —the -Commission e, shall supply a map or plat
showing the trailer camp layout with facilities.
Each applicant for a certificate of -approval for a trailer
Camp or trailer p lot -may submit -with T hi a -app licat ion_,an, agreement
signed by the abutting proper owners to the eAbct "it ij
agreeable to locale ._a0trailer camp or trailer lot on the
selected site.11-1
SECTION 20-19. Procedure upon filing of application.
The Commissioner of Revenue shall consider each application,
filed as provided in Section 20-18, and may, before acting, if
in his judgment the facts and circumstances warrant the same,
. , _, _. . _
-10-
refer such an application to the Board of Supervisors,
which may require �a_public hearing_ thereon, after first
-« -. .' .n
publishing notice of such hearing two times in a newspaper ha
a general circulation in the county.
SECTION 20-20. Issuance of and rights thereunder.
If an application, filed as provided in Section 20-18, be
approved, the Commissioner of Revenue shall issue to the
applicant in question a certificate of approval, which shall
entitle the applicant to locate, construct_ maintain operate
or enlarge the trailer camp lot or trailer lot camp in
question; provided such applicant complies with all of the
provisions of this chaptergwith respect thereto.
SECTION 20-21. Prerequisite to permit or license under chapter.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a certificat
of approval, issued as provided in Section 20-20, shall be a
prerequisite to the obtaining of any permit or license as set
forth -'in this chapter.
i
-11-
DIVISION 3. SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR TEMPORARY TRAILER CAMPS,
SECTION 20-22. Issuance by Board of Supervisors; Conditions to
which subject.
Special use permits for temporary trailer camps may be
issued by the Board of Supervisors, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) That the location of a temporary trailer camp is
necessary for the housing of construction workers employed on an
industrial or highway construction project.,
(b) That the request for a special use permit for a
temporary trailer camp is filed by the industry or the State
Highway Department or contain a certificate of the industry or t
State Highway Department to the effect that the temporary trails
camp in question is essential to the construction.
(c) That a minimum of Two Thousand square feet be
provided for each trailer space in the temporary trailer capp.
(d) That sanitary facilities conform to the State
Department's 'T railer_Camp.-Sanitation%;' requirements.
(a) That the period for operating the temporary trai
camp in question shall concur with the anticipated period of
the construction.
(f) That the Board of Supervisors, in granting such a
special use permit for a temporary trailer camp, may require the
execution of a surety bond. to assure that the to ry trailer
I
th
-12-
camp will.be_.removed_and the_.site_1eft,. n good order at the
expiration_of_Ahe-,special use permit.
i
(g) That the Board of Supervisors, in granting such a
special use permit for a temporary trailer camp, may establish
such additional requirements as are in the best interest of the
public.
C
SECTION 20-23. Special use permit fee.
There is hereby imposed an annual speial use;„permit lee,.of
Twenty Dollars for each trailer, -or trailer--space-in the
temporary..trailer,camp-in question, which fee shall be paid to t.
County Treasurer, before the issuance of the special use permit
in question. The owner of the land, the occupant of the trailer
and the general contractor for the construction project shall
be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the special
use permit fee. Such fee shall be for each calendar year or
-� I
portion thereof that the temporary trailer camp is in operation.
There shall be no proration of the fee when special use permit
is issued during any calendar year.
2 -2 w SECTION O 4. Rene al •
A special use permit for a temporary trailer camp issued as
provided in Section 20-22 shall be subject to renewal on the
beginning of each caldndar year, on approval by the Board of
Supervisors.
u
. _
lI
i
-13-
An application for renewal of a special use permit may be
submitted if more time is required to complete the construction
r
project in question; provided, however, that such a renewal
application must be filed at least ninety days prior to the
expiration of the original temporary use permit.
DIVISION 4, LICENSING OF TRAILER CAMPS.
SECTION 20-25. Imposition of annual license tax./,n
The owner or licensee of a trailor,&mnin the county shall
be subject to an annual license tax �ofTwenty-five Dollars per
7F'fq
lot for_each.occupied,trailer_,.space„or mobile home space as
of 'January. first of each year. The owner or licensee is
responsible for the payment of this tax, but he may take the
amount of this tax into consideration in setting the rental
for his trailer spaces or mobile home spaces.
SECTION 20-26. License year; proration of license tax.
The license year for the licensing of trailer camps shall
run from the first day of January to the th{ *+ C.:t r1 r .of
December and there shall be no proration of the license tax
when a license is acquired during the license year.
SECTION 20-27. Evidence of payment.
Evidence of payment of the annual license tax provided for
in Section 20-25 shall consist of a receipt issued by the
ar
i
x
-14-
of the county. Such receipt shall be exhibited in the office
of the trailer camp in question or shall be available for
inspection if the trailer camp has no office.
ARTICLE III. SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
WITH REFERENCE TO TRAILER CAMPS
AND TRAILER LOTS.
DIVISION 1, GENERALLY,
SECTION 20-28. Application of provisions of article.
All trailer camps or trailer lots within the county shall
subject to the provisions of this article, as provided in this
article.
SECTION 20-29. Operation not to constitute nuisance.
The operation of a trailer camp or a trailer lot shall not
constitute a nuisance.
SECTION 20-30. Operation in accordance with rules and regula
of the State Department of Health.
The operation of a trailer camp or a trailer lot shall be
in accordance with the rules and regulations of the state
Department of Health governing trailer camps or trailer lots.
SECTION 20-31 Location of trailer, etc., with reference to
residence located outside of area of trailer
or trailer lot.
No trailer or any building used in connection with a trailer
shall be located less . . than;:.One--Hundred Feet.-from..am►- residence
.., ,m ......
outside-the-area-of-the-trailer-camp-or--trailer-lot, unless subh
residence is owned by the trailer owner, trailer camp owner or
trailer lot owner= provided that the subsequent construction of
I
nlm-
a residence outside the area of the trailer camp or trailer lot
a distance less than One Hundred feet from a trailer or from
any building used in connection with a trailer shall not require
the discontinuance of use of such trailer or building used in
connection therewith.
SECTION 020-32�,d' Distance of_.trailor, etc., from ope ty_line o
trailer camp or trailer lot. >,„..r,
No trailer located and no building used in connection with
trailer shall be constructed less than_thirty.feet from the,
property line of -..such trailor,.as+p_ortrsiler lot in quosti
_. �,. .c.._.., w WW .:..... ,
SECTION 20-33. Drainage of site.
Each trailer camp or trailer lot shall be located on a well
drained site and properly graded to insure rapid drainage and
freedom from stagnant pools of water.
SECTION 20-34. Means of waste disposal from trailers, etc.
In each trailer camp or trailer lot, means of waste
from trailers or. facilities shall meet the approval of the Mai
officer.
i
DIVISION 2. REGULATIONS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE TO TRAILER CAM .
0k6jMCTjON 20-35. Rogister.of_trailer camp -occupants.
A register shall be kept by trailer camp operators, which
shall
-... . - ._..--.....-_._. _. I
i
=,t
n
-16-
officers, public health officials and other officials whose
duties necessit te-Acquinition of the 4nfermat1rkn contained in
r
the register. The register shall show each trailer camp occupa
and his address, each vehicle's license number, the trailer
space occupied and dates of arrival and departure in each case.
Entries in such register shall be preserved for at least three
years.
SECTION 20-36. Annual rc�mr �,�o^rsai�ssioner,_. of revenue of
trailors in trailer camps.
Each trailer camp operator shall, on or before the
l.fteenth day_ of January of each year, provide the Commissioner
of the. Revenue.,ol-the-county-with7a-verified-_..Iist_of_ all trailer
�. ,
located._within_his -trailer camp as.of the first day of January o
that year. Such list-nhall include name of owner, address, name of
occupant, address -maka tmd =dnl of trailer.
SECTION 20-37. Water Supply --Potable water supply generally.
An adequate supply of potable water, having the approval
of the health officer, shall be available within each trailer
CAMP.
SECTION 20-38. Same --Availability of potable water for trailer
spaces and service buildings.
An adequate supply of potable water, approved by the
health officer, shall be available in each trailer camp for each
trailer space and in the service buildings.
M
-17-
SECTION 20-39. Saco --Hot and cold water in service buildings.
Both hot and cold water shall be provided at all times in
service buildings in trailer camps..
SECTION 20-40. Garbage and rubbish cans.
In each trailer camp, metal garbage and rubbish cans shall
be provided In quantities adequate to permit disposal of garbage
and rubbish from all trailer spaces. Such cans shall be located
not further than Two Hundred feet from any trailer space.
Garbage and rubbish cans shall be emptied as frequently as
may be necessary to prevent overflowing, cleaned in a manner
approved by the Health Officer and kept in a sanitary condition
at all times.
SECTION 20-41. Trailer spaces and internal driesways generally.
In each trailer camp, a minimum Area of Two Thousand saiu►re
feet exclusive of roadways, shall be provided for each trailer
space. Each trailer space shall be at least,Thirty_.feet._wide,
clearly ,defined.by-.permanent--marksron-the-ground_and..shall.abut
upon_an,internal-driveway_.not-loss--than-Thirty..leet,,wide,,which
internal driveway shall have unobstructed access to a public
highway or to an access road.
SECTION 20-42. Distance -between trailers...ptc., parked in
`trailer spaces.
Trailers shall be parked in trailer spaces so that there wi
be w_.ninimum of Fifteen.. fact_ between_srailers orf,1Ateen fee$
between,extendingsattachments•Wand,.o,the trailers.
1
j
-18-
SECTION 20-43. Walkways from trailers to service buildings.
Walkways not less than two feet wide shall be provided from
each trailer to all service buildings in the trailer camp.
SECTION 20-44. Surfaces of driveways in trailer camps.
All driveways in any trailer camp shall be graveled or
hardsurfaced.
SECTION 20-45. Electrical outlets for trailer spaces.
An electrical outlet supplying at least One Hundred and
volts shall be installed in accordance with the National Ele
Code for each trailer space.
SECTION 20-46. Service buildings in camps accomsodating only
independent trailers.
No service building shall be required for a trailer camp
which accommodates only independent trailers.
SECTION 20-47. Sewer service for trailer spaces.
Each trailer space shall be provided with a sewer at least
four inches in diameter, which shall be so connected as to
receive the waste from the shower, bathtub, flush toilet,
lavatory and kitchen sink of the trailer parked in such space.
Each such sewer shall be connected to a sewerage system approved
by the health officer.
I
-19-
SECTION 20-48. Service buildings providing certain facilities
in trailer camps accommodating service buildings
Each trailer camp which shall accommodate dependent trai
shall contain sufficient service buildings to provide the fol
facilitiess
1. ,Toilet facilities for each ten trailer spaces.
.(a) For males, not less than one flush toilet
one urinal,,one lavatory and one shower or bathtub with indiv
dressing accommodations.
(b) For females, not less than one flush toilet,
one lavatory and one shower or bathtub with individual dressing
accommodations. Such facilities shall be either in a separate
building, or, in in the same building as the facilities for males
separated therefrom by a soundprooa wall.
thereof:
2. For each twenty-five trailer spaces or portion
(a) A separate compartment housing one flush toil
bowl receptacle for emptying bad pans or other containers of
human excreta and an adequate supply of hot running water and a
slop sink for cleaning same.
(b) A separate compartment housing one double
laundry tzW and one coneontional wringer type washing maching or
or one single laundry trey and one automatic type washing machine
3. Heating facilities'shall be provided to maintain
service buildings of a temperature of at least sixty-eight
Fahrenheit from the first day of Octobef to the first day of
May and such temperature shall be maintained during such period.
or
1-4
v
iv
-77-
f �« T�i� kr W � c � '� ` 4 . � ��-..�-.,�_: • ter% r `�-_ " ,, c..
«
l - Y1a� Y • A ' i
Vii
WE
vi
ell
OV
?�� �' �F } :.s 3� .t `'-.����''A��, t .',�l �jtt� S � ."�"/' 3 ✓� rc� � t ~� i9 `J,� �� �€" �.A ,•`
z+K
ol
91
AN
0.
P1
s:Y. ''A9. «6�rt .. >a:�• � �`. - _� ,..r �-...f «. a... _��.'�lU ��1. 1'fit� •� a 7:�
s �
t ,a
.,..:r��,r...-_ �.�'.;4 K.,a�.:�" i'' `,.fix ,..3 's'.�•.81't .e=.- �1 :L�as�
J.
�� � /r;� l.�! %�,/, � -/. - i'� _ 1 - .. -_,• =tea ._ .y,� �
.,
• r1 �y p ,t C�7 p JJ
+ qA y J—T
-73
�;� r, a� � S k�,.t syt � 1• i -c . � �7G• , r � ! (O �(� �" r� ._
SK
- +�� � b,t+ j �. •� � .•f t % l ;i. ..t�t i. L�ld� i.� . r�c.� x��.� � _-�
'� � � 7 i S t ` t' �� � ./ �•S-t fit} .r '�
A Tt�2�z �✓''' a \ � J��a'`u (� .� r+. _ lt_�. --��p / I� A ��..
.f 4t•t �q S 3 � f v / 15r i .:t i ?s � 1 s-•�-.-.� :.t..
.7;?';
A
_d•
Zell
t
}n 90
01
-r--
• � i z y "�.-�jY g t'g� �"i'l �.�i -.. f��Y,, �,,:<J` If t/ '� - /
r�C
as>,:j• 7i• '� %WL'"y�4ep
'{ ... rY�,.f Ij t�'i� ,�vi.-}' �', �` ��`��..",_.��...,•--^� � �.� gib'! / � 1\��,• i.
.5i ' y.. S'�tY'c•e"t;' .�,� .,y. - fit'
i
6 s
k
.:3
OD
43
•t
' ! !�,,.-it'6t Qc;ty,•,,'ft'a o'1'� ' !.} - • f j
9
• 1� f
• i
leda.f
i T�� ../�• ram' •� - 3.a�� �.. � -: '��` _•• •
S?_k ..�xxY r " ` Y►tti i � �d •fix T*+x°,.r i�si ., � . �f --�. '
l
z
t, � aB •,�, `'Wj'fI`"°t'� V ( s, .�, •- - y • ^�'+ b.sy . b 'Ss'..� � . a...
ir�
O3yr119• Zo
41
e
1
osio-110' 22.1
05%40,%o lip-
O%OibW Z3
SUMMARY OF EVENTS ON FOREST LAKE ESTATES
1. 5/19/76 - Planning Commission tables request for site plan approval
until 6/2/76 meeting.
2. 6/2/76 - Planning Commission recommends denial:
1) land contours,
2) access roads,
3) sewage treatment plant feasibility, and
4) isolation lends easily to crime.
3. 6/23/76 - Board refers site plan back to Planning Commission for
further study.
4. 8/18/76 - Planning Commission recommends denial:
1) The arid tendency of the stream in vicinity of one of the
two planned recreation areas, which had been reviewed by the
Board, Planning Commission, Sanitation Authority and staff.
2) The safety, health and welfare of residents downstream from the
proposal because of the steams tendency toward dryness.
3) State Water Control Board has not approved the waste treatment
plant and the Planning Commission should not be forced to
approve the mobile home park before the plant is approved.
4) Requested spaces increased from the original 173.
5. 8/25/76 - Board approved 491 space site plan.
034-76 Forest Lake Estates M.H.Park
VanDyke, Adams ford Rgygc�6Corp.
SITE PLAN approve 7
CUP # 062 - voided 08/18/76/HRB
CUP # 018 - approved 03/25/76(Court)
OPEQUON MAGIS DIST A-2 Zoning
99% pure treatment
B.O.D. of 2 parts per million