The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-25 BZA Staff Report APPEAL #07-25 Applicant Name: Cordell and Kim Watt Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Prepared: May 5th, 2025 Staff Contact: Wyatt Pearson, Planning and Development Director Hearing Schedule BZA: May 20, 2025 Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 65-(A)-14D Address No Address Point (176 Edmonson Lane Adjoins to the North) Magisterial District Redbud Acreage 68.27 acres +/- Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural/Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural/Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential Appeal & Reason for Appeal The Applicant is appealing the determination of the Planning Director, letter dated April 2nd, 2025, issued in response to the applicant’s request to review and approve a receiving property for Transfer of Development Rights 65-(A)-14D. More specifically, this is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, Article III Section 302.02 (6). Pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2311, a person aggrieved by the decision or determination of an administrative officer, in this instance the Director of Planning and Development, may appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Reason for Appeal: The Applicant’s justification for appeal is contained within the materials submitted with their application accompanying this report. 25 Transfer of Development Rights Program: As authorized by the Virginia Code, Frederick County has adopted a local ordinance and operates a Transfer of Development Rights program to allow for properties within designated ‘Sending Areas’, which are rural in nature, to sever and sell development rights to ‘Receiving Areas’, which are more urban in nature. The program’s stated purpose is copied below for reference: Pursuant to the authority granted by §§ 15.2-2316.1 and 15.2-2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, there is established a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, the purpose of which is to transfer residential density from eligible sending areas to eligible receiving areas and/or transferee through a voluntary process for permanently conserving agricultural and forestry uses of lands and preserving rural open spaces, and natural and scenic resources. The TDR program is intended to supplement land use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and encourage increased residential density where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: A. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process for property owners of rural and agricultural land to preserve lands with a public benefit; and B. Implementing the Comprehensive Policy Plan by directing residential land uses to the Urban Development Area (UDA); and C. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving areas are processed in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving area. For the purposes of this appeal, the most important portion of this program to understand is that there are designated Sending and Receiving areas established via County Code in order to create the regulatory framework for how these rights can be marketed and sold. How the comprehensive plan designates the future land use of these properties is one of the major factors in determining whether the property can qualify as a sending or receiving property. Planning Director’s Determination: In response to the Applicant requesting Receiving Property Approval for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) on March 24th, 2025. In accordance with the County Code Section, the Planning Director issued a determination that the property in question, 65-(A)-14D, does not qualify as a receiving property in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, Article III Section 302.02 (6). Since Article III of the Zoning Ordinance does not have a specific appeal provision, staff included the standard appeal language derived from Virginia Code § 15.2- 2311 which allows for any person aggrieved by the decision of an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance to appeal such decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The “receiving” property in question is designated as “Urban Center” in the comprehensive plan, and more specifically is part of the Greenwood Urban Center and as very specifically described in the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan (SEFUAP). The comprehensive plan and the SEFUAP describe Urban Centers as follows: “Urban centers are larger than the Neighborhood Village and are envisioned to be a more intensive, walkable urban area with a larger commercial core, higher densities, and designed around some form of public space or focal point. Urban centers should be 26 located in close proximity to major transportation routes and intersections.” The Comprehensive Plan Page 4, “…The land use and/or building types could include, in addition to commercial and residential, community-oriented types such as civic, religious, fraternal, or institutional uses. In the core area one may find 2 to 4 story buildings that, at the center, share party walls and front directly on the sidewalk; at the first or ground floor one will find retail and commercial uses, upper stories will have offices in some buildings and others will have apartments; and parking of cars will be on the street or in lots behind the buildings and possibly in parking decks if there is such need for structured parking. These types of structures will be readily accessible from the boulevards that serve the urban center.” “The designated Greenwood Urban Center provides an opportunity for a focal point for an area where most of the recent suburban residential development has occurred. The Greenwood Urban Center is envisioned to introduce a mix of uses into already developed areas in a way that builds the identity and enhances its livability. This urban center should embrace a traditional main-street feel, be pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sensitive, and architecturally distinctive, honor our region’s local heritage and look to the future by promoting urban life in a dynamic new way. This lifestyle center should be defined by tree-lined boulevards and an inviting central park area oriented around the existing historic farm house and grounds. The residential densities in the core of this area are envisioned to be in the 12-16 units per acre range, tapering off to 6 units per acre on its perimeter. Anchored in all directions by existing and proposed schools and park areas, this urban center is tailored to be the future focal point of the Senseny Road and Greenwood Road area.” SEFUAP Page 12-13 While staff does not object to the fact that Urban Centers are likely to contain a residential component, they are not planned for, “…residential land uses.” They are an inherently mixed-use land use designation with a clear focus on a large commercial component and higher densities of development as well as public uses to form a focal point. In conclusion, the property is not, “Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy plan for residential land uses.” as called for in Chapter 165, Article III Section 302.02 (6) and cannot be utilized as a receiving property for TDRs. Appellant’s application ignored the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of the proposed receiving property as an Urban Center. The owner could apply to amend the comprehensive plan if they so desire in order to remediate this issue. Staff Comments: Mention is made by the applicant of a previous approval granted by the Planning Department for Global Headquarters, LLC in 2019 and that the action in question is inconsistent given the similarities between the properties and requests. Staff would like to clarify that the Global Headquarters, LLC property, was Master Planned to include 30 acres +/- of B2 (General Business) in addition to the 50 acres +/- of residential developed with TDRs. The BZA may know this property as it was recently announced a Publix grocery store would be locating there, and it adjoins Sherando High School. Asserting that it should be considered similarly to the property in question, which is 68 acres of RA (Rural Areas) with no zoned commercial component and no Master Development Plan is not appropriate from Staff’s perspective. 27 Summary & Requested Action: Staff is requesting the Board of Zoning Appeals affirm the determination of the Planning Director that 65-(A)-14D is not an allowable receiving property under the zoning ordinance. Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals on this appeal. 28