The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-24 Public CommentsFrom:Sally Farringer To:Karen Vacchio Subject:"[External]"Forward to all members of the planning committed and board of supervisors Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2024 12:45:03 PM As an owner in Senseny Glen, I am opposed to this rezoning at this time. It is inevitable that this property will be rezoned for residential development, but with thousands of homes already approved but not yet built in the County, now does not seem a good time to approve more. Our schools are overcrowded with not much relief on the horizon, many of our roadways are over capacity, and our water service provider and water supply is stressed following two years of drought and a new plant that has yet to be brought online. I acknowledge that the developer is proffering to build part of a connector road, which is great, but they are also proposing a credit back to themselves for the roadway, leaving their proffers short and leaving the most difficult part of that connector road unfinished and county taxpayers on the hook for finishing it. I urge you to not approve this rezoning at this time. Please allow our community time to catch up to what has already been built and what is already approved to be built before approving more residential housing. Sally Farringer 304 Canyon Rd Winchester, VA 22602 From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 2:33:42 PM New eComment for Planning Commission Jedidiah Seaver submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: Please reference the letter sent to Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on behalf of the residents of Senseny Glen. If approved, this rezoning would significantly increase vehicular traffic in Senseny Glen to the tune of over 2100 trips a day. The neighborhood does not have curbs, gutters, or sidewalks and has a significant amount of pedestrian usage and children at play. This has safety implications for the residents. If an entrance to the community has to be through Senseny Glen and Canyon, I would ask for traffic calming measures or one- way entrances to be explored. This would also significantly increase traffic on Senseny Road. In the Proffer, Clarke County shows a traffic study has not been done to assess impacts on Senseny Road and Salem Church and Triple J intersections. If approved, this rezoning would also place strains on the water/sewer system. The county has experienced droughts over the last few years and issued water usage/drought warnings on multiple occasions. The system is also stressed due to current approved developments. Frederick County water states in the Proffer they cannot guarantee system capacities for this development. If approved, this rezoning would also have impacts on Frederick County Schools. Millbrook and James Wood are already over capacity. Admiral Byrd is projected to be over capacity by 2033. The use of modular classrooms throughout the county is becoming increasingly common. On December 4, 2024, the Winchester Star featured an article referencing the cost of these for only two schools. It was in excess of one million dollars. Lastly, within the Proffer, the developer has included plans for Route 37. The developer credits money back to itself for this. This will fall to the taxpayers of Frederick County. I would like to thank the Planning Commission for reviewing these comments. If the development is to be built, I would like to see it add benefit to the residents of both the current and planned community. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:48:44 PM New eComment for Planning Commission Bryce Bostrom submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: I opposed the rezoning development of Winchester East at Opequon Creek, WSSI#32927.01 for the following: - Applicant shall receive a per unit credit in the amount of $4299.89 for right of way dedication for future Virginia Route 37 described in 7.4 below.”, this takes away from programs such as public safety and credits that money back to the developer. The portion of proposed Route 37 in the proffer agreement page 8 leaves the taxpayers of Frederick County paying the most expensive portion of the connector road and the developer pays the least expensive portion of Route 37 connector road. - Clarke County Department of Planning, pages 29-30 of the proffer agreement identify a lack of traffic study on Senseny Rd within Clarke County, Clarke County is requesting a study to include the impacts to intersections of Senseny Rd, Salem Church and Senseny and Triple J Roads. - The proposed entrance at the intersection of Senseny Glen Rd and Canyon Road would significantly increase traffic through Senseny Glen, Twin Lakes, Apple Ridge and Sovereign Village subdivisions. Per the Proffer Agreement page 14 “The subdivision is expected to generate 151 new trips during morning peak hour and 180 trips during evening peak hour, and 2120 new daily trips on a typical weekday basis.” With 165 existing homes, this would represent an extensive increase in traffic flow. - Senseny Glen does not have curbed gutters or sidewalks and there is an abundance of vehicles that utilize street parking which creates more safety concerns for anyone walking or riding bikes in the neighborhood. - Frederick County Water on page 35 and 36 of the proffer agreement “Water supplies and sanitary sewer conveyance capacities change daily; with each new customer connection brings additional demands and generates flows.” This letter does not guarantee system capacities to accommodate the development proposal. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 6:26:37 PM New eComment for Planning Commission Kimberly Rodriguez submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed proffer for the development of a new neighborhood that would connect directly to mine, Senseny Glen. First and foremost, this rezoning could lead to significant overdevelopment in an area that is not equipped to handle such growth. The infrastructure, including roads, utilities, and public services, is already stretched thin. The increase in population that would result from a new neighborhood would likely exacerbate these challenges, creating traffic congestion, strain on schools, and diminished access to essential services. This new development would put increased demand on several schools that are already over capacity and/or understaffed. While the proposed proffer payments may seem like a step in the right direction, they fail to address the more pressing issue of an already overstretched school system suffering from a severe staffing shortage. These proffer payments will do nothing to resolve the existing challenges in our school district; in fact, they risk exacerbating the problem, potentially creating additional unfilled positions. Senseny Glen is currently without sidewalks and is heavily impacted by street parking, The increase in traffic would create hazardous conditions for drivers, pedestrians, and our children who must wait along the roadside for the bus. The added traffic of 2,100 additional trips on Senseny Road, would likely lead to an increase in accidents and pose serious safety risks I also have concerns about the capacity and reliability of the county’s water system. According to Frederick County Water, there is no guarantee that the system has the capacity to accommodate the added demand from the proposed development. The recent ongoing water supply issues raise serious concerns about the ability to support further growth in the area. I respectfully request that you reject the proposed rezoning of this area. Thank you for your time and consideration. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 5:51:32 PM New eComment for Planning Commission Matt Grafton submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: I live in Twin lakes on the property abutting to this new development. Canyon Road cannot handle the amount of homes proposed. If a plan, as currently held, with two acre lots for homes. I would support that type of proposal. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 4:01:44 PM New eComment for Planning Commission Elizabeth Guillen submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: Thank you for your time. We believe there are serious public safety concerns, infrastructure limits and potential school overcrowding that need to be addressed. The new development would bring an estimated 2,100 daily trips into Senseny Glen, Twin Lakes, and Sovereign Village. Safety concerns include, lack of sidewalks. According to a 2022 study completed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “pedestrian safety has become more prevalent for governmental agencies to address and prioritize for strategic implementation. Abou-Senna, H., Radwan, E., & Mohamed, A. (2022). Investigating the correlation between sidewalks and pedestrian safety. Accident; analysis and prevention, 166, 106548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106548. The article concludes by stating “the likelihood of a pedestrian crash per mile along roadways with no sidewalk is three times greater than the likelihood of a crash per mile with the presence of a sidewalk.” Other traffic safety measures such as speed bumps and curbs should be considered. Along with the lack of preservation of trees, and no plan on reduction of light pollution. The proposed entrance is directly over a stormwater drainage area, the greatest concern is water management. According to an article published by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (https://www.epa.gov/watersense/how-we- use-water) when there are strains on water supplies and aging water treatment systems can have consequences such as: higher water prices, increased summer restrictions to manage shortages, etc. In addition, according to the EPA, from September 2024, the average American family uses 300 gallons of water per day at home. With the addition of 300 new homes, the impact would be an estimated 90,000 gallons of water a day, when we already face water restrictions during certain times of the year. Current schools are overcrowded, please reference the article from December 4, from the Winchester Star. Thank you for your time and consideration. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:57:16 AM New eComment for Planning Commission Jill Karalis submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: Red Bud District. While we acknowledge the development’s location within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and understand the need for growth in Frederick County, we believe key issues must be addressed to align the project with community values. The project will generate over 2,100 daily trips, significantly impacting nearby neighborhoods like Senseny Glen, Twin Lakes, and Sovereign Village. Traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, should be considered. Senseny Glen lacks curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, making the road unsafe. Increased traffic will worsen safety issues. The narrow, Senseny Road has seen about 20 accidents from March to December 2024. Additional traffic could increase accident risks. The developer receives a credit for Route 37 improvements, benefiting them more than the community, leaving taxpayers to fund the most expensive portions. The proposed entrance crosses a stormwater drainage area, raising concerns about water management. The Frederick County Water Authority has noted limited system capacity. This development could strain resources, especially during drought conditions. With ongoing drought warnings, adding 300 homes could further burden the stressed water system. The development will increase demand on local schools, including Millbrook High, already over capacity. Admiral Byrd Middle is projected to exceed capacity by 2033. The added strain could necessitate costly expansions or modular classrooms, with projections exceeding $1 million. The Proffer Statement lacks a tree preservation plan and fails to address light pollution. Measures should be taken to protect trees and limit light intrusion into existing neighborhoods. I urge the Board and Planning Commission to consider these concerns and revise the Proffer Statement to benefit both new and existing residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings From:noreply@granicusideas.com To:Andrew Farrar; Karen Vacchio; Ann Phillips; Shannon Conner Subject:"[External]"New eComment for Planning Commission Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 10:56:09 AM New eComment for Planning Commission Rachel Mitchell submitted a new eComment. Meeting: Planning Commission Item: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) eComment: As a member of the Senseny Glen community, within the Red Bud District & Blaine Dunn. Our community is aware of the plan to have land adjacent to our community rezoned for residential units. As a homeowner, parent, and tax payer I have MAJOR concerns related to adding possibly 300 new homes to this county and I oppose the rezoning. There are resources in the county that are already over burdened and the county should allow time for those resources to catch up with current homes being built before approving additional residential construction. As documented on page 41 of the Proffer Statement, county schools are already over crowded and several schools that this new community would feed in to are already at capacity. Costs to add trailers to schools will burden the county and taxpayers. Page 35 and 36 of the Proffer Statement document a letter from Frederick County Water, where they state that they cannot guarantee the system can accommodate the capacities of this new development. Our county has issued several drought notices in the last year and additional homes will continue to stress an already overburdened resource. Clarke County provided a letter (included in the Proffer Statement as pages 29 & 30) requesting that traffic studies be conducted at Salem Church Road & Senseny Road as well as Triple J Road and Senseny Road. Senseny Road would require updates to facilitate the additional traffic that this new development will bring. The Senseny Glen Community is a mature community with no sidewalks, no storm drains, and many community members park along the road. The additional daily traffic that will come through this neighborhood is concerning to those within the community. In closing, I request that the Planning Commission please consider delaying the rezoning of this land to allow our infrastructure and school system to catch up before new development is approved. Thank you, Rachel Mitchell View and Analyze eComments This email was sent from https://fcva.granicusideas.com. Unsubscribe from future mailings Kimberly Rodriguez 117 Canyon Road Winchester, VA 22602 Kimberly.kenna@gmail.com 540-327-5186 12/10/2024 Board of Supervisors 107 N Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, I am wriƟng to express my strong opposiƟon to the proposed proffer of applicant T VA Winchester II to rezone Tax Map Parcel 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B for the development of a new neighborhood that would connect to my neighborhood, Senseny Glen. As a resident of this community, I have several concerns about the impact this change would have on the quality of life, infrastructure, and the character of our neighborhood. First and foremost, this rezoning could lead to signiﬁcant overdevelopment in an area that is not equipped to handle such growth. The infrastructure, including roads, uƟliƟes, and public services, is already stretched thin. The increase in populaƟon that would result from a new neighborhood would likely exacerbate these challenges, creaƟng traffic congesƟon, strain on schools, and diminished access to essenƟal services. This new development would put increased demand on Millbrook High School, Admiral Byrd Middle School, James Wood Middle School, Greenwood Mill Elementary School, and Red Bud Run Elementary School. Several of these schools are already over capacity and/or understaffed. While the proposed proffer payments to contribute to the potenƟal construcƟon and renovaƟon of schools may seem like a step in the right direcƟon, they fail to address the more pressing issue of an already overstretched school system suffering from a severe staffing shortage. My daughter, a second grader at Greenwood Mill Elementary, is currently aƩending a school where, out of ﬁve second-grade classes, three are being taught by long-term subsƟtutes instead of permanent, qualiﬁed teachers. As a contractor working closely with staff across mulƟple schools in the county, I witness ﬁrsthand the detrimental effects that a lack of resources and adequate staffing has on the academic community. These proffer payments will do nothing to resolve the exisƟng challenges in our school district; in fact, they risk exacerbaƟng the problem, potenƟally creaƟng addiƟonal unﬁlled posiƟons. AddiƟonal concerns include the increased traffic hazards. Senseny Glen is currently without curbs, guƩers, or sidewalks, and it is heavily impacted by street parking, which narrows the roadways and impairs visibility. This creates signiﬁcant safety concerns for both pedestrians and drivers, especially with the proposed entrance to the new community via Senseny Glen and Canyon Road. The added traffic on Senseny Road, a narrow and predominantly rural route, would likely lead to an increase in accidents and pose serious safety risks, parƟcularly near the entrance to Senseny Road. This increase in traffic would create hazardous condiƟons for our children, who must wait along the roadside for the bus. Furthermore, the Proffer Agreement lacks a traffic study for Senseny Road in Clarke County, where the Clarke County Department of Planning has requested an assessment of the impacts on key intersecƟons, such as Senseny Rd & Salem Church Rd and Senseny Rd & Triple J Rd. I oppose the proposed development due to ﬁnancial and infrastructure concerns outlined in the Proffer Agreement. The agreement allocates a per-unit proffer credit of $4,299.89 for right-of-way dedicaƟon for Virginia Route 37, diverƟng criƟcal funds away from essenƟal programs like public safety and beneﬁƟng the developer instead. AddiƟonally, the agreement places the ﬁnancial burden of the most expensive porƟon of the Route 37 connector road on the taxpayers of Frederick County, while the developer only covers the least costly part. I also oppose the proposed development due to signiﬁcant concerns about the capacity and reliability of the county’s water system. According to Frederick County Water, there is no guarantee that the system has the capacity to accommodate the added demand from the proposed development. In 2023, the county issued mulƟple drought warnings and emergencies, including two Drought Emergency NoƟces and a Drought Warning, urging customers to conserve water or face penalƟes. Furthermore, in August 2024, the county issued a "Drought Watch" and warned of toxic algal mats in the Shenandoah River, which forced the county to seek alternaƟve water sources. These ongoing water supply issues raise serious concerns about the ability to support further growth in the area. In light of these concerns, I respecƞully request that the Board of Supervisors reject the proposed rezoning of this area. I urge you to consider the long-term impact on our community and prioriƟze the needs and wishes of current residents who are directly affected by this decision. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon. I look forward to your response and to a conƟnued dialogue on how we can best preserve the integrity of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Kimberly Rodriguez Page 1 | 5 Joseph and Barbara Alfieri 310 Canyon Road Winchester, VA 20162 January 9, 2025 VIA EMAIL kvacchio@fcva.us and sconner@fcva.us Frederick County Planning Commission Planning Department 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning Application #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman- Gross, R. Cussen, T. VA Winchester II, LLC January 15 – Public Hearing Comments Dear Commissioners: We own our home in the Senseny Glen Subdivision, located at 310 Canyon Road, Winchester (Red Bud Magisterial District). We asked one of our daughters, a practicing attorney, to help with researching and writing this letter regarding the Rezoning Application #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek. Our backyard abuts the Riggleman-Gross property, located at Tax Map Parcel 65-A-195, and we are a mere five (5) homes away from where the Applicant proposes extending Senseny Glen into the new development. We attended meetings between the Senseny Glen HOA and the Applicant’s development team/attorney, as well as the Planning Commission’s Work Session on December 18, 2024. We also reviewed the Applicant’s “Conceptual Layout”, a copy of which is attached. None of these meetings or documents have addressed our significant concerns regarding this Rezoning Application. If anything, our concerns have only increased in light of the ever-changing position of the Applicant. To be clear, we ask the Planning Commission to deny the Rezoning Application. Revised Proffers & Plans We begin with the fact that the Applicant changed its proffers after it filed the application for re- zoning. The original Proffers, dated September 20, 2024, (“Original Proffers”) stated the following: 1.1 Residential development of the Property shall be limited to a maximum of 283 dwelling units. Of said 283 dwelling units, a maximum of 136 shall be duplex/small lot units, a maximum of 117 shall be single family attached units, and a maximum of 30 shall be single family cluster units. Multi- family dwelling units shall be prohibited. Page 2 | 5 The second Proffers, dated November 19, 20241, (“November Proffers”) changed that language to state the following; 1.1 Residential development of the Property shall be limited to a mix of single family attached and single family detached dwelling units totaling a maximum of 303 dwelling units. Multi-family dwelling units shall be prohibited. Not only was the maximum number of dwelling units increased from 283 to 303, the November Proffer removed all language restricting the total number of units permitted on the property by housing type. In reviewing proffers from other developments, including Opequon Crossing and Winchester Landing/Orrick Commons, as well as the County Attorney’s comments related to other rezoning applications, such restrictive language is common, and we question the purpose and appropriateness of its removal. We also question whether the other reviewing agencies who commented on the Original Proffers had a chance to review the November Proffers. Other than VDOT, it seems all other agencies (including the County Attorney) provided comments on only the Original Proffers, as evidenced by the fact that all comment dates precede the November Proffers. The County’s Comprehensive and Other Plans Are Not Being Followed One of our primary concerns is that the Rezoning Application does not follow the County’s Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 2021), the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan (adopted November 2021), nor the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (amended September 2023). Why does the County spend time, resources, and effort to investigate plans, hire outside entities to assist with such investigations, and seek community comments if the County is not going to follow the Plans? Land East of Route 37 Each of the referenced Plans designate the land outside and east of Route 37 Bypass as “Rural.” Yet, the Applicant seeks to rezone that area to “RP” so it can build single family units. While we recognize land to the north and west of us was rezoned to RP from Rural, most of that land was rezoned nearly twenty (20) years ago, long before the current Comprehensive Plan came into effect. The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan specifically states: “The residential land uses outside and east of Route 37 are envisioned to be rural area residential in character.” (p. 13) “Frederick County is a community that values and protects its natural resources.” (p. 20) “[E]ffort should focus on the creation of greenways, stream valley parks and stream buffers around waterways, while taking into account environmentally sensitive areas.” (p. 20) 1 The November Proffers also have early September dates for signatures and notarizations. When the November Proffers were submitted to the County, were they submitted with updated signatures/notarizations? Page 3 | 5 It begs the question how development of any kind, never mind upwards of 30 single family homes attached and/or detached 2, on land the County intended to remain Rural meets those values and protects the natural resources, waterways, and wildlife which exist on that land. Land West of Route 37 The current Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan labels the property west of Route 37 Bypass as “Residential, 4 u/a”. Based on the November Proffers and Generalized Development Plan, the Applicant seeks to build both attached and detached single family units on the property to the west of Route 37. This is contrary to the Conceptual Layout, which shows only townhouses and duplexes (253 units) were to be built on that land. Yet the land west of Route 37 is of insufficient size to accommodate such numbers while meeting the County’s intentions of “Residential, 4 u/a.” Even a brief glance at the Conceptual Layout shows that nearly the entire area will be dwelling units, sidewalks, parking lots, and pavement. The November Generalized Development Plan underscores that conclusion in that there is no “open space” or “greenspace” on the west side of Route 37. In fact, the only “open space” and “greenspace” identified on the Generalized Development Plan exists in the FEMA Floodplain and other mostly inaccessible areas on the east side of Route 37. Moreover, when comparing the County’s maps showing Route 37 to the November Proffers and Generalized Development Plan, it does not appear that the Applicant accounted for the full width of Route 37, nor the area that will encompass Route 37’s exit and entrance ramps at Senseny Road. While the November Proffer includes a 104’ right-of-way reservation for future Route 37, it falls far short of the Opequon Crossing Proffers. Among other things, the Opequon Crossing Proffers required a dedicated Route 37 right-of-way 250’ in width with landscape screens to be constructed on a 20’ easement adjacent to both sides of the right-of-way. At a bare minimum, the same should apply here if rezoning is considered. When accounting for the true width of Route 37, plus the areas that should be dedicated for ramps connecting it to Senseny Road, we estimate the buildable area west of Route 37 to be approximately 25 acres. Taking that into consideration, allowing any development to exceed 100 dwelling units would directly conflict with the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan designation of “Residential, 4 u/a”. Lastly, the Conceptual Plan shows that townhouses and duplexes will be built immediately adjacent to our home, as well as the other single family detached homes that make up our community. The proposed development is completely out of character with the architecture, street design, natural elements, and open spaces of the Senseny Glen neighborhood. Traffic Impact Analysis – Materially Flawed & Outdated We seriously question the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) submitted in support of the Rezoning Application and are concerned with the fact these issues have not been recognized by VDOT or the County. 2 Per the Impact Analysis Statement, dated September 20, 2024, there was an intention to build 30 single family cluster units east of Route 37. However, neither the Impact Analysis Statement, dated November 19, 2024, nor the November Proffers and Generalized Development Plan, limit development on the east side to 30 single family detached units. Page 4 | 5 First, the TIA was based on the Original Proffer’s dwelling types and number of units. The November Proffer increased the maximum number of units to 303 (from 283) and failed to place any restrictions on the maximum number of units by dwelling type. Second, the TIA fails to analyze traffic conditions as they exist now. The TIA’s Table 1 “Existing Roadway Network” provides grossly out-of-date data for the six roadways listed. The TIA says this table was created using VDOT Historical Traffic Data from 2021. A review of VDOT’s Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates for Frederick County (Year 2021) shows the AADT data was compiled on the following dates: Roadway Road Segment Between Data Date Senseny Road Rossum Lane – Clarke County 2021 Channing Drive Senseny Road – Valley Mill Road June 14, 2011 Senseny Glen Drive Senseny Road – Canyon Court September 18, 2017 Twinbrook Circle Dead End – Senseny Road June 30, 2014 Woodrow Road Dots Way – Channing Drive September 13, 2017 Canyon Road Dead End – Senseny Road August 11, 2020 These data sets fail to include the numerous developments that have been built and/or remain under construction, including Sovereign Villages, Fieldstone Townhomes (170 units), Winchester Landing (161 units), Senseny Village (233 units), Opequon Crossing (703 units), Abrams Chase (13 units), and Rossum Crossing (18 units) to name a few. Third, the TIA collected turn movement counts at two intersections, one of them being Channing Drive at its intersection with Canyon Road/Woodrow Road. This intersection is approximately 1,000 feet from the entrance to Greenwood Mill Elementary School. Despite that fact, the collection of turning movements took place on August 20, 2024 - when school was not in session. The collection fails to account for all the GMES teachers, staff, buses, and students/parents that travel on Channing Drive while school is in session. This failure is particularly egregious considering students from the communities nearby, including ours (Senseny Glen) walk and/or bicycle to GMES, and there is a designated crossing guard for that intersection while school is in session. We are not alone in our concerns for the safety of GMES students. In fact, the same day you are holding a public hearing on this rezoning application, you are also hearing a presentation of the Capital Improvement Plan (2025-2030). That presentation includes a section on “Onsite Traffic Safety Improvements,” which specifically references “ongoing traffic safety concerns” at Greenwood Mill Elementary School. Based on only these few documented failures, it is difficult to understand how the TIA can be relied upon to provide an accurate depiction of existing conditions, never mind forecast the impact an additional 303 dwelling units’ worth of traffic will have on our neighborhoods. Even based on flawed data, the TIA estimates 283 dwelling units will produce 2,237 daily trips 3, many of 3 The Impact Analysis Statement, dated November 19, 2024, incorrectly states on page 4 that the proposed development of 303 dwelling units will produce 2,210 new daily weekday trips. This is less than what the TIA estimated for 283 dwelling units. Page 5 | 5 which will be traveling through our quiet neighborhood to access Senseny Road or Channing Drive. Additional Concerns We do not see anything in the November Proffers that addresses the day-to-day impact the proposed development will have on Canyon Road and Senseny Glen Drive. The TIA estimates more than 2,200 new trips will be taken daily. Yet, we are a neighborhood where young children ride bicycles and play on the streets. Our neighborhood does not have sidewalks, or even curbs. We fear the increased traffic from this proposed development will create dangerous conditions for those who live here and play on our streets. We are also concerned that the November Proffers completely disregard the Phase I cultural resources study performed in September 2024 which stated, “in our opinion [Site 44FK0279] has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by proposed development.” While the November Proffers list prior historical studies by date, notably absent is any reference to the September 2024 study. This should be addressed. Also, while the November Proffers state that “the bulk of the historic areas on the Property identified in these prior studies are located in areas of the Property that will not be disturbed,” that is only accurate if you do not consider the September 2024 Phase I study. When comparing the Conceptual Layout to the Phase I cultural resource study performed in September 2024, it is evident that there is a plan to build in the very area where a Phase II study was recommended, namely the north-west corner of Tax Map Parcel 65-A-195. This should also be addressed. Based on our concerns, and those of our neighbors, we respectfully request the Planning Commission deny the rezoning application in its entirety. Sincerely, JOSEPH & BARBARA ALFIERI Attachment