PC_08-17-05_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on August 17, 2005.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red
Bud District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz,
Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District, H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; and David Shore, City
of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
• CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission minutes of July 6, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Cormnittee reports were given by Commissioner Light on the Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Subcommittee, by Commissioner Unger on the Sanitation Authority, and by Commissioner Ours on the
Winchester Planning Commission.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1586
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-z-
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman DeHaven reminded everyone about the educational forum on regional transportation,
sponsored by the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC), scheduled for Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 7:00
p.m. at the Our Health Conference Room. Chairman DeHaven encouraged everyone to participate.
PUBLIC MEETING
Continuation of Master Development Plan #07 -05 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for residential - planned community use. The properties are located on the south side of Old
Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), and are located east of Milburn Road
(Rt. 662). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 44 -A -292, 44 -A -293, and 44 -A -31A in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Contingency
Chairman DeHaven announced that this item is a continuation of Master Development Plan #07-
05 of Stephenson Village from the Planning Commission's meeting of July 20, 2005. He said this itemhad tobe
continued, due to the adjournment requirements of the Commission's By -Laws at the July 20, 2005 meeting.
Chairman DeHaven stated the meeting was adjourned with a motion to table on the floor.
•
Commissioner Gochenour withdrew her motion to table in order to continue the discussion.
There were no objections and Chairman DeHaven granted Commissioner Gochenour's request.
Chairman DeHaven called for any citizen who wished to speak concerning this master plan.
Mr. Gary Oates, a resident of the Stonewall District, said that he spoke in opposition, at the
Commission's July 20, 2005 meeting, to any change in the approved alignment of Route 37 because he built his
home based on the aligmment approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Oates said that he was the only citizen
present to speak at the Commission's July 20 meeting; however, other citizens were present this evening to speak.
Mr. Standish Parker Kugler, a resident at 335 Marquis Court, said that he and his wife moved to
this area in 1999 to their retirement home. Mr. Kugler said that he purchased his home and property based on the
information he was provided with in 1999 from the County offices regarding the proposed path for Route 37. He
said that since that time, they have purchased additional acreage and have made improvements to their property.
He said he was alarmed upon hearing that the proposed alignment for Route 37 may change, which would affect
his home. Mr. Kugler asked the Commission not approve this new alignment.
Mr. Bernie Shwartzman, a resident at 1105 Red Bud Road, was also concerned about any
realignment of Route 3 7. Mr. Shwartzman thought it was presumptuous of the developers to attempt to move the
Route 37 corridor depicted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan because it would affect numerous residences along
Red Bud Road.
Chairman DeHaven announced that while there had been some behind - the - scenes discussion of
realignments, there has not been a study or a public discussion of any realignment for Route 37.
Mr. Allen Jobe, a resident at 230 Milburn Road, asked for clarification on what the Commission
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1587
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-3-
40 was being asked to do regarding this application and Route 37.
Mr. Bob Boden was opposed to any realignment of Route 37 from what was approved by the
Board of Supervisors in 1999. Mr. Boden, a realtor, said that real estate listings will be affected if this
realignment issue is raised again and property values will be impacted. He asked the Commission to consider the
long -time residents and their property values as opposed to increasing the profit margin of a developer.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, the design - engineering firm representing
Brookfield Homes and Stephenson Associates in this master development plan (MDP), believed that the
applicants have addressed, either through plan revisions or other methods, all of the issues identified by the staff
with the exception of the staffs desire for the applicant to show the Route 37 location through the project site.
Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant still contends that the MDP proposed is in compliance with the proffer and the
generalized development plan (GDP) that was approved with the rezoning in 2003. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that
the projected corridor alignment referred to as Alternative C does, indeed, go through the area they have identified
for Land Bay 3A. Mr. Wyatt said that they would be willing to add a narrative to the MDP recognizing that based
on what was approved in the rezoning, they are in compliance; however, the applicant would be willing to offer
the community up to an additional 12 months to consider a realignment issue and would commit not to develop
within the Phase I area that falls within this corridor until such time as either the 12 -month window has gone by or
another agreed -upon date.
Commissioner Light suggested that Mr. Wyatt seek a Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment, if
he desired to move Route 37, Alternative C, out of this project. Mr. Wyatt replied that Route 37, Alternative C,
was not on the plan submitted by the applicant for agency review and comments, nor does the MDP show it. Mr.
Wyatt said the reason it does not show it is that during the rezoning process, the Route 37 Corridor was not an
element of the transportation proffer, in either the form of dedicated right -of -way or construction. Furthermore,
the GDP that was approved for the Stephenson Village project, which is a legislative document by the Board of
Supervisors, only required the applicant to provide for the major collector road, which goes from Old Charlestown
Road through this property and ultimately, through the Omps' property to Route 11.
Commissioner Light asked the staff if Route 37 was in the Northeast Land Use Plan of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan, if it was in the WAT Study, and if it was in the Eastern Transportation Road Plan. In
addition, he inquired if the applicant was violating the Comprehensive Plan by taking Rt. 37 out of the MDP.
Planning Staff member, Mr. Bernard Suchicital, confirmed that Route 37 was included in all of the documents
mentioned by Commissioner Light and at this time, the application was not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Commissioner Light agreed this application was not in compliance with the Comprehensive
Policy Plan. Commissioner Light argued that this applicant went through the process knowing the status of Route
37, Alternative C; he said that everyone knew this, including the purchasers. He added that if this MDP is
approved as presented, then the County has essentially removed the north -end portion of Route 37 because there
is no other VDOT representation of any other area. Mr. Wyatt said that if a project gets approved without
elements of the Comprehensive Plan that are recommended, then that is the way the project is approved. Mr.
Wyatt contended that the applicant is not required to construct Route 37.
Mr. John Goode spoke next, explaining that he was involved in the rezoning process for this
property. Mr. Goode said that back in the year 2000, when this property was depicted in the Comprehensive
Policy Plan as industrial, both he and Mr. Donald Shockey met with VDOT because they were concerned how
Route 37 might impact their plans for the property. He said that at that time, VDOT had no funding available and
no funding was in sight for Route 37. Mr. Goode said that subsequently in 2001, their rezoning request, which
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1588
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-4-
was in conformity with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, was turned down. Mr. Goode said this current R4 plan
calls for a Comprehensive Policy Plan road, which they are going to construct, however, nothing is in the plan
about Route 37; Mr. Goode suggested they may not have been granted approval had Route 37 been depicted in
their plan at the time. Mr. Goode said that no one knows for certain whether Route 37 will have finding. Mr.
Goode contended that in 2001, when their industrial zoning was turned down, they learned that a rezoning and the
ordinance took a higher authority than the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Goode said that they have a rezoning
which does not have Route 37 in it; that is not what the applicant had promised, and they were not going to place
something on their plan that, in affect, they left off in the entire year-long process.
Commissioner Moms next asked for clarification on one of the staff's issues concerning the
major collector road. Commissioner Morris asked the staff if the bicycle path would be included in VDOT's
right -of -way. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that staff identified the bicycle path as an issue because
they did not find the graphics on the initial master plan submission. Mr. Lawrence said that since that initial
submission, staff has determined that a bicycle lane would be on each side of the major collector road; a sidewalk
or walking trail will be provided outside of the right -of -way.
Returning to the subject of Route 37, Commissioner Thomas said that he did not recall the
planned Route 37 location being an issue during either of the rezoning discussions for this property. He said he
was surprised to see it in the staff's report; he thought Comprehensive Plan issues were more appropriately dealt
with at rezoning. Mr. Lawrence raised two points to be considered: He said that when this rezoning was being
considered, the County was concurrently evaluating expansion of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and
modifications to the Northeast Land Use Plan. He said that through that land use exercise, the resulting plan was
an expansion of the UDA, introducing the opportunity for residential rezoning. He said Route 37 was preserved
on the Northeast Land Use Plan, which is in the Comprehensive Policy Plan today; therefore, the corridor was
always in the plan, even following the land use study exercise. Mr. Lawrence's second point was that through the
R4 (Residential Planned Community) District rezoning of the property, the applicant asked to defer the master
development plan (MDP) until a future date. Essentially, in lieu of the MDP associated with rezoning, the
applicant offered a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) showing land bay areas and proffered elements and
when the MDP was submitted, it would depict how the whole property was laid out. Mr. Lawrence said that
according to Code definition, the applicant is required to show all of the roads, the environmental areas, and all of
the details of the project on the MDP.
Commissioner Thomas replied that he understood the process; however, he was concerned that
the process could have proceeded to this point without having at least something in the record that would have
stated that Alternative C for Route 37 would need to be included. Commissioner Thomas recalled there being a
time when Route 37 was totally taken off the table. Mr. Lawrence said the only change in Route 37 in the last 12
years was that it was not on the funding list in the Primary Road Plan for a year; he said it has always been in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan, the Eastern Road Plan, the WATS Plan, and it is still in the MPO (Metropolitan
Planning Organization) Plan.
Commissioner Light asked the Commission's legal counsel if the Planning Commission should
accept a master plan which does not show Route 37. Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, the Planing Commission's legal
counsel, stated that in his opinion, the Commission does not have to accept the MDP; he believed the Commission
had the right to require that something of this magnitude be shown and be precise. Mr. Ambrogi said that the
Comprehensive Policy Plan is a very strong guide that should be followed as closely as possible and although the
rezoning does prevail, a major factor in this MDP is missing.
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1589
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-5-
Other Commission members had questions about the status of Route 37 and the possible
outcome for considering this MDP without Route 37. Mr. Lawrence stated that if the County wants Route 37 in
the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the County needs to determine its corridor and hold firm. Specifically, if
Alternative C is the adopted corridor, the County needs to hold firm to that position until a new location is
identified. Mr. Lawrence said that if Route 37 is not on the MDP, then it won't be shown throughout the
subdivision process and the corridor will not be reserved and protected for future use.
Considering all that had been discussed, Commissioner Light moved to deny the MDP; however,
this motion died due to the lack of a second to the motion.
Commission members believed that the MDP needed to meet Comprehensive Policy Plan
requirements before it goes any further; however, other members questioned how the applicant's plan could have
proceeded to this point without Route 37. They pointed out that this MDP is in conformance with the Board of
Supervisors' rezoning, with the guidance that was given at the time, and the proffers.
Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to recommend approval of MDP 407 -05 with the
developer's offer to work with the community for at least the next 12 months to confirm the location of Route 37
during this time frame. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Master Development Plan 407 -05 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for residential -
planned community use with acceptance of the developer's offer to work with the community for at least the next
12 months to confirm the location of Route 37 during this time frame.
is YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Straub, Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett,
NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven
ABSTAIN Gochenour
(Note: Connnissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.)
A request for a Subdivision Exception is being sought by Artz & Associates, on behalf of Deborah Dorman
Dutcher, property owner, regarding Section 144- 31.B.1 of the Frederick County Code. Under Section
144 -5, the applicant is requesting an exception to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
existing Dutcher property to be further subdivided, and reduce the existing 74% Rural Preservation Lot
to 40% of the original parcel. The subject property, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is located at the
intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road, approximately 100 feet west of the Route 627 intersection
with Route 758. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 83 -A -106 in the Back Creek Magisterial
District.
Action — Recommended Denial
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the recorded plat for this
rural preservation subdivision shows 58 acres being the rural preservation tract, this plat was recorded June 16,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1590
Minutes of August 17, 2005
1992 , Mth Lot 4 being identified as the rural preservation tract of a rural preservation subdivision, approved by
• Frederick County on June 3, 1992. He said that by Code, the preservation tract must stay intact, and cannot be
changed through any land use applications. Mr. Cheran said the applicant submitted they were unaware of the
ordinance provision prohibiting future division of this parcel and are seeking the Board's permission, via an
exception, to reduce the 74% parcel to 40 %, the minimum size requirement for a preservation parcel. He said that
such a Board action would enable the creation of additional lots, but in no case would it exceed the density of the
parent tract. Mr. Cheran stated that the staff contends that once the preservation parcel has been established, it
may not be further subdivided without appropriate rezoning approval. Mr. Cheran stated that the Board of
Supervisors may grant the requested exception, if the applicant is able to illustrate the 74% preservation tract was
done in error.
Commissioner Ours stated that the zoning ordinance seems to be ambiguous and might be
interpreted in two ways. He suggested that it could be interpreted to mean that something could be done further
with the original land set in preservation as long as it didn't affect the original tract.
Commissioner Light asked if the wording, "Rural Preservation. Lot," is an identified stamp that
is placed on the plat indicating the preserved lot. Mr. Cheran replied yes; he said the stamp is required on all
sketch plans and identifies the lot for potential buyers, potential sellers, and is recorded in the court house with the
stamp.
Mr. Michael Artz, of Ariz & Associates, representing Mrs. Deborah Dorman Dutcher, came
forward to ask the Commission to interpret the intent of Section 165- 54(1), Paragraphs A, B, and C of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ariz said this is the section that addresses the creation of the rural
preservation lot subdivisions and specifically defines the parameters for the 40% preservation lot. He explained
that in 1992, this four -lot subdivision was created and 74% was set aside as the rural preservation lot and, he
believed, Mr. and Mrs. Dutcher were informed at that time that they could come back at any time in the future and
further subdivide that parcel. Mr. Artz said that in April of this year, he was hired by Mrs. Dutcher to do just
that. He said that drainfield sites were located, a preliminary sketch plan was prepared, it was submitted to four
different agencies for review, and it was submitted to the Planning Department with a check. He said the
subdivision was denied by the Zoning Administrator under Paragraph C, "No future division of this portion of the
parent tract will be permitted," and the check was returned. Mr. Artz said the case went to the BZA (Board of
Zoning Appeals) and was denied. He said he still disagrees with the interpretation of this section of the code and
that is why he is before the Commission. Mr. Artz believed there has been a change in the interpretation of this
section of the code by the various zoning administrators over the past 14 years since this section of the code was
written. He said that Mr. Wayne Miller, who was the Zoning Administrator in 1992 and who approved this
subdivision, testified at the BZA that if he were Zoning Administrator today, he would grant approval. Mr. Artz
said that had Mrs. Dutcher known this was going to be the case in 1992, she would have done something
differently.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Paul F. Kisak, adjoining property owner on Lot 3, said that both he and his wife were present
to speak in opposition to the request to reduce the rural preservation lot from 74% to 40 %. Mr. Kisak said that he
was granted proxy to represent 57 of the neighbors who live in this district and the surrounding property, which
represents 94% of the residents within a one -mile radius of the property under consideration. Mr. Kisak read the
preamble of the petition signed by the 57 residents of the neighborhood who were in opposition to this exception
request. He also submitted a copy of his sales contract, dated March 26, 1992, when he purchased a house and 15
acres from Mrs. Dorman Dutcher, and he read sections of the contract where the seller agrees not to subdivide or
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1591
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-7-
develop the remaining land. Mr. Kisak said that contrary to Mr. Artz's statements, he believed Mrs. Dorman
Dutcher knew about the rural preservation restriction because she signed the sales contract over 10 times. Mr.
Kisak supported the previous denials by Mr. Cheran, the Planning Staff, and the BZA. He said he was prepared
to provide four to five affidavits, from the property owners involved in the subdivision of the original property,
that they were told by the seller that the rural preservation lot could not be developed.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Kisak if his original 15 -acre lot, Lot 3, had been subdivided
since he purchased it. Mr. Kisak replied yes; he said it is now a 9.1 -acre lot and a 5.0 -acre lot and a house was
built on the lot. In addition, Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Kisak if he was given the right of first refusal on
the property under consideration, Lot 4, as stated in the sales contract. Mr. Kisak said he was not given that
opportunity.
Mrs. Kathryn Anne Kisak, wife of Mr. Paul Kisak, said that she and her husband did
considerable homework before they purchased their property and they purchased this property contingent on the
disposition of this particular Lot 4. Mrs. Kisak said that she and her husband spoke with Mr. Miller and others in
the Planning Department in 1992 and were given different information than what is being presented by Mr. Artz
today. Mrs. Kisak referred to the letter her husband submitted, dated June 1, 2005, from the homeowners of the
lots adjacent to Lot 4. Mrs. Kisak said they went to the courthouse and looked at the plats and they did not see
any notations on the plat or the written survey indicating that this lot was in excess of a minimum 40% or that
there were plans to do something additional with this land. She added that according to the Zoning Code
pertaining to rural preservation lots, the rural preservation lot must be designated, and this was obviously
designated as a rural preservation lot consisting of 58 acres.
Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Artz to explain the development plans for Lot 4. Mr. Artz stated
that the preliminary sketch plat proposes to construct a new subdivision street road, that would eventually be
dedicated to the Conmionwealth of Virginia, with approximately 12 lots; seven lots on the western side and five
lots on the eastern side are planned, with the rural preservation lot in the rear. He said the rural preservation lot
would be 40.1% of the original tract size. He added that lot sizes would range from a nunimum of two acres up to
2' /a acres.
Commissioner Thomas said that as the Chairman of the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) for a number of years, he understood there were some challenges existing within the
wording of the zoning ordinance because of its size and the number of amendments that have been made over the
years. He agreed this section of the ordinance needs to be placed on the DRRS's work plan for the coming year
for clarification. Speaking as a long -time member of the DRRS, he said that when this ordinance was initially
discussed and written, the intent was to preserve 40% as the rural preservation lot. He said if someone wanted to
preserve more, and understood what they were doing, that was certainly their prerogative; but as far as the DRRS
and implementation, the intent was that 40% remained as the preservation lot.
Commission members noted that their role was not to enforce contracts or purchase agreements
between property owners, but it was the Commission's role to enforce the ordinance. However, Commission
members found it difficult to ignore the sense of trust that came about on the part of the neighbors that there
would be no further development on this particular lot.
A motion was made by Commissioner Unger to recommend denial of the request for exception.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Watt and passed by a majority vote.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1592
Minutes of August 17, 2005
• BE IT RESOLVED, By a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend
denial of a request for a subdivision exception sought by Artz & Associates, on behalf of property owner,
Deborah Dorman Dutcher, under Section 144 -31.B. I of the Frederick County Code, to allow Lot 4, designated as
a rural preservation lot consisting of 58.847 acres, to be further subdivided, reducing the existing 74% rural
preservation parcel to 40% of the original tract.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Ours
NO: Thomas, Kriz, Triplett
(Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the
Commission unanimously agreed to make the three documents submitted by the adjoining property owner, Mr.
Paul F. Kisak, a part of the official record. Those documents included a copy of a sales contract, a copy of a
petition, and a draft letter dated June 1, 2005 from adjacent homeowners.
Subdivision Request #26 -05 of Stonebrook, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for one single -
family detached traditional lot, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District. The property fronts on the
western boundary of Jones Road (Rt. 621), approximately 0.05 miles north of the intersection with
Stonebrook Road (Rt. 1109) and Greenfield Avenue. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 62 -A-
51 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that this property was created in
1973, prior to the master development plan (MDP) requirement adopted by Frederick County. Mr. Cheran said
this proposed subdivision will create one single- family detached rural traditional lot consisting of a minimum
100,000 square feet in size. He said the subdivision appears to satisfy all agency and ordinance requirements and
access to the lot will be via Greenfield Drive. Mr. Cheran explained that the Conunission will be granting the
staff administrative approval authority with a waiver of the master development plan requirements.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was representing this application.
Commissioner Gochenour said that it appears the storm water pipes located on Greenfield Road
are directed towards this lot. Mr. Wyatt said that when an entrance is created off of Greenfield Road, an
additional culvert will be added to redirect the storm water away from the structure to be built on the property.
Ultimately, the drainage would work its way down through the property to the Opequon Creek.
There were no public continents.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1593
Minutes of August 17, 2005
am
• Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby grant the
staff administrative approval authority, with a waiver of the master development plan requirements, for
Subdivision Request 426 -05 of Stonebrook, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for one single- family
detached traditional lot, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, DeHaven
NO: Gochenour
(Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.)
Subdivision Request 927 -05 of Jireh Enterprises, LLC for warehousing use. The property is located off of
Ebert Road (Rt. 663), three miles north on Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11). The property is further identified
with P.I.N. 44 -A -6A in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
• Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this request is for
subdivision of a 15.740 -acre lot into two lots consisting of 5.436 and 10.304 acres; he said the 15.740 -acre lot
had been zoned M2 when Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. Mr. Cheran stated that the proposed
subdivision is located within the SWSA and the Northeast Land Use Plan, as indicated in the 2003
Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Cheran added that this proposed subdivision meets the requirements for a
waiver from the master development plan requirements; he further added that the staff is seeking administrative
approval authority for this subdivision.
Commissioner Straub asked if Ebert Road would be changed or widened. Mr. Cheran replied
that the applicant has dedicated a strip of property for VDOT right -of -way, but he could not verify that other
property owners in the area have also dedicated property for that purpose.
Mr. Larry Short, the property owner, was available for any questions from the Commission.
There were no public comments. No issues or concerns were raised by the Commission.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Subdivision Request 427 -05 of Jireh Enterprises, LLC for the subdivision of a 15.740 -acre lot into
two lots, consisting of 5.436 and 10.304 acres, for warehousing use and does hereby recommend granting the
staff administrative approval authority to sign the plats.
• (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1594
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-10-
PRESENTATION OF THE WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION (MPO) VISION PLAN
No Action Required
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, introduced Mr. John Bishop, the Transportation Planner for
the Winchester - Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), who was available to give the
Planning Commission an update on the MPO's Transportation Plan. Mr. Bishop provided an overview of the
committees and jurisdictions that comprise the MPO, the Federal requirements, and the formulation of the Final
Vision Plan. Mr. Bishop provided the Commission with the dollar amounts designated for Inter -state funding,
Primary funding, and Urban funding. He commented that greater portions of road improvement projects are now
developer funded.
Commissioner Morris asked what was being done to assure the different localities are working
together with the MPO's transportation planning efforts. Mr. Bishop replied that the Technical Advisory
Committee, which is made up of technical employees throughout the community, and the Policy Committee are
providing the information on which the MPO bases its decisions. Mr. Bishop said that Commissioners should not
see a big difference between the MPO's Vision Plan and the County's current planning efforts. He said the main
area of difference is that localities will be required to think at a regional level, not just at a local level.
Commissioner Morris inquired if all of Frederick County was included in the MPO and Mr.
• Bishop replied that only the urbanized portion of Frederick County is included. Chairman DeHaven commented
that the big challenge for Frederick County is to take the MPO's core plan, which is meshing with cross-
jurisdictional lines, and expand it out beyond their scope, while making sure it is updated and cohesive.
Commissioner Straub spoke about the procedure Frederick County has followed in the past,
where the staff would present the road improvement plans to the Planning Commission and the Board, and then
representatives would go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to ask for allocations of money.
She asked if this procedure would now be the job of the MPO. Mr. Lawrence replied that there are many rural
roads designated within the County's Secondary Road Plan, for example, that are outside of the boundaries of the
MPO; therefore, the Cowrty will need to continue to follow the same exercise they have followed in the past.
Commissioner Thomas asked about the level to which the MPO was going to analyze the road
plans for the various jurisdictions; he asked if there would be traffic studies, level of service studies, and if any
studies would be conducted by route or intersections levels. Mr. Bishop said that a regional model is used and
although it isn't as perfect as some software for doing specific intersection analysis, it does a good job identif)ing
a really poor intersection and those intersections will show up in the vision plan.
Commissioner Unger inquired about the controversy over Route 37; he asked whose
responsibility it should be to keep that route in the forefront. Mr. Bishop did not think the long -range plan was
meant to be a vehicle for promoting a particular alignment. Mr. Lawrence commented that funding for the
engineering is a significant first step; he said that as development approaches, the engineering will have been
completed and the developers can construct the roads. Chairman DeHaven pointed out that the condor will have
to be designated and preserved, or there simply is no chance of building the road.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1595
Minutes of August 17, 2005
-11-
REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S BY -LAWS PERTAINING TO 11:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman DeHaven asked the members of the Commission if a discussion was warranted to
amend the mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment time required by the Planning Commission's adopted By -Laws.
Some members suggested the possibility of a temporary meeting extension enacted on a case -by -case basis;
however, other Commissioners did not see the point of circumventing the by -laws. The consensus of the
Commission members was that the current by -laws function quite well and no change was necessary.
OTHER
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence announced that a tour of the County's rural community
centers is being organized by the Planning Staff for next Tuesday afternoon, August 23. He said that anyone who
is interested in attending should contact the staff before the end of the week in order for the staff to make
sufficient transportation arrangements.
Commissioner Ours announced that Frederick County is holding a public hearing with Adelphia
Cable, soon to be doing business as ComCast, for tomorrow evening, Thursday, August 18, at 6:30 p.m. in the
Board of Supervisors' meeting room. He said that if anyone would like to make comments about the cable
• franchise in Frederick County, they are invited to speak at that time.
Chairman DeHaven announced that the Citizens Planning Education Association's new schedule
for the remainder of this 2005 and for 2006 is now available. Chairman DeHaven said that he had additional
copies if anyone was interested.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
At.,.-L � a &
Charle S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
C �
J
It
Eric 11. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1596
Minutes of August 17, 2005