PC_04-05-06_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 April 5, 2006.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chainnan/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro
District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek
District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District;
Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal
Counsel.
ABSENT: David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark
R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner;
Kevin Henry, Planner; John Bishop, Transportation Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
46 CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes
of the February 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Corrumissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of
the March 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1707
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-z-
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Update
Connnissioner Kriz reported that the UDA Study Group has been meeting on a regular basis and
is in the process of organizing public meetings. He said the public meeting process will be discussed at the
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) on Monday, April 10. Commissioner Kriz said the two
public meetings are scheduled for May 9 and May 11. He added that Open Formn articles will appear in the
Winchester Star to further inform the public.
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 03/23/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS continued their comprehensive review of the sign
ordinance and each zoning district will be approached individually. He said they are currently discussing the B2
area, which will likely take about a month or two.
Connnissioner Thomas requested that the Commission appoint Mr. Whit Wagner as a citizen
member of the DRRS. Chairman Wilmot made the appointment of Mr. Whit Wagner to the DRRS.
• Transportation Committee — 03/28/06 Mtg. and 04/05/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee has met twice since the last
Planning Commission meeting; he said he attended as a member of the public and a representative of the Red Bud
Agricultural & Forestal District. Commissioner Oates said a transportation budget request was considered from
the City of Winchester for extended bus routes into Frederick County; the Transportation Committee requested
time to study the routes and make changes. He said the conunittee also considered an alternative for a portion of
the northeastern loop of Route 37; the committee unanimously agreed to recommend to the Board of Supervisors
that they authorize funds to establish a true engineered and surveyed centerline for Route 37 and to start the
process to comprehensively down zone the corridor to preserve the route.
Cortunissioner Oates reported on the second meeting. He said the Transportation Committee
studied the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) and the Board of Supervisors' input for the Tier I Study
of the I -81 widening and the committee voted unanimously to support both packages in order to improve lanes,
exits, and overpasses for local traffic. He said the second item was at the request of the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors to revisit the alternatives for Route 37 from the first meeting, in light of opinions from the County
Attorney concerning down zoning and the effect of conservation easements and core battlefields within the path of
the previously selected route. Commissioner Oates said the conunittee chose a route, labeled CXL, which sends a
portion of Route 37 to the southern boundary of Stephensons Village and continues through at least eight
properties that were not affected by the earlier Corridor C; the group believed die ability to gain an interchange
and the avoidance of the conservation easement and battlefieldjustified this; they also agreed the route should not
impact the proposed Agricultural and Forestal District. In addition, the committee voted that the Board should
allocate funds to establish the centerline, to perform an environmental study, and begin the preliminary
is engineering of Route 37.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1708
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-3-
E
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 03/21/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed two items: the first was an amendment
to the bylaws to change the meeting time to 6:30 p.m.; the second item was a discussion of potential properties to
be awarded historic plaques. Commissioner Oates said the HRAB agreed to offer six additional properties the
ability to receive the plaques and so far, nearly 50% of the properties contacted have responded positively to the
offers. He said the HRAB believes this is a very successful campaign.
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) — 04/03/06 Public Info. Mtg.
Conmrissioner Light reported that the CEA sought to gain interest in the use of conservation
easements in Frederick County through a public meeting on Monday evening. He said it was an educational
meeting and several representatives of conservation easements provided an explanation and use of conservation
easements within the County. Commissioner Light said approximately 70 people attended; he added that the
meeting was a well thought -out and planned educational program.
• CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen continents on any item that was not already on the
Commission's agenda for this evening; however, no one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit #02 -06 of Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes for a wayside market at 1107 Cedar
Creek Grade (Rt. 622). The property is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -2 -F in the Shawnee Magisterial
District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the proposed use will take
place on a five -acre parcel with a single - family dwelling located at the rear of the property; he said the wayside
market will operate in an existing one -story 1,800 square -foot building located along the front of Cedar Creek
Grade (Rt. 622). Mr. Cheran stated that an ice cream stand will also be associated with this use and will be
located adjacent to the 1,800 square -foot building. Mr. Cheran added that the wayside stand will sell a wide
variety of agricultural and horticultural items and merchandise; outdoor display areas will be associated with the
use, as well as a small field for "pick- your -own" crops.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1709
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-4-
® Mr. Cheran continued, stating that the site is located east of Route 37, adjacent to an area that
has recently been included in the UDA. As such, he said it maybe appropriate to apply standards to the CUP that
reflect the vision for the Cedar Creek Grade corridor as it exits the City of Winchester. He said that uses and
signs have traditionally been regulated on properties along highways in the rural areas. Mr. Cheran next read a
list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the CUP to be appropriate.
Cormnissioners asked the staff if a farm market would be permitted to sell hotdogs, hamburgers,
and other sandwiches and Mr. Cheran replied yes.
Commission members discussed the size and height of the proposed sign with the staff. The
Staff noted that the size recommendations provided were in keeping with existing business signs in this corridor
at the entrance to the City of Winchester. Members of the Commission questioned the staff about what specific
agencies would be responsible for inspecting the ice cream stand and restroom facilities; staff replied that the ice
cream stand is regulated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture; staff added that the applicant had met all of
the applicable reviewing agencies comments. A Commission member said that he had observed during a site visit
that the area designated for the proposed sign is in a low area; he observed that a six -foot sign would probably
just come to road level and would not provide much visibility.
Mr. Joseph D. Snapp, the owner and applicant, said he would prefer to have the sign ten feet tall
because of the low area where the sign would be placed; he said the 25- square -foot area for the sign was
satisfactory. Mr. Snapp also indicated his desire at some point in the future to sell sandwiches at the site.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak
• in favor of the CUP.
Mr. Marlin Beitzel, adjoining property owner at 1115 Cedar Creek Grade, commented that both
the Rhodes and Snapps have been good neighbors and he encouraged the Commission to approve the CUP. Mr.
Beitzel encouraged the Commission to also keep in mind the south side of Cedar Creek Grade for inclusion in the
SWSA and UDA, as they consider development on the north side and to apply appropriate business zoning.
Ms. Julie Schamonick, adjoining property owner on Cedar Creek Grade, agreed with Mr. Beitzel
that the Rhodes and Snapps have been good neighbors and she also was in favor of granting the CUP.
meeting.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz to approve
the CUP with an amendment to the conditions recommended by the staff, to allow the sign height to be extended
to ten feet.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use permit #02 -06 of Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes for a wayside market at 1107
Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) with the following conditions:
1. All review agency continents shall be complied with at all times.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1710
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-5-
• 2. The site shall be allowed to have one freestanding sign. Maximum height of freestanding sign shall be ten
feet. Maximum size of a freestanding sign shall be 25 square -feet.
3. No internally illuminated signs shall be allowed outside of the building.
4. Maximum size of a building - mounted sign shall be ten square -feet.
5. Dumpsters shall be completely enclosed by an opaque fence with a minimum setback of 60 feet from Cedar
Creek Grade.
6. A minimum of nine lined parking spaces with wheel stops and a minimum of double prime and seal shall be
installed prior to the operation of the off - premise wayside market.
7. Any expansion or change of use will require anew conditional use permit.
Rezoning #17 -05 of Russell - Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR &A) to
rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers
for 60 single - family homes and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the
Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. The properties are located south and adjacent to
Glendobbin Road (Rt. 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and
Payne Road (Rt. 663). The properties are further identified with P.I.N. 43 -A -15B and 43 -A -16 in the
• Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recormmended Denial of Request to Waive the Rural Preservation Lot Restrictions
Planner Susan K. Eddy stated that this application includes a request to waive the preservation
lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge rural preservation subdivision. Ms. Eddy explained that
when the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision was established in 2002, 16 parcels on Union View
Lane, consisting of a minimum lot size of two acres each, were created along with a 36.5 -acre preservation parcel,
which is sometimes referred to as the 40% set aside. She said the language on the recorded plats states the "40%
reserved lot can not be further subdivided per section 165 -54D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance." Ms.
Eddy further explained that because this parcel is within the Urban Development Area (UDA), Section 165 -54 of
the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to release the preservation parcel from the restrictions
through a rezoning process, provided it is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said
that two actions were therefore, needed by the Commission: one was the removal of the restrictions and the
second was the rezoning.
Planner Eddy next proceeded to describe the specifics of the rezoning proposal to the
Commission. Some of the main points of her presentation included that the site was located in the Urban
Development Area (UDA); the majority of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the site
is not located within the boundaries of any of the County's small -area land use plans; and, the sites have no
particular land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan. Ms. Eddy stated
that since there were no particular land use designations for this site, it was important to consider the general
policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses when evaluating the rezoning. Those surrounding
uses were agricultural and residential, consisting of 2+ acre parcels and 5+ acre parcels, within the RA Zoning
• District and orchard and industrial uses in the M 1 Zoning District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1711
Minutes of April 5, 2006
• Planner Eddy pointed out that specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District are 200 feet
between residences and orchards and 100 feet between residences and agriculture. She said that since there are no
specific setbacks in the RP Zone for orchards or agricultural use, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the
rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard.
Regarding the transportation issues, Planner Eddy stated that the County's Eastern Road Plan
shows the future Route 37 going through a small portion of the southern section of the property; she said the
applicant has proffered to survey and dedicate land for future Route 37 on their property. She cautioned,
however, that placing houses near a planned road prejudices the County's ability to adjust the alignment of that
road. The applicant had prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) based on their initial development proposal
consisting of 130 single- family units; the applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to
seek only 60 single - family units. The TIA indicated that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity
to accommodate the trips generated by the project at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" conditions or better.
She next reviewed all of the items within the applicant's proffer statement with the Commission.
Ms. Eddy noted that the Planning Department received well over 200 letters regarding this
rezoning, both supporting and opposing the rezoning; she said she also has received a large number of telephone
calls. Ms. Eddy concluded her presentation by stating that the rezoning application was not consistent with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan; the applicant is seeking a housing type not found within this area and not called for
in the County's long -range land use plan. She said a dense residential development adjacent to industrially -zoned
land and an active orchard is incompatible with those two uses and could impact their future operations. The site
is along the future Route 37 corridor for which the final alignment has not been engineered; placement of the
proposed houses could limit the flexibility needed. She added that a denial of the waiver would leave the
• application incomplete and would effectively be a denial for the rezoning.
Commissioner Ours asked Ms. Eddy if she knew what percentages of the letters received by the
Planning Department were in favor of the project, versus those against. Planner Eddy replied that approximately
90% of the correspondence is form letters; however, she guessed that approximately two thirds of the letters were
in favor of the rezoning, while one -third was opposed to the rezoning. Commissioner Ours suggested that the
Commission consider including a tally of those letters in the report to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Commission members had numerous questions concerning the staff's conclusion that RP -zoned
lots were not compatible at this particular location. A commissioner pointed out other RP -zoned property within
this general area; he pointed out that the proposed lots were larger in size than the typical RP -zoned lot and,
therefore, could be considered in- keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized
that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than the existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a
transitional area next to the industrially -zoned property to the east. Another Connnissioner asked if the staff
would consider a potential M 1 use on the property to be more appropriate and staff replied that an industrial use
adjacent to existing residential uses would present similar compatibility concerns. The issue of evaluating this
rezoning using the general policies in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, rather than a designated land use plan, was
also questioned. A Conunissioner believed this area came under the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan,
which was formally adopted by the Board and consisted of a compilation of small areas plans.
A Commission member said he did not see a compatibility problem with half -acre lots adjacent
to existing two -acre lots and questioned what the appropriate sized lot might be. Ms. Eddy replied that the staff
was more concerned about compatibility with adjoining the industrial and orchard/agriculturally -zoned areas and
the lack of sufficient setbacks with RP -zoned land.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1712
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-7-
• Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior Vice President of Patton Hams Rust & Associates, PC
(PHR &A), was representing Mr. Glen W. Russell and his wife, Pamela L. Russell, the building company for this
project. Mr. Maddox first introduced Ms. Kimberly M. Athey, a partner in the law firm, Napier, Pond, Athey &
Athey, P.C., who was also representing the Russells. Ms. Athey requested an opportunity to make a few
observations to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Athey briefly summarized her clients' position in regards to the appropriateness of the
application and the authority granted to the Board of Supervisors to deal with the request involving the lifting of
restrictions on development of the reserve area. Ms. Athey said the code provides the authority to release a
preservation parcel from development restrictions through a rezoning, provided that the rezoning is consistent
with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; she said the ten -year restriction can not be applied to this parcel
because of the fact that it lies solely within the UDA. She said that although there is no specific land designation
for evaluating this parcel, the Comprehensive Plan states that for properties that lie entirely within the UDA,
suburban residential uses are expressly called for. Ms. Athey also addressed a private access easement issue,
which was raised in a letter to the Commission from the Harrison & Johnston Law Firm.
Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and stated that the proposal represents a diversification of
the UDA and provides a buffer between the Route 37 and industrial zoning, and the larger lots. He commented
that these are acre - average lots, consisting of 60 lots on 67 acres. Mr. Maddox said that he did not agree with the
staffs opinion that this project did not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Policy. He said that ifhis clients did
not believe this met the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, they would not have been looking at this as a
source of inventory to maintain their business. Mr. Maddox noted that residential lots are not commonly
available, especially to local builders, and this was a major goal. Mr. Maddox also did not agree with the
statement that no specific land use was established here; he0 also believed the building space on the lots was
• comparable. Mr. Maddox believed this proposal provided some diversity within the housing stock. Mr. Maddox
proceeded to show the dedicated area for Route 37, where the extension of water and sewer would be, and the
location for buffers and screens. Mr. Maddox pointed out that this is the last site in this_ area that could be
brought forward under these conditions.
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Jim Chapman, a resident of the Stonewall District, had a suggestion regarding the tallying of
letters sent to the Commission. Mr. Chapman suggested the letters be divided into categories from those persons
who live in the area, those who live adjacent to the area, and those who live outside of the area. Mr. Chapman
believed that if the applicant is permitted to undo their ten -year pledge, integrity is lost and open space has
disappeared.
Mr. Wayne Holsinger, a resident at 112 Quaker Lane, asked if there could be a show of hands
permitted for those present in the audience who are in favor and in opposition to the request. It appeared that the
number of hands raised were 50% in favor and 50% opposed. Mr. Holsinger said that he was opposed to the
rezoning. Mr. Holsinger said the precedent of development that has been set in this area over the years has been
for larger lots, averaging three to five acres, providing plenty of space.
Ms. Rebecca Watts, a resident of the Stonewall District, was opposed to the rezoning. Ms.
Watts asked about the possibility for the applicant to exceed the number of dwelling units stated in the
application. She also had the following continents: the density proposed was inconsistent with the existing
neighborhood; the applicant should be required to uphold the 200 -foot setback from the existing orchard; the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1713
Minutes of April 5, 2006
• proposal would create an increased impact to already - overcrowded schools; the increased traffic would create
additional safety hazards on roads that were already congested.
Mr. Andrew Haddock, a resident of Stonewall Estates, was opposed to the rezoning. Mr.
Haddock said he moved to this area in 1997 from Alexandria, Virginia to get away from all the urban growth; he
said he enjoyed the open space provided by his five -acre lot. Mr. Haddock said that he would like the community
to remain the way it is.
Mr. Gerald Hendricks, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he was concerned about the
traffic and the short site distances. Mr. Hendricks said the entrance to the proposed subdivision is at the crest of a
large hill and site distance is short; he remembered a terrible accident that occurred at this location a few years
ago. He was concerned about accidents and serious injuries that could occur.
Mr. Ronald Strosnyder, a resident of Payne Road in the Stonewall District, said that he is
employed by Mr. Glen Russell and, prior to that was employed by both Glen's father and grandfather. Mr.
Strosnyder said that there has been a Russell building company in Frederick Comity, providing homes and
providingjobs for lots of people, for many years. Mr. Strosnyder said that the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was
not initially wanted in that area either; he said that if Mr. Russell had not been so determined, the residents on
Union View would not now have a home. Mr. Strosnyder said this area is within the UDA and Mr. Russell has
the right to ask for this. He said that Mr. Russell initially proposed 130 lots and then compromised down to 60
because of the neighbors' oppositions.
Mr. Gary Creed, the Sales Manager at Shenandoah Building Supply located in the Stonewall
District, said that he has been selling drywall to Mr. Russell for 19 years. Mr. Creed said that most of the
• materials and labor used in all of the construction taking place in Frederick County is being provided by
companies outside of the area. He. said that Mr. Russell buys his materials locally and he uses local
subcontractors; he said these people bank, shop, and go to schools in Frederick County and consequently, this
money stays in Frederick County. Mr. Creed said that he was one of 35 employees at Shenandoah Building
Supply and all of them rely on Mr. Russell's business to provide for their families. He believed this rezoning
should be approved.
Mr. Ralph Henderson, a resident on Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, said he recently
moved to this area from the State of Illinois and it was difficult to find the type of housing here that he wanted.
He said the lot sizes of Glendobbin Ridge appealed to him, along with the proximity to work and shopping. Mr.
Henderson provided photographs to the Commission showing road construction already taking place at the end of
Union View Lane. It disturbed him that this work was taking place without the Planning Commission's prior
approval of the rezoning. Mr. Henderson said that he paid extra for his lot at the end of a cul -de -sac and was told
there would not be any construction on the opposite side of the cul -de -sac because the land was in a preservation
parcel. He was opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. Richard Mason, a resident of the Opequon District, said he wanted to speak in support of the
Russells, a local builder. Mr. Mason said he has been in the building supply business for 25 years and he has
never seen a builder that cared more about the products he uses, his customers, and his customers' satisfaction.
Mr. Mason said that if the proposed houses are built, it will benefit him, as well as his employees and everyone in
the community. Mr. Mason said that the big builders that are coming from outside the Frederick County area do
not purchase their supplies locally; he said they are also bringing subcontractors from out of town. He questioned
how this benefited Frederick County. He also spoke positively about the integrity of the Russells.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1714
Minutes of April 5, 2006
IM
• Mr. Gary Ulmer, a resident of the Stonewall District and owner of the Loudoun Door and
Window Company, said he was present to support the Russells. Mr. Ulmer said that he grew up in Loudoun
County and saw this same type of growth occur there. Mr. Ulmer said that residents who built and moved into
homes here cannot shut the door behind them and say no more building. He was in support of the small, local
builder.
Mr. Brad Katts, a resident of Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, said that he moved to
his 2.9 -acre lot last year with the expectation that the preservation parcel could not be further subdivided. Mr.
Katts said he did not object to others moving to the area, but he wanted the density to be consistent with the area,
which was two to five -acre lots. Mr. Katts was opposed to the rezoning because it would affect the quality of life
he had expected in Frederick County.
Mr. Gene Parker, a resident of Back Creek District and an employee at 84 Lumber, came forward
to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning and to speak in support of Mr. Russell. Mr. Parker said that he has
been in the building industry for 18 years and, over the last six years, the price of housing and land in the area has
"gone through the roof." Mr. Parker raised the issue of how children of existing residents could possibly afford to
live in Frederick County because of the increased costs. He said that the Russell family has always built starter
homes and offered affordable housing, especially for the young couple.
Mr. Kevin Sites, a local resident and a local builder, came forward to speak in favor of the
rezoning. Mr. Sites believed five -acre parcels were a waste of land. He said the Russells put in a nice subdivision
and he lives not too far from its entrance; he said he never had any problems with construction noise or traffic,
they've cleaned up construction debris, and the crews work normal hours. Mr. Sites spoke positively about Mr.
Russell's integrity and the quality of his construction.
• Mr. Timothy Shot, a local resident, spoke in favor of protecting the preservation parcel. He was
not in favor of granting the waiver this soon for the construction of housing.
Ms. Kathy Danzey, a resident at 591 Apple Pie Ridge, came forward to speak for herself and her
husband and family. Ms. Danzey said that they were opposed to the rezoning and gave reasons why she thought
the quality of life they've grown accustomed to would be impacted by this rezoning. She believed this rezoning
would overdevelop the area and set a precedent that would affect future generations; it would create increased
impacts to schools, water and sewer, and roads; she believed that future developers needed to accommodate
infrastructure and that green areas, bicycle paths, and sidewalks should be provided in proportion to new housing
growth.
Mr. John Miles, a resident of the Stonewall District, was opposed to the rezoning request. Mr.
Miles said he was suspicious of the rezoning proposal and believed the amended application was the builder's
strategy to get the density he originally requested of 130 dwellings. Mr. Miles was concerned that the increased
traffic from the proposed development would make already unsafe roads even worse. He described Glendobbin
and Payne roads as narrow, unlined country roads, with traffic speeds in excess of 55 mph. He said he witnessed
a serious accident at the comer of Glendobbin and Union View and he predicted that more serious accidents
would occur with increased traffic. He also talked about unsafe traffic conditions on Welltowm Pike and Route
11; he said the added traffic from this proposed development will make an unsafe situation much worse. Mr.
Miles said the entire community was lead to believe the preservation parcel could not be developed for ten years;
he added that the density of the proposal does not fit the character of the existing established neighborhood.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1715
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-10-
• Ms. Darla Barrett, a resident off Apple Pie Ridge in the Stonewall District, was primarily
concerned about the impact to schools, particularly because the student population was increasing so rapidly and
the schools are using trailers to house students. Ms. Barrett believed the preservation lot should remain in tact for
ten years to give the infrastructure a chance to catch up with existing development.
Ms. Suzanne Schnider, a resident of Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District, said she and her
family have lived on Glendobbin Road for ten years and they are strongly opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Schnider
believed the density proposed was inconsistent with existing development and was inappropriate for a county
road that is already experiencing significant traffic volumes. She said Glendobbin Road is also used by the high
school cross country team as part of their circuit and many residents and nonresidents use the road for biking and
walking; she said it was becoming increasingly more dangerous to participate in these activities. She preferred
that the Russell property be developed in five -acre tracts and that the preservation parcel remains intact. Ms.
Schnider said that many of her neighbors could not be present this evening, but have signed petitions and letters
and are also opposed to this rezoning request.
Ms. Cynthia Lee, a resident on Quaker Lane in the Stonewall District, said the Quaker Lane lots
are smaller lots than Glendobbin, and are about one to two -acre lots. Ms. Lee said she recently moved from
Hampton Chase subdivision which contained about 65 homes. Ms. Lee said that one of the main reasons she
moved was because every time a house went up for sale, one person purchased it, but four families moved in. She
did not think the traffic count would be accurate if single- family dwellings are turning into mini - apartment
buildings.
Ms. Kimberly Slot, a resident on Wilton Drive in the Stonewall District, was opposed to the
rezoning. Ms. Slot said that she was with the group that was waiting out in the hallway because the capacity
• limits of the Board Room had been exceeded. She said she did not have the opportunity to hear both sides of the
rezoning presentations. Ms. Slot said that when she moved to this area six years ago, they were told each house
would be on a five -acre minimum lot; she said she chose Wilton Drive because of the rural feel to it. She did not
want the quality of life to which she had become accustomed to be disturbed.
Mr. Ron Samon, a 19 -year resident of Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District requested that
the Commission consider °bio- diversity" and the environment while deliberating this project. Mr. Samon said
that one of the reasons this is such a lovely area to live in is because of its bio- diversity, which includes the
orchards, the fragmented woodland, and the meadows, which supports considerable wildlife. He said that one of
the results that come from the loss of bio - diversity is forest fragmentation, which is ongoing throughout the
County; he said these areas provide wildlife corridors. Mr. Samon asked the Commission to consider this and the
environmental impact this project may have. Mr. Samon said that he operates a USGS Certified Bird Station; he
said that over the last several years, since development activity started near his station, the capture rate has been
declining.
A resident on Union View Lane came forward to speak, but did not provide her name. She
thought the emotional level on both sides of the issue was getting out of hand. She said the application proposed
is simply a zoning question being put to the Conunission asking whether or not the proposed plan is of enough
benefit to the community, as well as a benefit the developer, to justify its approval.
Mr. Greg Smith, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said he has knowm Mr. and Mrs. Glen
Russell for two years and respects them both ; lie spoke favorably about the integrity of both Mr. and Mrs. Russell
and the Russell family. Mr. Smith believed the quality of the schools in Frederick County is getting better
because of the development that is taking place here. He said the Russells are involved in the County's schools
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1716
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-11-
• and they donate their time and money. Mr. Smith said he moved to this area from Northern Virginia to escape
growth; he said he lived on five acres, but understands that some people can not afford that and need something
smaller in size. Mr. Smith said he fails to see the logic of people who come here from out of the area and who do
not want anyone else to move here after them.
Mr. Larry Knox, a resident of the Stonewall District, voiced his opposition to the rezoning of this
property for several reasons. Mr. Knox said the long -term infrastructure needed to support the project would
have to be financed by the tax payers and would result in a burden for everyone in the community. Mr. Knox
questioned how the Commission could let the project move forward when the southeast comer ofthe property was
compromised by the right -of -way of future Route 37. He said that with the final alignment uncertain, it was
impossible to know how much of the site will be needed for construction. Mr. Knox hoped the Commission
would consider the welfare of the entire Frederick County community and not set a precedent for this to open up
more boundaries throughout the County.
Mr. Randy Hillyard, a resident of Apple Pie Ridge, said that he did not have a problem with Mr.
Russell's project; he said the Russells build quality affordable housing and he should be allowed to continue with
his project.
Mr. Jim Salada, a resident of Wilton Drive, said he was present to represent approximately 50
people sitting out in the lobby who were opposed to this project. Mr. Salada said that due to the limited capacity
of the Board Room, they were not allowed to enter to hear all of the arguments. He said these are voting
taxpayers who are opposed to this rezoning.
Ms. Amy Racey, a resident of the Opequon District, voiced her support of the Russell's project.
Ms. Racey said the Russells were raised here, live here, and this land will be used by them to construct their
project; she said the Russells buy all of their materials here and support local subcontractors.
Mr. Rob Duck, a resident on Wilton Drive in the Stonewall District, was concerned about the
traffic and the safety of his children. Mr. Duck said that his property borders on Apple Pie Ridge and he has had
four accidents on his property alone. He said Glendobbin Road is unsafe for the current volume of traffic; he said
the volume and speed of traffic is too great for the roads to handle. Mr. Duck was also concerned about the
quality of education at Apple Pie Ridge School.
Mr. Jeff Smalovitz, a resident of the Stonewall District, was in opposition to the rezoning.
Ms. Donna Strosnyder, a resident on Payne Road, said that Mr. Russell is planning on building
300,000 square -foot homes that will be completely consistent with what is already on Glendobbin Road. Ms.
Strosnyder thought that calling this area rural was an exaggeration because the neighborhood contains a Taco Bell
restaurant, a factory, and an industrial park within site of the homes on Union View. She said there is a finite
amount of land available in Frederick County and if the five -acre parcels continue, there will be urban sprawl and
waste.
Since everyone who wished to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot
closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Maddox returned to the podium to address some of the citizen comments that were made.
Mr. Maddox said this project initially called for 130 dwellings, but was reduced to 60 dwellings because of the
applicant's sensitivity to many of the issues discussed; he said that any less would not be viable. Mr. Maddox
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1717
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-12-
pointed out that it is not unprecedented to have even smaller lots than what they are proposing developed on
Welltown Pike, Payne Road, and within that area. Mr. Maddox said that a precedent will not be set; this project
is in the SW SA and the UDA and he knew of no other situation where something like this could occur to create a
precedent. In conclusion, Mr. Maddox said that the Commission will need to decide if the one -acre gross density
is acceptable; he said the 60 units have been proffered.
Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Maddox if he would indicate on the deeds to the individual
properties the proximity to a planned divided highway, if the project was approved. Mr. Maddox agreed that
would be appropriate.
Commissioner Krizwas disturbed that this land was subdivided into a Rural Preservation Parcel
by the applicant in the first place, knowing where the UDA line was in 2002. Mr. Maddox said that in his view, it
was still good planning to look at this as a transitional use and to provide diversity.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Maddox if he would consider postponing development on the
six lots, adjacent to the planned Route 37 corridor, to allow the County more time to determine the final alignment
for the road. Mr. Maddox agreed and said he could include a provision into their proffer, specifically stating
those last six lots would not be developed until the third year of the project. Mr. Maddox added that moving the
road slightly could be accommodated easily using the applicant's adjacent industrially -zoned property.
Conunissioner Unger said that he sympathized with the people who purchased their lots around
the 37 -acre rural preservation parcel. Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Maddox if he could condense the density
of the development within the 31 acres that were not a part of the preservation lot. Mr. Maddox replied that they
could make that proposition work, but it would result in a much higher density than what has been proposed. He
. said they had studied a proposal for 45 units on 15,000 square -foot lots.
Conunission members next had additional questions of the staff.
Conunissioner Thomas asked the staff how they reached their conclusion that placing single -
family homes on moderately -sized lots adjacent to other single- family dwellings was a non - compatible use; he
said the applicant has proffered out other uses allowed within the RP District. Ms. Eddy replied that anytime the
staff and the Planning Commission considers any RP rezoning inside the UDA, they always look at what is
around the subject parcel. Ms. Eddy said there is no doubt this is mainly a residential area; however, the issue is
more the intensity of the development and the fact that the land use plan did not call specifically for residential, as
in most of the UDA. She added that most of the UDA is colored yellow, clearly indicating RP Zoning and
suburban residential development; however, this is one of the few areas where it isn't that way. Ms. Eddy further
added that people do live in the UDA, but it is not only for residential; it contains the whole range of uses
including industrial and commercial. She said that to immediately say it should be suburban residential is a bit of
a leap.
Conmrissioner Ours also sympathized with the homeowners who purchased their properties
believing this parcel would remain an agricultural area. However, he recalled past instances where established
homeowners began to have complaints about living next to active agricultural uses with livestock. He noted that
there were other, less desirable uses that could go on this property. Commissioner Ours also agreed with one of
the citizen's comments that the door can't be closed on developmentjust after others have passed through. In
conclusion, Commissioner Ours suggested that the code may need to be reviewed to determine if the placement of
any Waal preservation lot within the UDA is appropriate or not.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1718
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-13-
Commissioner Light suggested that the Board of Supervisors should possibly have been polled
on their view of whether they would support removing the rural preservation lot restriction on this property before
the applicant spent so much money on getting plans engineered. Conmmissioner Light had the opinion that the
compatibility of the development within this area was a two -to -five -acre lot size; he said that the applicant had
agreed to the preservation parcel with his signature on the plat.
Commissioner Thomas believed a transitional area was necessary, especially within the UDA,
and lot sizes become smaller further into the UDA. He also believed a possible flaw existed within the ordinance
to allow rural preservation lots in the UDA because expectations could be altered after lots are purchased.
Commissioner Thomas believed the best use of land inside the UDA was for higher density than outside the
UDA.
Commissioner Mohn believed a one -acre lot, for the most part, was a very low density pattern of
development. He thought the initial proposal of 130 units was totally off the mark and sought to maximize the
site, which was not appropriate. Commissioner Mohn did not believe a one -acre density would be out of place
here, particularly when the viewshed area includes an industrial park. He commented that this is somewhat of a
transitional area; he said TIA studies concluded that infrastructure can support the density and can do so
adequately and safely. In conclusion, Commissioner Mohn viewed this proposal as a compromise within the
UDA and the SWSA.
Commissioner Oates said the owners of this property made the decision to develop their land
with a rural preservation subdivision and, for whatever reason, decided not to go through the rezoning process at
that time. He said that perhaps the owner, or his consultant, was unaware the property was within the UDA.
• Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend that the request for a waiver of the rural
preservation restriction for Parcel 43 -A -16, consisting of 36.54 acres, be denied. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Triplett.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend denial of the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin
Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, described as Parcel 43 -A -16 and consisting of 36.54 acres.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER) Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett
NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn
POSTPONEMENT OF LAST AGENDA ITEM REZONING 904 -06 OF ORRICK CEMETERY, INC.
Chairman Wilmot commented that due to the Planning Commission's Bylaws that state no new
items are to be taken up after 10:30 p.m., it is likely that the last item on the Conunission's agenda, Rezoning
404 -06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., will not be heard. Chairman Wilmot suggested that the Commission consider
tabling this rezoning until the first meeting in May. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by
Commissioner Mohn, the Planning Conunission unanimously agreed to hear Rezoning 904 -06 of Orrick
• Cemetery, Inc. at the Commission's May 3, 2006 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1719
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-14-
Rezoning #03 -06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHRA) to
rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with
proffers. The rezoning, consists of two major parcels: the Middle Marsh property, located east of Belle
View Lane (Rt. 758), west of Hiles Road (Rt. 625), and on both sides of Chapel Road (Rt. 627); and the
Northern Reserve, which is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west
and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Rt. 624). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 83-A -109
and 90 -A -23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 60 Days until June 7, 2006
Deputy Planning Director Michael T. Ruddy described the location and size of the parcels; he
noted that the property to the immediate south in Shenandoah County is a continuation of the applicant's mining
operations in Shenandoah County. He reported that several of the reviewing agency comments were of
importance, including those from the Sanitation Authority, the Town of Middletown, the County Public Works
Department, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board, and the National Parks Service. Mr.
Ruddy commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan recognizes the value of its limestone resources to the
County's economy and encourages the extraction of these resources. He said the Comprehensive Policy Plan also
recognizes the groundwater that is provided by the quarries as a valuable long -tens water source for the County.
Mr. Ruddy stressed the importance, however, of the Commission to recognize that the applicant had not proffered
a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM District; all land uses
meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application
as submitted.
• Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the property under consideration is located adjacent to Belle Grove
and the Cedar Creek Battlefield, both of which are historic sites listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the
National Register of Historic Places. He said information and recommendations for the preservation and
protection of the historical appearance and character of these areas has been provided by the Historic Resources
Advisory Board (HRAB). At their meeting on December 20, 2005, the HRAB invited various historical and
cultural stakeholders to participate in their discussion to consider the 0 -N Minerals (Chemstone) application.
Those represented included Belle Grove, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Park Service, and
the Town of Middletown. Mr. Ruddy said the HRAB expressed they could support approval of this project, if the
suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts
on the historic resources. (Those continents are detailed in a letter dated January 3, 2006 to Mr. Chuck Maddox,
Jr. P.E., from Candice E. Perkins, staff support for the HRAB.) Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the applicant has
modified the rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB;
however, those two continents, involving viewshed coordination and mitigation, and cultural resource surveys,
have not been addressed in a manner that totally satisfies the concerns of the HRAB. In addition, he said that
many of the other recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to
review those HRAB recommendations with the Commission.
Moving on to the transportation impacts, Mr. Ruddy stated that much of the analysis in the
impact statement is based upon the continuation of existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. He
said the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by
more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. He noted that the
primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5' Street) to Route
1 I (Main Street) in the Town of Middletown. He said the Town has expressed their opposition to the increase in
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1720
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-15-
truck traffic through Middletown. Mr. Ruddy stated that it should be recognized that a different combination of
uses or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request.
Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that the County Engineer expressed concerns regarding the
geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local
groundwater, which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. He
reported that the impact of blasting on adjacent residential buildings and the impact of dust from the mining
operations on adjacent residential dwellings was also mentioned by the County's Engineer. He added that
consideration should also be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the
adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane.
Commissioner Oates inquired if the applicant would be permitted, if his application is approved
in its current form, to subdivide tracts off of Chapel Hill Road and sell to other operations, such as a pre -cast
concrete products plant or an asphalt batch plant. Mr. Ruddy believed this was a valid concern and the issue
could be addressed by the applicant through his proffer statement.
Commissioner Thomas asked if aquifer protection was provided through the Department of
Mines and Minerals (DMM) permit or if it is monitored through the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). Mr. Ruddy replied that through his discussions with the DMM, it was his understanding the issue of
aquifer protection is covered through the DMM's permitting process. Conunissioner Thomas said his
understanding was that the DMM covers the drawdown of the aquifer, but does not go into any quality or quantity
protection measures.
Commission members asked who would determine if the applicant's operation was the cause of a
• citizen's well going dry and who would be responsible for determining if a remediation needed to take place; they
asked if someone from the County would have that responsibility or if the citizen would have to hire an attorney
and go to court. Mr. Ruddy said that while an attempt was made to address that issue through the proffer
statement, the Commission could request additional specificity to clarify that issue; he believed that both the
County and the DMM would be involved in the process.
Chairman Wilmot called for the applicant to come forward with his presentation.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, representing this
application, recognized the desire to have other uses in the EM Zoning District proffered out; however, he said the
concrete plant has already been constructed in Strausburg on an industrial access road that has the capacity to
handle the operation, and an asphalt plant has already been constructed at this company's Strausburg facility,
which also has sufficient capacity. He said the range of options for this company is only one and that is extractive
mining for high - quality limestone. Mr. Maddox said the owners of this operation are incredibly good business
people and very astute when it comes to being a good neighbor to the surrounding residents; he said it was very
important to them to live acceptably with the neighbors.
Mr. Maddox proceeded to describe the limestone product being extracted and all the industries
that depend on the limestone product for their operation, ranging from steel - making to environmental protection
activities. He said they also produce aggregates for road building and VDOT has stations nearby.
Mr. Maddox next talked about the primary issues that were raised, beginning with groundwater.
Mr. Maddox reported that the applicant has contracted the services of the Science Applications International
• Corporation (SAIC), one of the larger consulting businesses in the country and who are experts in their field, and
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1721
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-16-
they have presented a plan of what they expect to see as a result of this groundwater hydrology study. Mr.
Maddox reported that they expect to see a drawdown of approximately 20 feet on site and 10 feet off site; a 15-
foot drop in the water table will occur, especially in the area of the Western View subdivision and in certain
residences to the east, as well as to the west. He noted that most of the wells in this area have been constructed to
modem standards and the report finds these levels to be acceptable. Mr. Maddox stressed the fact that if their
operation is determined to have caused a well problem, O -N Minerals will fix that well. He added that this issue
is monitored by the mining permit.
Mr. Maddox said the blasting and dust control has been addressed through the proffer statement.
Using an illustration, Mr. Maddox next described the proposed berm and landscaping. Mr. Maddox said that a
Historical Phase Study by the HRAB's consultant, who will do the work, will proceed immediately, before any
disturbance of the area occurs. Mr. Maddox concluded his presentation and took questions from the
Commissioners.
Mr. Joe Ferrill, Division General Manager for O -N Minerals, addressed Commissioner Morris'
question asking for clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the State versus the Federal regulating
agencies and what the requirements and timing were for reclamation. Mr. Ferrill explained that Federal oversight
has an office of surface mining which oversees state programs, but DMM has full responsibility for managing the
surface mining operations within the State of Virginia. In addition, he said there was a also a federal agency
responsible for health and safety and DMM has similar responsibilities. Regarding reclamation, Mr. Ferrill said
the reserves are so extensive, they believe that mining operations will continue here for another 50 years. He said
that berms, seeding, and planting will occur with initial construction and set as they go.
Commissioner Thomas asked about the monitoring of the quality and quantity of the aquifers.
• Mr. Maddox replied that occasionally, blasting can create air bubbles and some discoloration; he said it is not
customary to see that. He said the applicant will be monitoring those types of things and this company will treat
that issue the same as a lack of quantity. In other words, if it creates diminished quality, it will be mitigated. Mr.
Maddox agreed to add this statement to the proffer and specifically reference the quality and quantity.
Conuuissioner Oates raised the issue about the height of the proposed berms. Mr. Maddox said
that the Planning Staff did not want to see really high berms here and he agreed because the higher the berm, the
more it stands apart from the natural landscape; he said a smaller berm with a flatter slope will be more viewshed
friendly. Mr. Maddox said it was obvious they will have to build berms higher in certain limited cases, therefore,
they have offered a change (and would ask that the PC include in their motion) that the 30 -foot maximum would
actually state an "average' of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions.
Commissioner Oates said that he would also like to see a minimwn height, possibly 15 to 16 feet high, to conceal
the height of a truck.
Commissioner Oates stated that if the responsibility for well damage had to be contested, the
property owner should not have to bear the expense of hiring a lawyer to prove the mining company was at fault.
He suggested some type of fund or a bond be set up in escrow and have the County make the determination about
the cause. Referring to Proffer #4 Rights to Water Supply Mr. Oates asked to view the existing groundwater
resources agreements that had been previously negotiated between the applicant and the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority; he said he may want to make them an attaclmnent to the proffers.
Mr. Stewart Brasher, project manager for Dyno Consult, which is the consulting arm of Dyno-
Novell, a commercial blasting company, said that as a condition of permitting, the State of Virginia requires all
blasting to be monitored by a minimum of one seismograph set up at the closest non - company -owned property.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1722
Minutes of April 5, 2006
-17—
:• He said the data has to be analyzed, stored, and the equipment used must be calibrated on an annual basis to
ensure its accuracy. Mr. Basher explained that for the analysis of this quarry site, they went back through
approximately two years' worth of data, reconstructed each blast, and examined the results. Mr. Brasher assured
the Commission this was closely monitored by the State.
Commissioner Oates asked the County's engineer, Mr. Ed Strawsnyder, to summarize the Public
Works' comments for the Commission. Mr. Strawsnyder first addressed the groundwater, stating that he believed
the remediation was a very good start; he also believed water quality should be evaluated and included in the
proffer statement. Mr. Strawsnyder also agreed that a designated mediator for remediation situations should be
determined and resolved. He offered to meet with representatives of the DMM to see how these issues have been
resolved in the past; he said these situations have previously occurred and the mining companies have stepped up,
even though there may have been a question of whether it was their problem or not.
Commissioner Light commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed very broad and
general and he would have preferred to see more specificity in the proffer statement. He said he would like to see
some specific recommendations from the staff, after they meet with the DMM, on the water quality and quantity,
the height and location of berms, and the traffic.
Commissioner Thomas wanted to see specificity in the proffer dealing with the placement of
seismometers and a plan on how this will be specifically measured and monitored. He said the closest point to the
blast is not necessarily the location of the greatest impact of shockwave through the rock structure, because of the
geometries of the site and various geological features.
Other items the Commission said they would like to see clarified were: the eight -acre reserve
area for Belle Grove; a detailed plan showing the berms; a phasing plan for each section, and consideration of an
_ increase in some of the buffers.
Commissioner Oates then made a motion to table the rezoning application for 60 days. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table
Rezoning Application 903 -06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates
(PHRA) to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with
proffers for 60 days.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
submitted,
M.
SO b � 1 l
Eric .Ct Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1723
Minutes of April 5, 2006