Loading...
PC_11-04-09_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES i OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on November 4, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/ Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R- Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. i CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the November 4, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Revulations Committee (DRRC) — 10/22/09 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRC discussed landscaping requirements and specifically, the types and spacing of trees; the transportation impact analysis (TIA) standards and ordinance revisions requiring a TIA to be done with all rezoning applications; and the Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone and how it relates to the Jordan Springs site. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2563 Minutes of November 4, 2009 -z- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application 409 -09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and manufacturing uses. The properties are located on the north side of Redbud Road (Rt. 661), the east side of CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), and south of McCanns Road (Rt. 838). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 43- A -158, 44 -A -25, and 44 -A -26 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 60 Days Commissioner Oates stated he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Graystone rezoning application is • generally inconsistent with the land use designation of the Northeastern Frederick Land Use Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and does not address additional goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has not yet demonstrated how the Ml land use designation is consistent with the land use plan. Mr. Ruddy raised the following issues that had not been fully addressed by the applicant: 1) the potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of the properties; 2) the transportation impacts associated with this request including the impacts to the planning and construction of future Route 37; 3) the recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), particularly regarding Archeological Resources Surveys, impacts to historical resources and developmentally sensitive areas (DSAs), and view shed mitigation through natural and enhanced buffering and screening; and, 4) the problematic language contained within the proffer statement regarding expansion of uses in the district and associated design standards. Deputy Director - Transportation, John A. Bishop, spoke about the unresolved transportation issues remaining with the rezoning proposal, which included specifics concerning the applicant's proffer, the development of the TIA, Route 37 issues, Route 1 I impacts, and bicycle facility connectivity. Regarding the Route 37 issues, Mr. Bishop referred to the applicant's proffer, where the applicant based the dedication and reservation of right -of -way on a time line, giving the County five years to complete final engineering and design of the roadway; he said there was no expectation that the County, the State, or the Federal Government would be able to fund the engineering and design of Route 37 within the next five years and the staff was adamantly opposed to this language. He also discussed issues with the applicant's proposed dedication of corridor width, noting the insufficiency of the 225 -foot width provided by the applicant and making this determination based on comparisons with Route 37 West. Mr. Bishop said that right-of-way width for future Route 37 will be variable and is site specific. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors officially adopted a 350 -foot wide corridor based on guidance from VDOT engineers; he said the 350 -feet included extra width that will be needed for CD lanes and the is need for the roadway to stay elevated, over multiple road crossings. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2564 Minutes of November 4, 2009 -3- Mr. Bishop proceeded to discuss the Route 11 impacts; he said the TIA shows a number of intersections along Route 11 which would be negatively impacted with this development. Mr. Bishop said that staff's discussions with the applicant suggested potential ways to address the Route 11 impacts which included a partnership between the applicant and the County on the southbound Route 11 improvements and a connection between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Mr. Bishop said - - - - -- the - applicant has not offered a proffer regarding either of these improvements at this point in time. Bicycle facility connectivity was the final issue addressed by Mr. Bishop, which he said was an issue that is becoming increasingly important to citizens, both locally and nationwide, and is a goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Bishop said this location of Frederick County provides a unique opportunity between the Snowden Bridge residential development, Rutherford Crossing with a significant shopping area, and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation's property which has a number of trails within it. He said in the middle of this is the proposed Graystone development. He said this will be an opportunity to have a fully interconnected bicycle network where folks could potentially live in Snowden Bridge, work in the Graystone development, shop in the Rutherford Crossing shopping center, and play on the SVBF's property without having to drive their vehicles. Commissioner Thomas asked how much land from this 271 -acre site would be in the 350 -foot corridor plus the interchange needed. Mr. Bishop replied that it would be approximately 33.5 acres as compared to the amount the applicant expected to dedicate, which was 27.5 acres or approximately 12% of the site. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the right -of -way the applicant was willing to dedicate versus what they were willing to allow the county to purchase for the Route 37 corridor. Mr. Bishop said the full 350 -foot is not a dedication; the applicant is willing to dedicate 225 feet and enough right -of -way to accommodate an interchange with 800 -foot spacing • between ramps. Mr. Bishop said the staffs issue is with the difference between 225 feet and 350 feet; he said this would be a significant cost to the taxpayers in the future. Commissioner Triplett asked Mr. Bishop if the applicant was in a position to help with the connection needed at Redbud and the off -ramp. Mr. Bishop said he was not suggesting that the applicant construct an off -ramp; however, in terms of the connection from Redbud to Snowden Bridge Boulevard, he said the applicant has property spanning this entire distance. Mr. Bishop suggested a possible right -of -way reservation or a design included with the land base layout, in terms of an internal road that would eventually become public; he said it would seem there was some way to reach the goal without too much deprivation to the site. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT came forward for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the transportation system in this area will be able to accommodate this development, plus 2,000 dwellings, in addition to background traffic. Mr. Ingram replied that the applicant has discussed closing Redbud Road and re- aligning the off -ramp; he said VDOT has no way to do this, but it would have a considerable impact. Mr. Ingram said that until Route 37 is connected to I -81, this will be a deteriorating transportation system, as far as the level of service. Commissioner Thomas commented this is such a large traffic impact that it will not only affect intersections or roads, but the entire region; he asked if the transportation system could handle the traffic if Route 37 is not connected to I -81 before the development is at 50% build out. Mr. Ingram replied that it will be dependent on timing and the rate of construction; he said Route 11 will be challenged. Mr. Ingram said nothing has been offered with this rezoning application on Route 11 to enhance the maneuverability and flow of traffic. He thought Route 37 would be the key to this whole northern section, in addition to closing Redbud Road, and re- aligning the ramp. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2565 Minutes of November 4, 2009 MIN ® Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Ingram if the 225 feet of right -of -way offered by the applicant would be sufficient for Route 37 and Mr. Ingram replied no. Mr. Ingram said that on Route 37 northbound, where it ties into Route 50, there is an elevated roadway and the flyover from one side to the other is about 340 feet, which is typical for that elevation. He said if CD lanes are placed, it will have to be re- engineered, but VDOT will need a minimum of 350 feet. - - --- - - - - -- - — - - - - — Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, .with Greenway Eiigineering, was representing this rezoning - -- application and came forward to address the issues raised by the staff. Regarding conformity to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Mr. Wyatt stated that the Stephenson Village/Snowden Bridge project fulfilled the planned unit development (PUD) goal of providing public, recreational, and open space and commercial services, but not employment opportunities. He said that by marrying this project along with what that PUD started, by providing the office and industrial park, the result is a balance of land uses which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Mr. Wyatt next addressed the transportation issues. Mr. Wyatt stated that this project's major intersection, Snowden Bridge Boulevard with Route 11, functions at a LOS "D" which has been viewed with previous economic development projects as being acceptable and reasonable. He said where they end up being deficient on Route I I is at the Welhown Road intersection, at the northbound off -ramp with I -81, and at the intersection of Old Charlestown Road. Mr. Wyatt said the intersections showing deficiencies in the LOS (E and F) are in the same place with background traffic as they are for this development. He said his clients are willing to help with improving the LOS at these locations. He noted they are providing a corridor study area and they've made the corridor study area wider to the south because of right -of -way acquisition costs for zoned property. In response to the corridor width issue, Mr. Wyatt said that until a design for Route 37 is accomplished, no one knows how much width will be • required. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT has stated they could accomplish a 30% design within five years. Mr. Wyatt next recognized the comments from the HRAB. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant will provide 1,600 trees along Milbume Road, which is over 5,400 linear feet, to meet the buffer requirements of the zoning ordinance. He described other areas of buffering as required by the zoning ordinance. Considering the HRAB comments, no revisions to the proffer were offered by the applicant to go above and beyond what is required by the zoning ordinance, other than the elimination of the higher FAR and building heights. Commissioner Unger expressed concern about the possibility of losing the right-of- -way for Route 37 through this property after the eight years committed by the applicant. Mr. Wyatt explained that the proffer is written for a 350 -foot minimum study area which flairs out at the bottom and the County will have an opportunity to work a design within the general location shown on the MDP; once the eight -year time line expires, the applicant can either dedicate 225 feet of right -of -way or the applicant can continue the time line, if there is no need to worry about the land use in that area. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT has stated there could be a design configuration determined by that time. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the Route 37 time line could not be extended to 15 years, since the applicant's speculation for development was a 30 plus -year build out. In addition, Commissioner Thomas said the dedication of right -of -way less than 350 feet was not realistic, considering topography and engineering. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen comments and the following person came forward: 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2566 Minutes of November 4, 2009 -5- The Executive Director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), W. Denman Zirkle, came forward and presented a letter on behalf of the SVBF, dated November 3, 2009. Mr. Zirkle said the SVBF is a non -profit organization and is tasked by congressional legislation to preserve, interpret, and promote the battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley. Mr. Zirkle said the SVBF is concerned about this proposal because the Graystone property lies within core and study areas for the Second and Third Winchester battlefields. He said this property has the integrity and cohesion required for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the property- itself and the surrounding landscape have intrinsic historic value to the nation as well as the community. Mr. Zirkle said the conversion of this property from agricultural to commercial/ light industrial use would be incompatible with its historic significance. He said furthermore, as noted by the Planning Staff, the uses proposed are inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Zirkle said the SVBF, the National Park Service, the Commonwealth of Virginia, private donors in the Winchester- Frederick County area and beyond, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and Frederick County have together invested more than $6 million to preserve lands in this area in accordance with Frederick County's planning guidance. He said the subject proposal would devalue the significant investment made by these private and public entities. A second concern raised by Mr. Zirkle was the proposed building heights in the application. He pointed out that more than 570 acres of preserved land lie immediately to the south of the subject property; he said much of this landscape appears as it did to residents and soldiers at the time of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester and the land retains its historic, agricultural character and there are very few modern visual intrusions. Mr. Zirkle stated that the rezoning application proposed the construction of 90400t (potentially nine -story) office buildings and 70 -foot (potentially seven -story) parking garages on the subject property. He said the HRAB has expressed concerns about the impact of these buildings on preserved land and the SVBF shares that concern. He stated that buildings at those heights will dramatically change the historic character of the landscape that so many have worked very diligently to • preserve. Accordingly, significantly reducing building height would reduce the visual impact on those preserved areas and viewsheds. Finally, Mr. Zirkle said they are concerned about the proposed buffers. He said the applicant proposes to create a buffer for his development and to place that buffer on SVBF land; he said that because the SVBF land is protected with federal funds, it would not be permissible for them to convey to a third party any interest in their land through easement. Mr. Zirkle was pleased that Lire applicant recognizes the need for buffering and would suggest that effective buffering should be placed around the perimeter of the property along its frontage on Redbud Road, as well as Milbume Road. Mr. Zirkle then concluded his remarks and thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the comments of Mr. Zirkle of the SVBF. Mr. Wyatt said for the Board of Supervisors' meeting, the applicant will eliminate the additional heights Mr. Zirkle mentioned. Mr. Wyatt also wanted to clarify the proffer by stating the applicant was not looking to acquire SVBF land, but they were basically looking for permission to do landscaping plantings on their property, if they would choose, because the ordinance does not require buffering between the applicant's site and the SVBF's property. Mr. Ruddy returned to the podium to state this was a significant project in a location with a variety of significant elements. He said procedurally, this application and proffer statement were submitted as part of the Commission's agenda package and the staff and the Commission are bound to address the information provided, although recognizing the applicant is anticipating making some changes to what was discussed in detail this evening and to present those changes to the Board. F_ I L Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2567 Minutes of November 4, 2009 Chairman Wilmot called for Commission discussion and mentioned the two primary issues raised by the Commission, the extension of the time line for reservation of the Route 37 corridor and the width of the right -of -way for the reserved corridor. Commissioners commented that the proffers have been changed and neither the staff nor the Commission has had an opportunity to review those revisions. Other Commissioners mentioned that no restrictions or limitations have been placed on the MI uses, especially from the standpoint of transportation, land use, and visual impacts on the surrounding -- -- - community; the uncertainty of who would own the property five years -from now and what they would do with the property was a concern. Others noted that the size of development and the use was wide open and there was no phasing plan; transportation impacts will be felt along Routes 7, 11, 522, and I -81. Commissioners also commented this wiil be a destination site, as far as employment; housing and infrastructure questions were also raised. Mr. Ingram said VDOT received a new set of rules on access management in October and 350 feet will be required for the Route 37 corridor. He said his personal opinion was that anything less than 350 feet at this time will hamstring the County a few years down the road. Mr. Ingram said another important key to the transportation was the relocation of the north -bound off -ramp so that it aligns with the north -bound on -ramp. He said it will relieve a lot of pressure in that area however, the connection to Redbud is needed in order to accomplish that. Some of the Commissioners were supportive of the M I zoning, but believed there were too many unanswered questions regarding transportation and other issues at this time. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to table the rezoning application for 60 days. This motion passed unanimously. is BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table for 60 days Rezoning Application #09 -09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M 1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and manufacturing uses. (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting; Commissioner Oates abstained.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605, OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District. This revision to the zoning ordinance will include additional uses and new design standards. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that Frederick County had received a request to revise portions of the Office- Manufacturing (OM) Park Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said specifically, the request is to add various manufacturing uses, office uses, and service uses. The request also included revisions to the height allowance for office buildings from 60 feet to 90 feet, and 70 feet for automobile parking structures, to allow a height exemption for automated storage facilities, and to increase the FAR (floor to area ratio) from 1.0 to 2.0. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2568 Minutes of November 4, 2009 -7— Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission discussed this amendment at their meeting of • October 7, 2009, and recommend the request be sent forward to the Board of Supervisors. She said the Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their October 14, 2009, meeting and was satisfied with the changes and approved the item to be sent forward to public hearing. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission had no concerns or issues with the amendment. A motion to recommend approval was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605, OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District. This revision to the zoning ordinance will include additional uses and new design standards. (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165 - 102.06, to revise the rezoning procedures. This amendment will add a requirement for the legal form of proffers and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded, along with modifications to the enforcement standards. • Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this amendment at their June 17, 2009, meeting, for the legal form and recordation of proffers, and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins said that when the Board held a public hearing for this at their July 22 meeting, they requested to see some additional changes. The changes were for provisions for the modifications of proffers. She said the amendment still includes the recordation and legal form of proffers, as well as some revised enforcement standards. She said all of the changes were endorsed by the Board at their September 9, 2009 meeting. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Ms. Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No issues were raised by the Planning Commission and they endorsed the amendment as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165 - 102.06, to revise the rezoning procedures. This amendment will add a requirement for the legal form of proffers and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded, along with modifications to the enforcement standards. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2569 Minutes of November 4, 2009 ME • (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, M1 (Light Industrial) District. This amendment provides - revisions to the zoning ordinance to include commercial recreation (indoor) as a permitted use. Action - Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that Frederick County had received a formal request to include commercial recreation operated indoor to the permitted uses in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said currently, this use is permitted in the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. She said that while this request was originally for a dog training program, the ordinance amendment would be applicable to all types of commercial indoor recreation. Ms. Perkins said the staff has since received numerous requests for other recreational uses in this district. Ms. Perkins stated that with this proposed ordinance amendment, design standards have been included for the use when established in the Ml District; these standards address patron parking and safety, along with regulations for when this use is developed in a master - planned industrial park. A revised definition has also been included. Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission discussed this proposed amendment at their September 16, 2009, meeting. At that meeting, she said Commissioners discussed whether this was an appropriate permanent solution for this issue and questioned if indoor dog training would not be more • appropriate as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) District. She said it was recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the use be limited to the dog training. Ms. Perkins said the Board discussed this at their October 14, 2009, meeting and recommended that indoor recreation as a whole be sent to public hearing. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. John Defilippi, Shawnee District, was representing the Blue Ridge Dog Training Club, the group making the original request for the ordinance amendment. Mr. Defilippi said the Blue Ridge Dog Training Club is a 40 -year old, non -profit organization. He said the club is community active through demonstrations, community outreach, working at shelters, and offering training for people with new dogs and those who wish to compete. He said they originally conducted outdoor training, and then moved to an indoor site where they rented from Sportsplex; however, they were always looking for a permanent solution or their own facility so they could establish regular classes that would be accessible to more people. Mr. Defilippi said this particular building seems to be what they were looking for, with available open spaces. Commissioner Oates said he was opposed to this proposal at the DRRC discussion. He said he did not believe indoor recreation was appropriate for industrial areas. Commissioner Oates believed the difference between B3 and MI is becoming too vague; he said the uses were not being separated any longer. Commissioner Oates believed the industrial areas should be set up for factories and other good tax- generating businesses. He said there are existing B3 and B2 areas available for indoor ® Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2570 Minutes of November 4, 2009 ME recreation; and possibly, areas in RA with a conditional use permit (CUP). Commissioner Oates said he ® could not support this request. Commissioner Madagan agreed with Commissioner Oates. He said after reviewing comments from the EDC (Economic Development Commission), he agreed this could restrict the marketing of the industrial areas to outside manufacturers because they would not be interested in mixing passenger vehicles and industrial traffic. Commissioner Madagan said he could not support this request — -----either. - -- -- - - - Commissioner Thomas commented about how this could be economically feasible for an industrial area, especially if the hours are limited from 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. He said the restriction was placed so the use would not conflict with the industrial park traffic. Commissioner Unger stated that this was extensively discussed at the DRRC meeting. Commissioner Unger felt sure the reason this wasn't being done in the RA District with a CUP was because of the expense of constructing a building. He said the hours proposed would limit the traffic conflict and he also believed this was an isolated case. Commission members asked Ms. Perkins about the nature of the other inquiries. Ms. Perkins said there were inquiries for indoor sports, such as soccer, hockey, etc. Commissioner Triplett commented that the owners of these M1 buildings have empty buildings which are not being used and they are willing to consider leasing their buildings on a temporary basis, rather than have them sit empty. ® Commissioners believed that the economy is affecting the use of these buildings. Some members of the Commission had hoped this amendment could have been restricted to dog training only. They couldn't see how a sporting event or dog training could compete economically with the rent a building owner could receive from an M1 user. Consequentially, they believed the economy would sort this out in the long run. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and it was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, Ml (Light Industrial) District. This amendment provides revisions to the zoning ordinance to include commercial recreation (indoor) as a permitted use. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE I: Mohn, Triplett, Thomas, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger NO: Oates, Wilmot, Madagan, Kriz (Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) ® Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2571 Minutes of November 4, 2009 -10- is ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, M. Wilnfk Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary • • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2572 Minutes of November 4, 2009