PC_04-06-11_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 6, 2011.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman /Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chainnan/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District;
Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; and David Shore, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison.
ABSENT: Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
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 April 6, 2011, Planning Commission agenda as
presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the
minutes of February 2, 2011, and March 2, 2011, were unanimously approved as presented.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2735
Minutes of April 6, 2011
`t
-z-
•
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 4/01/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported that representatives from both the City and County
school systems were present to provide an overview of career and technical training being offered to
students, as well as industry credentials the students can obtain. In addition, the EDC discussed a new
minor logo design change for the EDC, consisting of a font and color change. He said that Mr. Josh
Phelps was re- appointed to the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee for the upcoming year.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) — 3/14/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the CPPC made a final review of the proposed update
to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and voted to move it forward to public hearings.
Historic Resou Advisory Board (HRAB) — 3/16/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB reviewed a proposed rezoning at the Clear
Brook Quarry for Carmuese Lime & Stone and in addition to accepting the proposed proffers offered by
the quarry, the HRAB requested the following: I) An application for the Martin House to be submitted to
the National Registry for review; 2) A revision to proffer 3.1 for more definitive language; 3) Relocation
of a portion of the proposed berm from around the historic house; and 4) Redesign of the screening berm
to make it appear more natural and less uniform and artificial.
Transportation Committee — 3128111 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported on two items discussed by the Transportation Committee.
The first item was a review of the draft Secondary Road Improvement Plan. The second item was a
discussion of the Revenue Sharing Program with VDOT. Representatives of VDOT were present and
explained that the program will increase from $15 million to between $50 and $200 million.
Commissioner Oates said that while this is good news, keep in mind that funds received from the State for
County projects in this program must be matched dollar for dollar by the County.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2736
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-3-
• Winchester Plannine Commission (WPC)
Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, David Shore, reported that the WPC will be
holding a public hearing on their revised Comprehensive Policy Plan later this month and they are
beginning a complete re -write of their zoning ordinance.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
2030 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
I
This is a public hearing for the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Policyl Plan. The Plan
comprehensively addresses the future of Frederick County for its citizens. The Plan is guided by
the Vision Statement and Core Values crafted and adopted by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors. The Plan is supported by two appendices: Appendix I, which includes each of the
• County's Area Plans, and Appendix II, which provides background analysis and studies in support
of the Plan. The Plan in its entirety may be viewed at www.frederickcountyva.aov
Action — Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the 2030 Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan has been considerably restructured from the previous plan. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to
give an overview of the plan, describing the various chapters within the plan. He noted that the plan was
based upon the vision statement and core values expressed by the Board of Supervisors at the end of 2009
and these core values were significant in guiding the working groups in putting the plan together. Mr.
Ruddy stated that implementation will primarily come about through the area plans contained in
Appendix 1. Historically, the area plans have been the County's implementation tool and are developed
by selecting a specific area of the County and identifying future land uses, working with property owners
and citizens within that area, and developing a plan in which the citizens of that area would like to see
happen.
Mr. Ruddy explained that in order to make the plan more readable and usable, an outline
for each of the chapters was established that was consistent and concise. He said the working groups
examined the current conditions in each particular area and identified what the future focus in that area
should be, what the benefits to the community might be, and then provided some policies and
implementation tools to achieve the future focus.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2737
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-4-
In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy pointed out that there was a considerable amount of public
outreach for this project and the working group effort, which involved collaboration with a large group of
citizen volunteers. He said this approach was extremely thorough and beneficial to the Comprehensive
Plan update.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. The
following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Fred Hudson, a resident of the Stephens City area, read from a prepared statement
and presented a list of ten questions concerning the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. 'Hudson stated that
globalism has reached Frederick County under the cover of the United Nations Agenda 21 and he was not
sure Frederick County officials realized it was happening. He said the TDR (Transfer of Development
Rights) was a power tool that could be used by future Frederick County officials to strip citizens of their
rights to own property and to build homes of their choice and it promoted the high - density, urban living
proposal set forth in the plan. Mr. Hudson believed there were major moral, ethical, and conflict of
interest issues in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. He recommended that the TDR ordinance be voided
and all TDR references be removed from the Comprehensive Plan and the Virginia Code.
Mr. Danny Lanning, a resident of the Stephens City area, also read from a prepared
statement. Mr. Lanning had concerns about the TDRs and believed TDRs had the earmarks of the
beginning of socialism, county- sanctioned style, by forcing cluster living, which had the potential to
allow government control of many aspects of an individual's life. He also expressed concerns about high -
density urban development creating a greater need for emergency responders, facilities, and equipment.
He was also opposed to using the round -about concept within main arteries as proposed in the plan. He
said the round -about concept has been proven to be dangerous, confusing, slow traffic decrease response
• time for emergency vehicles, cost more to maintain, and are difficult for snow removal. Under the
residential section, he was opposed to main arteries bordering and /or going through residential areas. He
thought the implementation section under the retail chapter created conflict with free enterprise and was a
deterrent to businesses relocating to Frederick County. Mr. Lanning asked for the plan to be re- evaluated
as it may create negative effects on the economy, way of life, liberties, and safety.
Mr. Jack Lillis, a resident of Frederick County, also read from a prepared statement. Mr.
Lillis expressed concerns about the timing of the Planning Commission voting immediately after closing
a public hearing. He thought this left the impression that the outcome of the hearing may be
predetermined and that no attention is being paid to the comments of the citizens who attended the
hearing. He suggested that the Commission delay voting, particularly when there is dissention, to give
the Commission more time to address comments made during the public hearing and to give speakers
some assurance their comments will be considered.
Ms. Debbie Stottlemyer, a resident of Stephens City, expressed concerns about the TDR
ordinance and she was unaware it was approved last year. Ms. Stottlemyer thought many residents in
Frederick County were unaware of TDRs and what they implied. She asked the Commission to delay
making a recommendation this evening and to hold additional public meetings to inform more residents
of the County. She also commented that she found some sections of the Comprehensive Plan to be
confusing and difficult to understand.
Since no one else wished to speak to the Commission at this time, Chairman Wilmot
allowed Mr. Hudson to return to the podium to read the list of questions lie had prepared.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2738
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-5-
• The following questions were read by Mr. Hudson: 1) Why are we developing a new
Comprehensive Plan so soon after approving the one approved in 2007? 2) Who provided the template
for the plan being considered? 3) Is an individual's property devalued when the owner transfers his
development rights? 4) Why does the transfer of building rights require a covenant with the County? 5)
Is it true that only the County can determine the number of development rights on anyone's property and
then can increase the number upon transfer to another property? 6) Is it true that the purpose of the TDR
is to take away our individual rights to build outside of the proposed Urban Development Area (UDA)
and force the citizens of this County to live in high- density areas within the designated UDA? This may
ultimately result in government control of all of our rural properties. 7) Is it true that this is done for the
purpose of returning land back to its natural state thereby honoring its sacred nature for the purpose of
environmental protection from global warming? 8) Is it true that Frederick County's TDR ordinance is
really cap and trade at the State and County level? Instead of trading carbon emissions, we are trading
building rights and the rich and powerful prosper, while the middle class is reduced and bears the cost. 9)
Would it be true that after 20 -30 years, all building rights in the County would be gone, forcing the
majority of the County's population into the UDAs? 10) Is it true that the majority of the residents of the
UDAs will ultimately be found in high- density areas within the UDA?
Chairman Wilmot next closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman
Wilmot invited the staff to comment on any of the public comments that were made.
In answer to Mr. Hudson's question of why Frederick County is updating its
Comprehensive Plan at this time, Mr. Ruddy said historically, Frederick County has worked closely with
property owners, land developers, and citizens throughout the County to proactively plan for the future,
while keeping in mind what is in the best interest of the residents in a particular area. He said the
• previous time the Comprehensive Plan was overhauled was in the late 1980's and much of the
information contained within that plan was out dated. Mr. Ruddy said the Rural Areas'Study, which was
conducted over the past couple of years, had provided much of the guidance that helped the community as
they came together to understand what was happening in the rural areas and what approaches they could
collaboratively put together to address some of the Rural Areas needs. In working with the Board of
Supervisors, a vision statement was created for the County and core values developed to guide that vision.
Mr. Ruddy added that fortunately, the structure of the plan was crafted by individuals who live and work
within Frederick County and who serve on citizen groups. He said lie was very willing to meet with
anyone to go through the Rural Areas Study or to answer questions about the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Kriz wanted to address the comments made that considerable numbers of
residents within the County were unaware of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that over
the last two years, requests have been made in numerous ways in an attempt to get citizens to attend
meetings when this plan was being discussed. Commissioner Kriz said he personally wrote two letters to
the editors of newspapers urging citizens to attend meetings. He said it was disheartening when
attendance is low when citizens' input is requested all through the development stages. Commissioner
Kriz said that every section of this document had a core working committee that represented the
appropriate citizenry of Frederick County. He commented there was no "template;" this was Frederick
County's version and no outside entity came in to say how it should be developed. In addition,
Commissioner Kriz believed that a considerable number of the people who spoke had a wrong
understanding of TDRs and how they would operate.
Commissioner Oates also wanted to address the comments made that citizens were
unaware the Comprehensive Plan was being updated. Commissioner Oates said this has been in the
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2739
Minutes of April 6, 2011
newspaper for over a year, there have been public meetings, subcommittee meetings, and there have been
® many articles in the Winchester Star. He said the TDR Program was developed by working with the
farmers throughout the community as a way to try to preserve farmland. Commissioner Oates agreed that
the value of their land would go down if they sell their development rights, but it is entirely voluntary and
they are compensated for that. He said the farmers wanted an alternative to subdividing their farms and
still get some value out of their property. Commissioner Oates said the Frederick County Farm Bureau
and many farmers and orchardists were involved in developing the TDR Program. He noted this went on
for about two years and was a very public and open scenario. Commissioner Oates pointed out this is the
only TDR Program in Virginia which was developed to support the agricultural community. He stated
that the Director of Planning, Mr. Eric Lawrence, was invited to speak on various occasions to other
counties about how it was developed because everyone agreed on how well it turned out. Commissioner
Oates assured everyone it was not something promoted by the United Nations. Commissioner Oates said
the update was done to make the Comprehensive Plan easier for citizens to understand; lie said this new
plan is far easier to read and understand than the previous plan and plans from surrounding counties.
Chairman Wilmot thanked everyone for their comments and for their interest in the future
of Frederick County.
Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan
comprehensively addresses the future of Frederick County for its citizens. The Comprehensive Policy
Plan is guided by the Vision Statement and Core Values crafted and adopted by thel Frederick County
• Board of Supervisors. Two appendices support this plan: Appendix I, which includes each of the
County's Area Plans, and Appendix 11, which provides background analysis and studie's in support of the
Plan.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 THR 2017
A Joint Public Hearing conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the
Planning Commission of Frederick County, in accordance with Section 33.1 -70.01 of the Code of
Virginia, to receive public comment on the proposed Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal
Years 2012 through 2017 in Frederick County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012. All projects in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for
federal funds will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
which documents how Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds.
Action —Recommended Approval
Frederick County Deputy Director - Transportation, Mr. John A. Bishop, reported that the
Interstate and Primary Road Improvement Plans, which normally accompany the Secondary Road
Improvement Plan, will be coming forward later than usual because VDOT's and the County's time lines
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2740
Minutes of April 6, 2011
were a little different this year. He explained that VDOT needed the Secondary Road Improvement Plan
® done as soon as possible and so the staff has brought this forward. Mr. Bishop said there were not many
changes in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan from the previous time.
Beginning with the Major Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop pointed out the most
notable difference, the addition of Red Bud Road as Ranking #2. He said the primary purpose is to re-
align Red Bud Road to where it would intersect with Snowden Bridge Boulevard, just east or west of the
CSX Railroad tracks. Mr. Bishop explained this would allow the future alignment of the interchange
ramps for northbound I -81, exiting to Route 11, and the ramp northbound from Route I 1 to northbound I-
81. Regarding the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop noted only two projects on the
list, Ridings Mill Road and Woodside Road. He said no new projects were added to the unscheduled list
this year and no projects were able to be moved from the unscheduled to the scheduled list because there
are no funds.
Mr. Bishop noted that the Revenue Sharing Application for this year is upcoming and the
Board of Supervisors was expected to take action at their next meeting. He said the expectation is the
typical $1 million allocation; the recommendation to the Board will be the road improvements in the
vicinity of Valley Mill Road, where it intersects with Eddy Lane, and subsequently, Route 7. A public -
private partnership is being pursued so that State funds can be leveraged without the use of funds from the
County's general fund.
Mr. Bishop said the Transportation Committee did not have a quorum when this was
considered; however, it was the consensus of those present that the recommendation be for approval of
the Secondary Road Improvement Plan.
Commissioner Thomas had questions concerning the funding for Red Bud Road under
the Major Road Improvement Projects. Mr. Bishop commented that the funds do not actually exist at this
time; he noted this is simply a forecasting document and as the funds come in on an annual basis, the
amount noted is what is foreseen to be available and targeted towards the project.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 through 2017 in
Frederick County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2012. All projects
in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for federal funds will be included in the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which documents how Virginia will obligate
federal transportation funds.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2741
Minutes of April 6, 2011
ME
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165,
® ZONING, ARTICLE IV, AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PART 401, RA
(RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT, SECTION 165- 401.07, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; AND
CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 144 -35, PRELIMINARY
SKETCHES. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL AREAS REQUIREMENTS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS MADE IN 2009.
Action — Recommended Approval
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that in December of 2009, Frederick
County adopted a number of changes to the zoning and subdivision ordinances to implement the Rural
Areas Study. Mr. Lawrence stated that in recent months, it was recognized there were two minor
corrections that were needed for consistency within the zoning and subdivision ordinances.
Mr. Lawrence said the first proposed change, to Section 165- 401.07 Setback
Requirements, is necessary to clarify that setback requirements apply to all lots in the RA (Rural Areas)
Zoning District (conforming or non - conforming in lot size) and the second change, to Section 144 -35
Preliminary Sketches, is to eliminate a reference to 40% preservation tracts in the subdivision ordinance.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public comment portion of the hearing and called for
citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously
• passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV,
Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165- 401.07, Setback
Requirements; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article VI, Section 144 -35, Preliminary Sketches.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165,
ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDMENTS; AND, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS, PART 102, AMENDMENTS, SECTION 165- 102.06, CONDITIONAL
REZONING. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO REVISE THE PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFFERS.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that staff had been informed that a change
to the zoning ordinance is appropriate to enable a new State Code provision in regards to proffer
revisions. Mr. Lawrence said the Code of Virginia contains enabling legislation that allows the Board of
Supervisors to waive the public hearing requirement for proffer revisions when the proposed revision
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2742
Minutes of April 6, 2011
mom
does not affect conditions of use or density. He said after conferring with the County Attorney, the staff
• is proposing that language be included within the County Code which is consistent with the State
provisions. Therefore, if there is a request for a proffer amendment and it is deemed appropriate,
specifically the proffer amendment does not affect the density or use of the project, the requestor will not
have to go through the general 60 -day public hearing process.
Mr. Lawrence noted that this item was presented to the Development Review &
Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on January 7, 2011. He said the DRRC endorsed the
changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Thomas inquired who would make the determination of whether or not the
proffer amendment would affect the density or use of the project. Mr. Lawrence replied it would be
determined by the Zoning Administrator, but the Planning Commission would be made aware of the
activity.
Commissioner Mohn believed this could be especially beneficial because there were
numerous scenarios where proffers were date - oriented or date - committed and given the recent economic
conditions where, despite the developer's or property owner's willingness to carry through, things have
not gone according to plan. Commissioner Mohn said it would make sense to deal with the matter in a
quasi - administrative way. He believed this was a good approach.
Commissioner Oates said he could see where there would be benefits; however, one
concern he had was if the proffer revision would affect an adjoining neighbor in some way, such as
eliminating a screen between adjoining properties. Commissioner Oates suggested the language within
the proposed ordinance be tightened up a bit to allow only proffer revisions dealing with public
• properties.
Mr. Lawrence replied that the staff was enabled to tighten the language; however, from a
staff perspective, they would not process someone without a public hearing if it was going to impact an
adjacent property owner. He noted that staff will work on tightening the language. Mr! Lawrence said he
would forward the Commission's comments on to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
OTHER
Written Communications Submitted During the Public Hearing Regarding the Update of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Chairman Wilmot noted that written communications were handed out to the Planning
Commission during the public comments portion of the Comprehensive Policy Public Hearing. She said
these people did not come forward to speak. The correspondence was from George E. Siekkinen, Jr. and
two from Thomas Moore Lawson of Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime & Stone.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to add the correspondence to the official file and record.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
40
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2743
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-10-
1J
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion made by Commissioner
Kriz and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
•
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2744
Minutes of April 6, 2011
I
R e spectfully submitted,