PC_11-06-02_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 November 6, 2002.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District: Roger L. "Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; George .1. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt,
Back Creek District: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; PatGochenour, Red Bud District Marie F. Straub,
Red Bud District: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District: William C.
Rosenberry, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Jay
Cook. Lesal Counsel.
ABSENT: Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City
Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy planning
Director, Abbe S. Kennedy Senior planner, and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
40
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 2002
Upon motion madeby Commissioner Krizand seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes
of October 16, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 10/24/02 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed woodlands and landscaping
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6. 2002 page 953
-2-
regulations. He said that more discussion is needed before it is presented to the Commission.
•
Transportation Committtee - 11/05/02 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee recommended approval of
three truck traffic restrictions on sections of Warrior Drive (Rt. 719), sections of [Zest Church Road (Rt. 669),
and sections of Charles Town Road.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Commissioner GochellOUr stated that the HRAB has not met for several months and this
concerns her; she believed the HRAB should meet more often.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 11/01/02 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that new bylaws were discussed for the EDC. He also
reported that the EDC heard a presentation from the Shenandoah Valley Watershed Initiative (SV W I), which
includes the Counties of Augusta, Clarke, Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Warren, and the Cities
of Harrisonburg, Staunton, Waynesboro, and W inchester. ComntissionerThomas said the SV W I is conducting
a study on this region, which has experienced significant growth in the last 20 years, by identifying problems
and threats to the Potomac River and its watershed. Ile said the top threats to the water quality and the river
itself were identified; one threat was agricultural runoff, but the primary threat came from failing septic
systems. He said the study group is seeking ways to get people off septic systems and onto public treatment
systems. ConunissioilerThomas added that the study will continue over the next several months; he will share
the final report with the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #12 -02 of Shared Towers, Inc. /Cross Junction Tower, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for a time extension to a previously- approved condition associated with CUP #18-01. This
property is located near the intersection of Collinsville Road and Cross Junction Road, approximately
290 feet from North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N), and is identified with Property Identification Number
18 -A -38 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 954
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that this conditional use permit (CUP) and the
following CUP are similar in nature in that they both revisit CUPS the County issued earlier this year,
specifically, becauscofacondition requiring the telecommunications tower to be erected within 12monthsof
the approval ofthe CUP. Director Lawrence stated that the applicant has requested a 12 -month extension to
that condition.
Director Lawrence proceeded to review the background i nformation on both ofthe tower CU Ps
for the Commission. He recalled for the Commission that in late 2001 and early 2002, a number ol'CUP
applications for towers along the Rt. 522 corridor were received; four were presented on behalf of Shared
Towers, Inc., this evening' s applicant, and three were presented by Triton, PCS. He explained that the Triton,
PCS applications were deferred pending the outcome of the Shared Towers' CUP applications. In addition,
he noted that the Planning Staff received a letter last week from Triton, PCS withdrawing their three CUP
applications. Director Lawrence stated that, at this point in time, there are no competing towers along the Rt.
522 corridor.
Director Lawrence continued, stating that both of the Shared Towers' CUP applications
presented for review this evening will need to be essentially reaffirmed and this will start the 12 -month clock
over again. lie added that no other changes have occurred along the Rt. 522 corridor as far as
telecommunication services, therefore, the staff believed there was stiI I a demand in that area for service to be
provided.
Commissioner Morris recalled an ordinance change, regardingan engineering requirement for
cert ification of collapse and collateral damage, that was enacted after the Shared Towers CUPS were approved.
Commissioner Morris inquired if the applicant would be required to meet this requirement at the time of
construction. Director Lawrence stated that these app] ications were the catalyst for that amendment and both
had included statements from the towers engineer, therefore, the applicant has indirectly satisfied the
requirements that are on the books. Director Lawrence added that an additional condition could be placed on
the CUP, if the extension is recommended for approval.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greemvay Engineering, representing Shared Towers, Inc., stated that
the County decided that Rt. 522 is a corridor that needs service and CUPS have been approved. He said the
applicant immediately followed up on those approvals by submitting site plans for all four tower sites, all of
which were approved. Mr. Wyatt said a building permit has been issued for one site, Hunting Ridge, and the
tower is under construction. Mr. Wyatt stated that due to a down -turn in the economy which has affected the
telecomnumicationsindustry, theapplicantisrequestinganextensionofthetime frametodevelop. He noted
that tower heights and locations remain the same and, in addition, they have no problems with the Commission
adding an additional condition requiring the engineer's certification.
There were no public comments.
The Commission believed this application for a commercial telecommunications facility was
still valid because a need for the facility, based on a lack ofcoverage and capacih in this part ofthe County,
had still been demonstrated; therefore, the Commission was amenable to granting the applicantan extension
of 12 months to construct the tower with the added condition for submittal ofan engineers certification of
collapse and collateral damage.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 955
-4-
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
• BE IT RESOLVED,'I"hat the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 412 -02 of Shared Towers. Inc. /Cross Junction Tower. submitted by
Greenway Engineering, for a I2 -month time extension to construct the Cross Junction Tower, previously -
approved under CUP # 18 -01. with the following conditions:
I . All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied
with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co- locating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of
abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be
constructed. in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be
contained man areaaround the tower, with a radius equal to or lesserthan the setback, measured from
the center line of the base of the tower.
Cl
Conditional Use Permit #13 -02 of Shared Towers, Inc. /Reynold's Store Tower, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for a time extension toa previously - approved condition associated with CUP #20-01. This
property is located at 8926 North Frederick Pike (Rt.522N) and is identified with Property Identification
Number 11 -A -39 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Chairman Del-laven noted that this is the exact same request as the previous application, but
at a different location. Chairman Del -laven asked if anyone had questions or comments that were not addressed
earlier. No comments or questions were made.
There were no public comments.
The Commission believed this application for a commercial telecommunications facility was
still valid because a need for the facility. based on a lack ofcoverage and capacity in this part ofthe County,
had stiI I been demonstrated; therefore, the Commission was amenable to granting the applicant an extension
of 12 months to construct the tower with the added condition for submittal of an engineer's certification of
collapse and collateral damage.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6. 2002 Page 956
- 5 -
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, Thatthe Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #13-02 of Shared Towers, Inc. /Reynold's Store Tower, submitted by
Greenway Engineering, for a 12 -month time extension to construct the Rcynold's Store rower, previously -
approved under CUP #20 -01, with the following conditions:
I. All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied
with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co- locating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of
abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be
constructed, in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be
contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesserthan the setback, measured from
the center line of the base of the tower.
•
Rezoning #07 -02 of Doris F. Casey (tabled from PC meetings of 7/01/02 & 8/21/02), submitted by
Greenway Engineering, to rezone30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance)
District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike
(Route 522 S.) and Papermill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number
64 -A -23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy updated the Commission on actions that took place at the
Commission's July 1, 2002 and August 21, 2002 meetings. She also updated the Commission on the various
revisions submitted by the applicant since the Commission's August 21 meeting. Planner Kennedy said the
revised application appropriately meets county requirements and has addressed many concerns ofthe Planning
Commission, the public, and the staff. In particular, she pointed out that the applicant meets buffer
requirements along major collector roads and exceeds the zoning code requirements by providing a 50' buffer
along the entire southern property boundary adjacent to the Shenandoah Memorial Park; also included in the
proffer is a six -foot high fence, resembling a traditional iron fence, to be installed along the cemetery and
evergreen trees on 10' centers will be planted along the entire length of the property line; and an emergency
access connection to Rt. 644 ( Papermill Road) has been shown on the general development plan.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 957
6-
Commissioner Gochenour inquired about the difference in the monetary contribution per lot
by the applicant and the net capital facilities impactshown bytheoutput model. Planner Kennedypointedout
thitthis rezoning application was received prior to the July I, 2002 changes in the output model, therefore, the
standard proffers offered with the application were acceptable.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward to represent the Doris F. Casey
rezoning application. Upon recapping the revisions that have taken place with this rezoning since it was
initially submitted, Mr. Wyatt first stated that they eliminated the B I zoning from the original RP and B I
proposal because of the consensus that RP zoning was more fitting for this area. He next talked about tile two
issues associated with the general development plan submitted as a proffer: access on Rt. 522 versus Rt. 644
(Papermill Rd.) and the impact to the Shenandoah Memorial Park cemetery. Mr. Wyatt reiterated again that
Rt. 522 was a four -lane major arterial with an existing centerturn lane and capable ofhandling 10,000 vehicle
trips perday (tpd), whereas Rt. 644 was a two -lane road containing a 40'right -of -way with geometric problems
and capable ofhandling only 6,500 vehicle tpd. Mr. Wyatt believed Rt. 522 was the better road and was where
the primary access should be, with the emergency access on Papermill Rd. He said that because they were
able to provide the emergency access on Papermill, the connection to Westwood Drive was eliminated,
removing the proffered improvements to Westwood Drive. He said the current proposal does two things: it
eliminatestheconnection to Westwood Driveand secondly, it provides emergency access off ofPapermiII Road
for public safety. Regarding the second issue concerning the impact to the Shenandoah Memorial Park
cemetery, Mr. Wyatt said that they would provide a wrought iron -type fence along the property line with a 50'
buffer and a 10' planting scheme. He noted that the first 25' of buffer from the memorial park towards the
homes is solely the fence and trees and the remaining 25' is distance.
Mr. W vatt next talked about the South Frederick Land Use Plan road improvements, described
in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the Winchester Area Transportation Study(W ATS) and how
their proposal tit in with the overall future road improvements planned for this area.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Wyatt for his opinion on what was in store for Westwood
Drive in the future, when the adjacent properties start to develop and other transportation links begin to come
to fruition. Mr. Wyatt described the scenario he thought would take place and the reasons he believed
connectivity should be encouraged for the overall well -being of the transportation system.
Commissioner Light commented that the general ized development plan does not show a right -in
turn access lane on Rt. 522. Mr. Wyatt said they have met with V DOT and are fairly confident a right -turn
lane is needed and will be provided. However, because they cannot mandate manipulation of V DOT's road
system, the terminology of the proffer needs to be such that the turn lane will not be built if. for some reason.
VDOT decides they don't want the turn lane.
Commissioner Fisher asked for the estimated time frame for build -out of the proposed 70
homes. Mr. Wyatt estimated a three -to -four -year window.
Commissioner Rosenberry was opposed to increased residential development because ofthe
timing andint pactstowateravailability, thetransportationsystem .andschools. He also thought the impacts
on Papermill Road were going to be the same, whether traffic comes out directly onto Papermill or if it exited
on Rt. 522 and entered back onto Papermill. Commissioner Rosenberry requested that the app icant consider
constructing additional access /turn lanes on Rt. 522 for merging vehicles and traffic entering the proposed
development. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired as to who was the impetus behind the idea that there should
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 958
7-
be no through road to Papermill; he inquired whether it was Greenway, the developer, or VDCf. Mr. Wyatt
replied that the revised V DOT comment stated that V DOT concurs with the approach and the proffer; he said
the designers and V DOT believe that having two access points is probably not a good idea. Mr. Wyatt also
believed that left turns out ofthedevelopmentwould notbe problematic. Commissioner Rosen berry asked Mr.
Wyatt if he was correct in stating that VDOT supports the "applicant's initiative' not to have a through road.
Mr. Rosenberry was of the opinion that the issue of not using Papermill Road (Rt. 644) as an access was not
a safety issue. but that the developer did not want to incur the extra cost for improvements to the road.
Mr. Jerry Copp. VDOT's resident engineer. came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. There were a number of questions for Mr. Copp from the Commissioners regarding the
possibility of using Papermill Road (Rt. 644) as an access road. Commissioner Triplett then raised the
question to Mr. Copp that, as far as safety was concerned, did Mr. Copp concur that the transportation design
presented was one of the best for this part icuIarproperty. Mr. Copp replied that VDO "fwas very satisfied with
the design and with the entrance on Rt. 522. Mr. Copp added that when a developer makes a connection to one
of V DOT's roads, V DOT will tell the developer what they need to do, such as turn lanes, in order to meet the
safety requirements.
Chairman Del -laven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Ann Cross, a guidance counselor at James Wood Middle School and an area resident,
came forward to address the issue ofschools. Ms. Cross spoke aboutthe overcrowding that is currently taking
place at James Wood Middle School. She was concerned about how many middle school students would be
generated by the proposed development.
Ms. Barbara Midkiff, a residentalong Westwood Drive, inquired whata "temporary"cut -de-
sac was and why the applicant had proposed one next to Westwood Drive. Ms. Midkiff said she has been
doing considerable research ofCounty records, but has failed to determine when the adjoining Swisher property
waszonedresidential. She said the residents of Westwood Drive were still in opposition tothe Casey rezoning
because it would disturb their way of life.
Ms. Brenda Dodd, a resident along Westwood Drive, spoke aboutthe traffic congestion she
experiences in this area. She was concerned about the additional traffic from the proposed subdivision, plus
the impact of bus traffic from a proposed new middle school, mixing in with the existing traffic congestion. She
did not believe it was a workable situation.
Mr. Bob Van, an ad joining property owner, also was concerned about the possibility of adding
tothe existing traffic congestion problems. He described the area along Rt. 522, in the vicinity ofthe proposed
Subdivision's entrance, Joe's Ocean Cove, and his driveway as being dangerous. Mr. Van said that everyone
also has to con tend withtractor- trailertraflic. Mr. Van believed an entrance /exit on Papermill Road (Rt. 644)
was the way to go. Mr. Van also believed it was bad timing for this subdivision because it put extra burden
on the taxpayers and the water supply. He believed the whole plan was not a good one.
Mr. Michael Brooks, a resident along Westwood Drive, reminded the Commission aboutthe
petition that was submitted at the last meeting with over 260 signatures of persons who were in opposition to
the proposed subdivision. Mr. Brooks said the traffic in this area was really getting bad.
n
U
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 959
m
Mr. John W ineberg. the Regional Director of Construction and Development for Shenandoah
Memorial Park, asked for additional details on the buffer, ineIuding thefence, and Iandscaping, and how it was
going to be maintained.
Ms. Barbara Midkiff returned to the podium to ask who is responsible for the monetary
difference between whatthe appl icant wi I I pay per lot and the amount designated by the capital facilities impact
model.
Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the concerns of the citizens who spoke.
Regarding the number of middle school -age children, Mr. Wyatt calculated .14 middle school students per
dwelling; he projected the total number of middle school -age children at build out to be ten. Regarding the
temporary cul -de -sac, Mr. Wyatt stated its purpose would be for VDOT's equipment and school buses to be
able to turn - around. In addition, he said that if the Swisher property develops, the cul -de -sac would be
extended through to Westwood Drive. Regarding the initial zoningofthe property, Mr. Wyatt said that historic
zoning maps for Frederick County show a portion of the Swisher property as being zoned R I; he noted that
in 1981 the RP Zoning classification replaced the R I, R1 R3, and R6 Zones. He also noted that according
to the Frederick County Code, the official zoning map is maintained by the Planning Department. Regarding
traffic, Mr. Wyatt believed that what they've provided is the appropriate transportation design, not only for
the internal workings ofthe property, but for the regional transportation system as well. Regard ingthe water
situation, Mr. Wyatt stated that comments from the Sanitation Authority indicates there is adequate source,
treatment, capacity, and transmission. In conclusion, he stated that the proffers are consistent with the
applications submitted up to July 1,2002.
Commissioner Morris said that both of his concerns, appeasingthc residents along Westwood
Drive and an emergency access point, have been addressed bytherevisions. Commissioner Morristhen moved
for approval. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
Although the majorityol believed the outstanding issues had been satisfactorily
addressed, some Commissioners still had issues with the timing of the proposal and its possible contribution
to the overcrowding of schools, increased property taxes, drainage problems on Westwood Drive, water
pressure problems, and concerns for available water capacity to serve the proposed development. Also
mentioned was the existing traffic congestion problems at Routes 50, 522, and 1 -81: it was noted that V DOT's
projected time table for correction ofthe problem was four -to -five years. In addition, it was mentioned that
V DOT's design capacities on Rt. 522 have already been exceeded to the Year 2010.
BL' IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application 907 -02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Grecnway Engineering to rezone 30.31 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, bythe following majority vote:
YES (TO THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL I : Triplett Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt,
DcHaven
NO: Rosenberry, Fisher, GocheaOUr, Straub
r�
U
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 960
9-
•
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DISCUSSION ON RUSSELL FARM SWSA/UDA EXPANSION REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS
LOCATED EAST OF FRONT ROYAL PIKE (RT. 522 SO.) NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH
PAPERMILL ROAD (RT. 644).
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated thatthe Planning Staff has received a request from
Mr. Mark Smith ofGreemvay Engineering forthe Planning Commission to consider incorporating the entire
Russell Farm within the Sewerand Water Service Area (SWSA) and a small portion ofthe farm intothe Urban
Development Area (UDA). Director Lawrence said that approximately 149 acres of the 277 -acre farm is
presently within the SWSA: the request would include an addition of 128 acres to the SWSA. He said the
request would also include the addition of Tess than six acres to the UDA. He said the School Board has been
considering this property for a future middle school site and this is the catalyst behind the request.
Planning Director Lawrence stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
(CPPS) reviewed this request, not in terms of whether it was appropriate fora middle school site, but whether
or not it was appropriate to expand the SWSA at this location. He said the CPPS concluded that the request
was appropriate.
Director Lawrence further stated that the Russell Fann does not have direct access onto a state
road and the applicant has proposed to take a collector road system along the southern edge of the adjacent
• MI- Il property (Shenandoah Mobile Home Park)to provide accesstothe school site and the Russell properties
overall. He said the owner ofthe mobile home park has indicated the road would displace 15 mobile home
units, therefore, it is his intent to relocate the 15 units to an expanded portion of the mobile home park; the
UDA expansion is being sought in an effort to accommodate an MI -I I rezoning petition that would ultimately
be filed with the County.
Mr. MarkSmith ofGreenway Engineeringcame forward to speak, representing the application
as a part -owner of the Russell Farm and owner of the mobile home park. Mr. Smith pointed out on a map
where the sewer and water line would probably have to be run. He also stated that he wanted to move the 15
mobile home units in order to create an 80' right -of -way and an 80' buffer along the road that screens the
mobile home park. In response to a Commission member's question as to why the proposed school site was
so far away from the access, Mr. Smith replied that it was because ofthe topography; he said that two ravines
are in the area adjacent to the access.
The Planning Commission concurred with the CPPS' concern that the potential use ofthe site
fora middle school should not be part ofthe consideration as to whetheror not to expand the SWSA boundary.
The Commission did feel that the request to expand the SWSA to include the entire farm in the service area
may be in good planning practice, and consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Coal in
did caution that expansion ofthe SWSA may result in industrial rezoning applications and /or homes developed
on RA zoned property with public water and sewer. The potential use of the property, whether for residential
or non - residential use, would increase the water demands on the county's services.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6. 2002 Page 961
M
The Commission recognized the necessity to implementtheplanned road network identified
by various countydocuments. Therefore, the Commission was supportive in concept to the proposal to relocate
existing mobile homes that would be impacted by the planned collector road. The UDA could be expanded to
accommodate the relocation of the displaced mobile home units.
The Commission did suggest that if the driving force behind the SWSA expansion was to
accommodate a school site on public water and sewer, it might be appropriate fortheCounty to grant privileges
only to enable the school site rights to the publ is water and sewer. Granting the rights to the school site may
not necessitate a SWSA expansion.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak.
Chairman DeHaven announced that this request would go to the Board of Supervisors for discussion at their
November 13, 2002 meeting.
OTHER
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Commissioner "Thomas stated that, frequently,when the Commission reviews applications for
residential development, there is discussion on the impactto schools. Commissioner Thomas said he was not
necessarily convinced thatthe numberofhomes builthad a direct relationship to an increase in the numberof
students attending school. He asked if it would be possible for the staff to research, for example, the last 20
years, to arrive at statistics that would link population growth to the number of building permits issued for
residential housing to the number of students in schools. He said that a growth line for the number of
residential housing permits, the County population, and the population ofstudents in school would be helpful.
Director Lawrence said the School Board may already have that information available and he
would look into it. Commissioner Thomas said that homes constructed in rural areas on five -acre lots do not
pay any dollar amounts as proffers; he said that 50% of the County's development takes place in these areas.
Commissioner Lightbelieved itwould begood to have a representative ofthe School Board
attend Planning Commission meetines when rezoning requests were discussed. He believed the detailed
information that was needed should come from the School Board.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 962
• ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a
unanimous vote.
su bin itted,
Eric jk. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeFlaven, Jr.. Chairman
L_J
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 963