PC_03-03-76_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
® Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, *larch 3, 1976.
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback; Vice Chairman;
Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger;
Elmer Venskoske; Keith Williams
NONE ABSENT
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business.
MEETING MINUTES Submitted - February 4, 1976
A ction - Approved as Written
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by
the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby dispense with the Reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of February 4, 1976.
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby approve as written the Minutes of the Meeting of February 4, 1976 .
with no corrections or changes.
JOINT MEETING with the Board of Supervisors
Scheduled March.17, 1996
The Commission discussed the proposed joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors
scheduled for March 17, 1976.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
is in agreement with the scheduling of the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors
for the County of Frederick, Virginia on March 17, 1976.
The Commission discussed whether or not to plan,a restricted agenda for its meeting
in the afternoon of March 17, 1976 and the CHAIRMAN DIRECTED Mr. Berg to use his judgment
• for the makeup of the said agenda.
ROUTE 681 (Dept. of Hwys. S Transportation Proj.
No. 0681- 034 -148, C501)
Discussed Status
(PC 03/03/76) P. 2
Mr. Berg stated that the Department of Highways and Transportation is seeking
some input from a governing body of these two projects (including Route 696, Project
• No. 0696 - 034 -149, M501) and that it will be several years before their completion. He
opined that it would be difficult to answer their inquiry on Route 681 because the county
has no transportation plan. He also stated that there is indeed opposition, even though
it is not "organized ", as such. Mr. Berg quoted:
"The Department of Highways and Transportation is considering the environmental impact
of the above cited project located northeast of Gainesboro in Frederick County:'
The project is described as beginning 0.053 mile north of the intersection of Route 805
and ending 0.0845 mile north of the Route 805 intersection. The proposal follows the
existing road for the first 0.1 mile at which point the present road curves to the left.
At that point the proposed facility continues on a straighter alignment crossing Back
Creek approximately 475 feet to the east of the existing bridge. It follows the existing
road for - a short distance to the location of a sharp curve to the right. At that point
our proposal continues on an improved alignment, tying back into the existing road near
the end of the project.
A new bridge, approximately 80 feet in length, is proposed over Back Creek. The project
ends just short of the Isaac's Creek bridge.
The proposed road is to have 20' hard surfaced pavement. A right of way width of approxi-
mately 70' width will be required to construct this project with additional to be acquired
as needed, to accommodate cut and fill slopes.
To assist us in our evaluation, we would appreciate your comments on the following:
• 1. Has there'been any organized opposition?
2. Does it disrupt a community or its planned development?
3. Is it consistent with community goals, such as proposed land use?
4. Will this project be compatible with your county planning?
Enclosed is a map showing the location of the project. If you need additional informa-
tion, please call me at 703 - 885 -6225 (Regular Number) or 386 -2218 (Scats Number).
/s/ A. R. Cline, District Environmental Coordinator
Department of Highways and Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia"
(Letter addressed to Mr. H. Ronald Berg, County Planning Director, dated January 5, 1976.
Route.681, Project 0681- 034 -148, C501, Frederick County.)
The CHAIRMAN directed Mr. Berg to answer forementioned and quoted letter of January
5, 1976 stating that there is opposition even though not organized.
ROUTE 696 (Dept. of Highways & Transportation Project
No. 0696 - 034 -149, 501)
Action - Send Letter requesting more information
Mr. Berg quoted:
"We are evaluating the environmental impact for the improvement of Route 696 located
in the northwestern corner of Frederick County.
• The project is described as beginning 0.069 mile north of the intersection of Route 522
and ending at the I -lest Virginia State Line. The project incorporates the existing right
of way except at the last curve next to the West Virginia Line. At this location the
proposed facility will be relocated to the inside of the existing sharp curve. The length,
of this relocated section is to be approximately 350 feet. Otherwise, the project gener-
ally follows the existing alignment smoothing out some of the existing horizontal and
vertical curves. The proposed road is to have a 20 foot hard surfaced pavement and is to
(PC 03/03/76) P. 3
be constructed on a basic 50 foot right of way.
We would like to request your comments on the following to assist us in our evaluation:
1. Hza there been any organized opposition to this project?
• 2. Does it disrupt a community or its planned development?
3. Is it consistent with community goals, such as proposed land use?
4. Is it anticipated this project will be endorsed by the Board of Supervisors?
5. What is the zoning, present and proposed, for this area?
Enclosed is a map showing the location of the project. If you need additional infor-
mati.on......
/s/ A. R. Cline, District Environmental Coordinator
Department of Highways and Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia"
.(Letter of January 28, 1976 addressed to Mr.,J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
Project 0696 - 034 -149, M501, Frederick County
From: 0.069 Mi. N. Int. Route 522 -- To: West Virginia State Line)
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved
i
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby direct the secretary of said Commission to send a letter inquiring of the
Department of Highways and Transportation the reason for selection of Route 696, Project
No. 0696- 034- 149,M501, Frederick County from 0.069 Mi. N. Int. Route 522 to West Virginia
State Line; what is the traffic count; and more detailed information.
BRUMBACK'COMMITTEE
® Reported & Submitted an amendment draft of
b 4 -20, Division of Land Ordinance (Subdivision Ord.)
adopted February 13, 1974.
Action -- To be further discussed at Joint Meeting
Mr. Berg quoted from subject draft:
4 -20. ACCESS and EGRESS ..... When making such an exception the Administrator shall
consider, among other things, the amount of vehicular traffic on the highway, sight dis-
tances, distance from intersections and the location of the driveways to serve the lots."
The Commission discussed coordination of terminology with the Department of Highways
and Transportation, and what impact this would have on public utilities (water and sewer
service) as well as strip development control.
It was the CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION: to "hold' further discussion until the Joint
Meeting with the Board of Supervisors that is scheduled for March 17, 1976.
GOLLADAY:COMMITTEE
Progress,Report Submitted
• Action -- Accepted by Planning Commission
(PC 03/03/76) P. 4
Mf. Berg stated that he had researched various ordinances and found that most of
them did not define restaurant (under detailed use) and many did not mention dancehall.
j
• He suggested that B -2 zone could be revised to include:
i
(a) Private clubs and lodges
(b) Public billiard parlors and pool rooms ... in the public interest
(c) Bowling alleys and skating rinks
(d), Cocktail lounges and nightclubs
(01/30/76 memorandum to James Golladay, Jr. & Frank Brumback from H. Ronald Berg)
i
Mr. Berg continued with the question of importance being: is a restaurant with
dancing something else, or is it still a restaurant, or an altered restaurant? He
suggested, also, that a Conditional Use Permit is overworked as presently used in this
capacity. He further suggested that an ABC license makes a definite difference; that
is the crux of the problem. He then mentioned that some.restaurants and some B -2 zoning
in the county are inappropriately designated; -- should not be adjacent to single - family
subdivisions. He emphasized that perhaps nothing should be further changed until
Land Use Plan is completed so that it could all be brought into line.
The above comments and suggestions by Mr. Berg were discussed by the Planning
• .Commission.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and
approved by the following vote`. Williams;!DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
i
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby accept the Golladay Committee submittal and comments to be used as a Progress
Report.
LFPDC FISCAL (1976 -77) YEAR WORK SCHEDULE (OPD)
Action -- 'Secretarv's Recommendation accepted
Mr. Berg stated that he had received a 'request from Mr. R. E. Duncan ( LFPDC) for
the Planning Commission's request of local planning assistance in the fiscal year of
1976 -77: economic base analysis, housing plan, capital facilities, transportation plan,
and recreation plan.
He suggested that the Planning District: might do the economic base analysis, trans-
i
portation plan, recreation plan (already formulated by the Recreation Commission and only
i
needs updating); and the staff do the Housing Plan and Capital Facilities Plan toward
C'
f (PC 03/03/76) I 5
Completing the Comprehensive Plan, under the Commission's direction. He said that only
i
I certain number of man -days per county are available.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Keith Williams and approved by the
following vote: Williams; D Gollada
Rosenberger; Y, Jr.; Venskoske;
Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
accepts the secretary's recommendatio 7 s for the Lord Fairfax Planning District's Fiscal
Year is 77) work schedule (OPD)
direction, -- the staff to complete, under the Commission's
lete
the Housing Plan and Capi.tal Facilities Plan toward completion of the Compre-
j hensive Plan.
PUBLIC HEAKINGS
ry 1 Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 009 -76 of EDWIN G.
Road, Silver Springs, Maryland hereby request that C. and PHYLL I S more or
SIMMONS, 9902 Rogant
the North side of Route 50 opposite intersection with less, located on
rezoned: Residential, Limited
tural, Limited (A -1) be r Route 803 West, now zoned Agricul-
as 52- (A) -17 on tax map 52 and is in Gainesboro Magisterial) District. (Le is designated'
Contract Purchaser)
(Leon B. Zeiger,
1
3 Action -- Recommended Denial
Mr. Leon B. Zeiger appeared before the Commission and maintained that his request
was for a simple application that would remove an ugly g y sight -- presenting pictures to
the Commission that he stated were taken that morning of an area visible from Route 50.
He claimed the intention of developing homes for low- or middle-income
families
that is presently unused for farmland or otherwise. H s
Ile stated that hisonhad on land
UP a letter. from the Health Department that made no real co Picked
comment; only philosophical
scientific expression of an opinion of central water and sewer versus individual wells
and septic systems. He
stated that some wells and septic
across systems exist immediately
the road from the proposal and that the Health Department had just granted permits
for septic systems behind the proposal. Mr. Zeiger stated his objections to the initia-
tion of the county government's procedure of requiring Health Department approval because
it gives the county two (2) shots at a developer like
P himself, which he didn't mind in
this case, . but this shot was an ambush without sufficient preparation time for a reply.
Mr. Zeiger stated that in November he had engaged the services of a soil sci
Mr. Kane, whom he understood had developed the county' entist,
s original soils map; and that his
report showed that seventy percent (70 %) of the land
Perked -- then distributed
report said
to the Commission for examination -- while further stating that the said report
(PC 03/03/76) P. 6
is not yet even completed. He emphasized his intention of compliance with the subdivi-
sion application requirements, but he objected to a developer or investor being requested
® to submit information that can cost $3000 to $5000 in answer to Health Department's re-
quirements without his having been granted a zoning change. He further contended that,
if a developer's plans were aborted at this stage, it would be aborting his plans prema-
turely. He stated, also, that he would even be willing to put it in writing that he
will engage the services of the same eminent soil scientist for selection of drainfields
for each particular lot for submittal to the Health Department.
Mr. John Kane appeared before the Commission and stated that sixteen (16) represen-
tative holes, plus more holes, were dug and evaluated. He also stated that approximately
thirty percent (30 %) of the proposal's area showed shallowness, drainage areas, etc.
Mr. Zeiger stated that he would, at a later time, engage Mr. Kane to analyze the
individual lots and noted that he had already spent $3000 on an approximate analysis of
the property.
Mr. Williams quoted the following:
® This office is in receipt of a survey boundary plat, containing 39.11 acres, for which
you have filed for rezoning with the Frederick County Planning Commission.
As you propose to subdivide this land into 30 lots of approximately 1 acre each, the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development has requested comments on the
proposal from the Frederick County Health Department.
In view of the number of houses on lots this size, the concentration of sewage in
the developed area will be great, if septic tanks and drainfields are used as the means
of waste disposal. This concentration of sewage could also affect the ground water supplies,
if individual wells are used as the supply source. In view of these considerations, this
office requests that you employ the services of a professional engineer, and pursue the
possibilities of installing a central water and sewer system to serve your proposed
development.
If you are unable to install central water and sewer systems to serve this proposed
development, then as our staff is limited, it would be necessary for you to submit more
information for our consideration. First of all, a much more detailed map of the property.
This map would also include boundaries of soil types (with profiles), alluvial and col].uvial.
areas, streams and drainageways, degree of slope, contours, rock outcrops, and depth of
bedrock if applicable. A primary and alternate drainfield site should also be located on
each lot by the soil scientist. Also, proposed well locations are to be noted for our
information and consideration.
In closing, if you are unable to install a central water and sewer system to serve your
proposed development, this office will be glad to consider individual wells and drainfield
systems to serve these proposed homes, based on the information requested above."
• {Addressed to Mr. Leon Zeiger, 2801 38th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20015 --
through William H. Hatfield, M.D., Director, Lord Fairfax Health District --
dated February 26, 1976 -- cc: Ron Berg, Frederick County Planning Commission
/s/ E. D. Millar, Sanitarian Supervisor -- /s/ H. L. Sluder, R.S., Sanitarian --
Frederick- Winchester Health Department -- EDP[ /HLS /UHH /ra)
(PC 03/03/76) P. 7
Mr. Williams explained that the Health Department had made the Policv d-^_ciston of
which Mr. Zeiger had so objected and a discussion followed between Mr. Ze:iger and the
Commission on this subject.
The Chairman stated that the Commission has a policy against giving blanket endorse-
ments and he asked Mr. Zeiger for his planned timetable for development.
Mr. Zeiger emphasized that the Health Department had been too busy when his son
had contacted them and the Chairman emphasized that Mr. Zeiger needed to meet with the
Health Department at the site.
Mr. DeHaven expressed concern that Mr. Zeiger will continue developing in baits and
pieces even more property in that area, but Mr. Zeiger maintained that there is no more
property available for purchase. Mr. Zeiger insisted that, if the Health Department
had truly objected to individual septic and wells, they would not have stated the last
paragraph as such. He, Mr. Zeiger, stated that the proposal meets the 40,000 square
feet zoning requirement.
Mr. Zeiger pointed out his willingness, to put in writing "subject to Health Depart-
ment approval" if so required.
Mr. Rosenberger stated his opinion that the Commission should not make a recommen-
dation until it receives all the facts including contours, what is required by the
Health Department, etc.
Opposition
Mr. Eli Garber appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that his land
borders Mr. Zeiger's property on two (2) sides. He stated that if the road is built as
shown, Mr. Garrett (who lives on the property in front) and Mr. Hensley (who owns in
between there) would be facing the back yards of the development.
He stated that he did not think it would perk because the land is mostly pine; his
objection to the fact that he may eventually end up landlocked, even though he presently
has a right -of -way on Dix Hollow Road; and his belief that the soil is not suitable for
0 septic systems on one (1)- acre lots.
Rebuttal
Mr. Zeiger stated that the perk test question would eventually be resolved by
professionals. �'
(PC 03/03/76) P. 3
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by the
following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
1;,; IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of the Zoning Map Amendment
Petition No. 009 -76 of EDWIN G. and PHYLLIS S. SIMMONS, 9902 Rogant Road, Silver Springs,
Maryland of 39.11 acres, more or less, located on the North side of Route 50 opposite
intersection with Route 803 West,,now zoned Agricultural, Limited (A -1) to Residential,
Limited (R -1), designated as 52- (A) -17 on tax map 52, in Gainesboro Magisterial District,
with Mr. Leon B. Zeiger as contract purchaser.
'Upon questioning by Mr. Zeiger, the Chairman stated that he, Mr. Zeiger, may: go
before the Board of Supervisors; obtain the information as requested by the Health Depart-
ment (obtain the septic system information, etc.); and /or meet informally with the Depart-
meat of Planning and Development.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued . .
Zoning. Map Amendment Petition No. 010 -76 of DAVID R. and MARGARET V. SOPER, Route 4,
Box 259, Winchester, Virginia hereby request that 1.558 acres, more or less, located on
the Sbuth side of Route 50, approximately 2/10 mile West of intersection with Route 654,
now zoned Agricultural, General (A -2) be rezoned: Business - General (B -2). This parcel
is designed as 52- (A) -92 on tax map 52 and is in Back Creek Magisterial District.
• Action -- Recommended. Approval
Mr. .Berg stated that 1.558 acres had 307.84 foot frontage and 150 foot depth. He
gave the Commission a plat of the proposal for examination.
Mr. David R. Soper, an electrical contractor, appeared before the Commission on his
own behalf and stated that he had purchased said property approximately three (3) years
ago. 11e said that he had appeared on someone else's behalf a year -or -so later, but he
could not, at that time, afford to have his property rezoned.
Mr. Soper stated that he had been operating a contracting business from old sheds
on this property and had requested the rezoning for the purpose of consolidation -- he
wanted a business with access to new Route 50 instead of old.Route 50. He also stated
that he had constructed a storage building on the property for use as a workshop. He
said that he planned,.as soon as possible, to construct another building of the same size
• for use as a salesroom for tractors, general lawn and garden supply and repair; and would
also include electrical contracting service. He stated that he anticipated no more than
two to four (2 -4) people would actually be employed on the premises.
(PC 03/03/76) P. 9
The Commission discussed with Mr. Soper the surrounding properties' present zoning.
Mr. Berg stated that the Andrews' property is zoned B -1 and that the property East
• of Ptr. Soper is zoned A -2, with a non - conforming use.
Mr. Rosenberger stated that he was familiar with the property and Mr. Soper, and that
he considered the request a decent one which wasn't out of line in any way.
Mr. Brumback stated objection to noise disturbance that can be created by chain saws.
Mr. DeHaven said that he didn't believe Mr. Soper had many neighbors.
Mr. Soper stated that on parcel "B" (seven acres) he had not planned for business
use -- he may keep a cow there and /or garden.
He said that his house had been built in approximately 1880; which he planned to
improve for occupancy by his family so that he would be at the same site as his business.
He elaborated that he does service work for the county and that he only has, at the
present time, one (1) part -time employee.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
® Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to be Board of Supervisors of the Zoning Map Amendment
Petition No. 010 -76 of DAVID R. and MARGARET V. SOPER, Route 4, Box 289, Winchester,
Virginia of 1.558 acres, more or less, located on the South side of Route 50, approxi-
mately 2/10 mile West of intersection with Route 654, from.Agricultural- General (A -2) to
Business- General (B -2), designated as 52- (A) -92 on tax map 52, in Back Creek Magisterial
District.
SUBDIVISIONS
BAKER SUBDIVISION / 2 lots / Gainesboro District / R -1 Zoning / fronting on Route 608 /
Septic tanks and wells / Departments of Health, and Highways and Transportation approved.
Action -- Recommended Approval
The Chairman read the application and Mr. Berg distributed plats to the Commission.
Mr. Berg pointed out that the property had recently been rezoned and detailed for
the Commission's information some of the pertinent zoning history. He said that the Health
Department's approval included a drainage easement; Parcel "A" has a well and sewer at the
present time; and that no recreation impact fee is recommended by the staff because the
• homes are already in existence.
(PC 03/03/76) P. 10
Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved by the
following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
• BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the BAKER SUBDIVISION, two
(2) lots, Gainesboro Magisterial District, R -1 Zoning, fronting on Route 608.
SUBDIVISION Continued . . .
HIMELRIGHT LOTS / 2 lots / Gainesboro District / off Route 654 / Septic tanks and wells /
Departments of Health, and Highways and Transportation approved / nonconforming use, re -:
quiring special approval.
Acti -- Recommended Exceptional Approval
Mr. Berg distributed to the Commission plats of the proposal and brought the Commis-
sion up -to -date on its history -- 41,000 square foot lot upon which Mrs. Himelright has
relatively new brick homes (one each on Lots "A" and "B ") of which she wishes to sell the
home on Lot "B" that fronts a private right -of -way. He stated that both lots are non-
conforming because of their size.
Mr. Berg quoted:
"Under the authority granted by Section 7 -1 Exceptions, the Administrator grants a
• Variance to the requirements of Section 1 -17, and Section r -32 -1 of the Frederick County
Division of Land Ordinance. This Variance is granted because the two (2) existing homes
are built in such a way that it is impossible to meet minimum road requirements and mini-
mum lot sizes; and with the understanding that the right -of -way fronting Lot Two (2) is
not dedicated to Frederick County and will not be state maintained. "*
(final,plat, Himelright Lots, Route 654, Gainesboro Magisterial District, Frederick
County, Virginia, 0.9375 acres, sheet 2, first paragraph)
Mr. Berg stated that the Frederick - Winchester Health Department has approved this
division because it would not make any difference whether or not the land is divided since
the systems are already in existence and repair problems would not be altered.
Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and approved
by the following vote: Williams;. DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors -- with the above ( *) exemp-
tions -- of the HIMELRIGHT LOTS, 2 lots, Gainesboro Magisterial District, off Route 654,
septic tanks and wells.
SUBDIVISIONS Continued . . .
• KENNETH E. JENKINS SUBDIVISION / 2 lots / Gainesboro Magisterial District / off Route 50
Action -- Recommended Exceptional Approval
� S 3
_A
(PC 03/03/76) P. 11
Berg stated that Mr. Jenkins is proposing a laudible, but irregular division
because it is not a very good development style and the Commission should consi.d -_:r the
• thirty -five foot (35') pipestem frontage that Mr. Jenkins would have for his home. He
also stated that Mr. Jenkins proposes conveying tract "A" to Hayfield Church (whi.ch is
nonconforming) and keeping tract "B" (which is a pipestem lot of a style that has formerly
been denied). He said that the plat should show a building restriction line seventy -five
feet (75 back from Route 50 as the building line where the zoning frontage requirements
are measured. He also stated that the Hayfield Church maintains that they have no inten-
tion of building on the conveyed property (tract "A ") and that Mr. Jenkins would have
access of a private right -of -way to his lot (tract "B ") He said that the Health Depart-
ment has no objection to this proposal.
The commission discussed the proposal with the Commonwealth Attorney, Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, and its secretary, H. Ronald Berg -- paying particular attention to the right -of-
way
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved
0 by the following vote
Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of KENNETH E. JENKINS SUBDI-
VISION, two (2) lots, Gainesboro Magisterial District, off Route 50; considering this an
exception due to the pipestem.
Family Variance Exceptions and Inconsistencies
The Commission discussed the existing Zoning Ordinance requirement inconsistencies
between the various districts.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that less than two- hundred feet (200'), or a certain percentage
of right -of -way could be done.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Elner Venskoske and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
` Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
• Virginia does hereby appoint H. Ronald Berg (Commission's secretary) and Lawrence R.
Ambrogi (Commonwealth Attorney) as a committee of two (2) to bring a recommendation to
the Commission for updating A -1 zoning.
V
(PC 03/03/76) P. L_'•
DIVISION OF LAND (Subdivision) ORDINANCE
Action - Advertise for Public Hearing an Amendment
to DELET the last sent
• Nr. Berg read the following to the Co*.mmission:
4 -17. LOCATION: Each lot shall abut a street dedicated by the subdivision plat,
or an existing publicly dedicated street, or part of the highway system. If the exist-
ing streets are not of sufficient width to comply with the Ordinance, the subdivider
shall dedicate enough land to provide a street of sufficient width to conform to the
requirements of this Ordinance, measuring from the center line of said existing street
for one -half (1/2) of total width. This Section shall also apply to Section 8 -2 (a -2)."
(Division of Land Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Frederick County, Virginia,.
adopted February 13, 1974)
Berg commented that the last sentence of above Ordinance Section unfairly hinders
Family Variance applicants because of the right -of -way dedication; and he recommended de-
feting it from said Ordinance Section.
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Keith Williams and approved by the
following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Colladay, Jr; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby direct its secretary to advertise for Public Hearing before said Commission,
and to contact the towns and /or cities whose comments and approval is required (such as
Winchester, Stephens City, and maybe Middletown) for the following:
An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Division of Land Ordinance adopted
February 13, 1974 to AMEND SECTION 4 -17 to delete the sentence 'This Section
shall apply to Section 8 -2 (a -2).'
Article XXV, MH COMMUNITY, DIST. MH -1 was discussed.
Mr. Berg stated that he had had difficulty decising, and read the following excerpt
from his submitted draft:
"§ 25 -2. SETBACK AND BOUNDARY REGULATIONS
A permenent open space, at least thirty -five feet (35') wide, shall be provided
along the property line and shall be maintained in landscaping; no structures
(except signs), no driveway or off - street parking shall be permitted in such area."
Mr. Berg further stated that the above had been the only - change in the draft since
the last time it had been discussed.
Mr. Williams suggested a change be made to the wording of § 25 -3 -6, Open Space and
Recreation Areas so that Items A and B would have the same plural usage of the word
•'lowner.s ", thus being consistent.
h,
—
(PC 03/03/76) P. 13
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Keith Williams and approved
• unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby adjourn its meeting; there being no further business.
THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
if 61'�a gz
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
�i.....
C. Lanjdon Go g Chairman
0
•