PC_05-05-76_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
• Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, May 5, 1976
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger;
Elmer Venskoske
NONE ABSENT
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business.
MEETING MINUTES Submitted — March 3 and 17, 1976
Action - Approved as Written
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved
by the following vote: 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 Meetings of March 3 and 17,
1976.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
• Virginia does hereby Approve as written the Minutes of the Meetings of March 3 and 17,
1976 with no corrections or changes.
JOINT MEETING with the Board of Supervisors
Scheduled Mav 26. 1976 at 7:30 P.M
The Chairman quoted:
"The Frederick County Board of Supervisors,
meeting in
Regular Session
on April 28,
1976; voted to meet jointly with the Frederick
County Planning
Commission
to discuss
the proposed Land. Use Plan on Wednesday, May
26, 1976, at
7:30 P.M. in the
Board of
Supervisors' Meeting Room.
A report from the Land Use Plan Committee,
studying the
minimum acreage
requirement
to be set forth in the Land Use Plan will be
presented at
this meeting.
Please make every effort to attend."
(Me,orandum from J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator
of May 3, 1976
to the
Frederick County Planning Commission)
It was the Commission's consensus that the meeting date, time and place were
agreeable.
CUP # 62 Application, Forest Lake Estates MH Park (VanDyke & Adams)
Opposition Letter from The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.
• Mrs. Laura F. Pifer appeared before the Commission and read the following:
L
(PC 05/05/76) P. 2
\J
•
°'t:he Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc. in its regular monthly meeting on
March 15, 1976 discussed in considerable detail the subject of :ihc proposed 'Trailer
Cc,urt to be located on Route 636 in the Opequon District. The Council was in complete
as:.-e:er.!ent as it strongly expressed its opposition to the proposed project for environ-
mental, ecological, safety and economic reasons which were stated on the 10t�, of March
a;: ;:he public hearing on this subject which was held by the Board of Supervisors.
Also, tb.=_ Council noted at this same public hearing the use of quasi legal evasive
tactics of the councel for the developer in refusing to reveal his development plans.
Trie feel that such behavior is, unfortunately, indicative of the type of action the
County may expect fro1 this developer if he were permitted to proceed without closed
:ebni.torship by all interested parties.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the recent court opinion permits 173 trailer spaces
i- the 123 acres with additional spaces being allowed in that same acreage provided
teat the ordinances in effect in April 1974 are complied with. It is noteworthy that
the opinion does not address itself to the additional 13 acres which the developer
wishes to add to the 123 acres.
therefore, would like to recommend that the Frederick County Planning Commission
take the following action:
1. Request that the developer provide his development plans,to the Commission and to
t he public based upon his utilization of only the 123 acres addressed in the court
opinion;
2. Consult with the Commonwealth Attorney and the County Administrator to determine
whether the developer's plans include more than the 173 spaces; and if so, whether
such.plans would comply with the County ordinances in effect in April 1974 as well
as the state laws;
3. In accordance with the promise of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors at the
March 10th meeting, we further recommend that a public hearing be held after the
public has been given the details of the developers plans; and the consultations
a,, ^,d attendant research outlined in Step#2 above have been completed. Prior to
the public hearing, the developer should be required to make available an environ-
mental.and economic impact statement for county and public review."
(Letter from The Frederick Environmental Council, Inc. by Mrs. Laura F. Pifer,
Secretary of April 14, 1976 to The Frederick County Planning Commission with cc to
Frederick County Board of Supervisors)
Mrs. Pifer stated that they were promised a public hearing before a decision is made
by the Board - that they would like to contribute.
Mr. Berg stated that the Site Plan would show all dimensions and setback as required.
Mrs. Pifer stated that 1/3 for permanent, 1/3 for seasonal, 1/3 for overnight had
been suggested as being part of the plans. She asked who would enforce the ordinances.
Mr. Berg stated that counsel for.the proposal is- asking for edification of the pro-
posal.
Discussion followed of whether or not the 13 acres would constitute a new proposal.
Mrs. Pifer suggested that some changes were made from the original plans.
is
Mr. Larwood stated that the judge had not considered individual impact, only the law.
He mentioned potential stream pollution and fire hazards which may be. generated points
of citizen concern.
(PC 05/05/76) P. 3
The Commission discussed the sequence of anticipated events of the VanDyke proposal.
The Chairman stated that their request may be a little premature, that they would
® have ample opportunity to do what they were asking at a future time.
Criminal Justice (Citizen Awareness, Acceptance and Involvement) Project.
A -95 REVIEW by Virginia State Office on Volunteerism
Action - No Comment.(none necessa
Mr. Berg quoted:
1
"...The $400,000 in total funds are to be obtained as follows: Federal Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration - $360,000 and State - $40,000."
"To increase dissemination of a directory, containing an inventory of local volunteer
programs in criminal justice and other pertinent material in this area, to include all
local groups and those interested citizens who express a commitment to improving the
criminal justice system; to develop a multi -media campaign to promote public awareness,
acceptance, and involvement in the criminal justice system; to provide technical assis-
tance and training to local groups which express an interest in or a need for increased
volunteer activities within the local criminal justice agencies; and to arrange for
appropriate evaluation of the overall program to ascertain effectiveness, levels of
citizen awareness, and impact on criminal justice programs within Virginia's communities."
Mr. Berg stated that the applicant is the Virginia State Office on Volunteerism and
the grantor is the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of Washington, D.C. and
® that the above quotation was from the application, and the accompanying letter from
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission by R. E., Duncan, Executive Director of April
15, 1976. He said that it would be appropriate for the Commission to make no comment
because the County has no Criminal Justice Plan.
A -95 REVIEW - Winchester Municipal Airport Expansion Project
Action - In Accordance with County Pla nning
Mr. Berg stated that the runway extension project at a cost of $583,469 and the
construction of a sanitary sewer at a cost of $216,289 had been stricken from the request
leaving an altered request total of $1,232,317. He also stated that the project would be
entirely within the boundaries of city -owned property
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Col.laday, Jr. and approved by
the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback - YES:
• BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby find in accordance with County Planning the A -95 Review of Winchester
Municipal Airport Expansion Project.
(PC 05/05/76) P. 4
Community Development Block Grant (Water & Wastewater Facilities Project,
County of Frederick, Virginia)
® Status Report by the Commission's Secretary
Mr. Berg explained to the Commission the Frederick County final application for
$245,000 of HUD Community Development Block Grant. In particular Mr. Berg discussed
in detail the Housing Assistance Plan portion of the application. He stated that the
Planning Commission had already approved the preapplication and Housing Assistance Plan
for the grant; so no action was necessary at the meeting.
Citizen Announcement
Mr..Larwood announced that a college course will be available on land use planning
at Lord Fairfax College one night a week, being given by Frank Raflo, Loudoun County
Supervisor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 014 -76 of Brady T. Ellis, Sr. and Shirley C. Ellis
2108 Haviland Drive, Richmond, Virginia, hereby request that 9.211 acres, more or less,
located on the North side of Route 664, approximately three - tenths (3/10) mile East
of intersection with Route 666, now zoned Agricultural- General (A -2) be rezoned:
• Industrial- Limited (M -1). This parcel .is designated as 44 -(A) -172 -3 on tax map 44
and,-is in Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled until Work Session of May 19, 1976
Mr. Sim Largent, representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission and
stated that the building that will house the bathroom facilities for approximately
seven (7) employees is located 150 feet from Route 664, and that it will have an
adjacent and joined building. He opined that the proposal would be a considerable
improvement to the area and that there has been no opposition.
Mr. Leonard C. Ellis appeared before the Commission and demonstrated his proposal
with the aid of a painted picture. He stated that his company has a network of
dealers throughout the country that purchase and lease the pre- fabricated, pre -sized
(imported from Milan, Italy) tubular scaffolding that he planned to assemble with a jib.
He said that this scaffolding would replace 90% rental inventory and 10% sales stock
and is used to support heavy loads such as concrete forms and slabs and for machinery
for higher- height work platform. He stated that he anticipated traffic of one (1)
tractor /trailer load per week, with the same amount of materials incoming. He also
-7O
i
(PC 05/05/76) P. 4
stated that he-,had been in this particular business approximately nine (9) years.
Mr. Ellis stated that he planned to build a 60' X 80' metal pre- fabricated
• building behind the chicken house. He stated that he planned to destroy the exist-
ing house.
Mr. Ellis continued that he probably would begin with approximately three (3)
employees and work up to five (5) or six (6).
He stated that there are presently two (2) mobile homes that have sewer systems
which will be removed with the sewer systems abandoned for possible later use as a
backup system.
Mr. John Owens appeared and stated that he is in favor of the project and that
he resides adjacent to the present facilities. He said that everything looks better
now and that he felt the concept probably would add to the value of his land, as well
as improve the area.
Mr. DeHaven stated that he felt, since he is familiar with the area, that what
Mr. Ellis had done thus far certainly has improved the facility. He mentioned that
• when the facility was used as a chicken operation it used a great amount of water, so
the supply should be sufficient for the proposal.
The Chairman noted that the surrounding area is generally residential.
Mr. Brumback mentioned that two (2) very recent requests had been denied because
no one wanted to favor spot zoning in residential areas, and that once that much land
is zoned for M -1 it could be used any number of ways.
Mr. Ellis said that he planned to have a very large front yard. -
Mr. Brumback suggested the possibility of this application of M -1 zoning could
be signing a blank check.
It was the Commission's consensus of opinion that five (5) acres would be necessary
for the proposal because of county requirements.
Mr. Largent opined that the Health Department's requirements would be a safeguard
• in that event.
Mr. Rosenberger suggested that the fact that a gunclub adjoins the proposal should
also be considered
"° v t
(PC 05/05/76) P. 6
Manuel DeHaven made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors
that was seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, but was defeated by a vote of three "NO"
votes to two "YES" votes: DeHaven; Venskoske - YES,
Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback - NO.
Upon substitute motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Frank Brumback and
approved by the following vote:, Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES,
DeHaven; Rosenberger - NO:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby table until April 19, 1976 the Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 014 -76
of Brady T. Ellis, Sr. and Shirley C. Ellis (9.211 acres from A -2 to M -1, Stonewall
Magisterial District) to allow time to study the proposal more thoroughly; especially
consideration of the question of precedent.
Mr. DeHaven mentioned that the county stands to lose a great many enterprises,
thus tax revenue, by turning down proposals that plan to use existing buildings.
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 015 -76 of Roy 0, and Esther L. Kern 1370 Senseny
Road, Winchester, Virginia, hereby request that 3.142 acres, more or less, located on
the North side of Route 657, approximately 300 feet West of intersection with Boundary
Avenue, now zoned Residential- Limited (R -2) and Residential - General (R -3)be rezoned:
Multifamily- Residential (R -6). This parcel is designated as 54 -(A) -130 on tax map 54
® and is in Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled until Application is complete
Mr. Berg stated that proposed is multifamily dwellings of 32,200 square feet or
approximately thirty -two (32) units with 9520 square feet of commercial space or
approximately four (4) stores. He said that the tract is 215 feet wide by 540 feet
deep (215' X 540'), and that it adjoins land owned by Virginia Savings and Loan
Association that is planned for apartments, as well as Rolling Fields Subdivision
and the Senseny Road School.
Mr. Berg quoted:
"Due to a previous work commitment I will be unable to attend the Hearing on May 5
regarding the Roy 0. Kern request for re- zoning of property on Senseny Road from
R -2 to R -6.
Please be advised that I oppose this re- zoning and request that this letter be ap-
propriately filed to indicate my opposition."
(Letter from Harold E. Knight, 610 Village Road, Winchester, VA of April 29, 1976)
• Mr. Benjamin M. Butler appeared as representative for the developer, along with
Mr. John Gregory (who would be the developer, presently has this property under option).
r
(PC 05/05/76) P. 7
Mr. Butler stated that it is contemplated to put in four (4) stores of personal
service and two (2) apartments with sixteen (16) units each. He apologized for ap-
pearing without the anticipated written agreement with Virginia Savings and Loan
Association (Washington Lee) for water and sewer lines across their property. He
said that they should appear, though, because the rezoning had been advertised for
Public Hearing. He stated that he had no objection to tabling of their rezoning request.
Opposition
Mr. W. E. Bridgeforth, Jr, appeared before the Commission and stated that he re-
sides immediately across the road from the site, at Fairway Estates. He cited reasons
for opposition as: aesthetic, his property tax value would escalate, and traffic haz-
ard for children attending Senseny Road School.
Opposition
Mr. Robert Richter appeared before the Commission and stated that he resides in
the Rolling Fields Subdivision. He said that his property adjoins the rear of the
proposal and Senseny Road School. He stated that he did not believe the proposal to
be conducive to the residential environment of the area; the area does not need addi-
tional commercial outlets; a precedent would be set of the area's development; would
approach spot zoning; not at all a rational, ordered development. He said that he
was supportive of the proposed Land Use Plan. He submitted to the Commission a peti-
tion in letter form which contained, he said, an impressive list of opposition.
Opposition
Mr. John Anderson appeared before the Commission and stated that he resides in
Green Acres; however, he was sympathetic to the residents of the proposal's area.
He objected to setting a precedent for the area's future and to spot zoning.
Opposition
Mr. Dino Marglioni appeared before the Commission and stated that he resides in
Green Acres. He stated that he was basically in agreement with the previously- spoken
® objections, and said that Frederick County had long been abused by the lack of orderly
growth. He opined that the county needs to expedite the Land Use Plan. He also opined
that the frontage on Senseny Road would be a very hazardous traffic situation for the
(PC 05/05/76) P. 8
entrances, considering how dangerous the road is at the present time at that point.
Opposition
Mr. Kenneth Kramer appeared before the Commission and stated that he resides at
Fairway Estates. He said that he works with the State Board of Education and cited
his objection to the traffic intensity that would be imposed upon the children. He
said that children are already bussed one block because of the danger.
Opposition
Colonel Jim Longerbeam appeared before the Commission and stated that he had
previously lived in all of the subdivisions that had been mentioned. He objected
to spot zoning because zoning and growth should be demonstrated on need; which he
felt the proposal did not demonstrate. He stated that a 60 -foot right -of -way would
be contiguous to the Senseny Road School property - 2.2 cars per family would equal
70 -some automobiles - 150 people approximately additional plus the four (4) enterprises.
He said that, for aesthetic reasons, the area should remain as it is now.
Opposition
• Mr. Frank Taylor appeared before the Commission and stated that he resides in
Fairway Estates. He objected to spot zoning and said that potential residential
growth of that area would affect the schools.
Opposition
Mr. Charles Farris appeared before the Commission and stated that he resides in
Country Club Terrace. He said that his objections were the same as those previously
cited. He also said that he hoped that the objections on the petition would be con-
sidered.
Rebuttal
Mr. Butler requested that the proposal be tabled.
Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Rosenberger; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby table until application is complete, the Zoning Map Amendment Petition No.
015 -76 of Roy 0. and Esther L. Kern (3.142 acres from R -2 to R -6, Shawnee Magisterial
District). iy
i
(PC 05/05/76) P. 9
Mr. Williams suggested, as a matter of courtesy, the Secretary notify Colonel
Longerbeam or Mr. Richter prior to the next Public Hearing.
..........................
Planning Commission Re- Advertising Policy
Action - 2 Resolutions passed (preparedness & time limit)
The Secretary explained advertising procedure.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel C. 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 initiate as its policy that, unless a zoning map amendment petitioner has
preparations complete, it may not be heard at a Public Hearing before the Planning
Commission.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and approved
by the following vote: Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskosek; Rosenberger; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby initiate as its policy that a thirty (30)- day time limit be observed on
zoning map amendment petitions; after which time said petitions must be re- advertised
for Public Hearing.
® Discussion followed the above motions of how the staff is expected to determine if
a zoning map amendment petitioner is completely prepared.
It was the Commission's consensus of opinion to turn down said petition if the
applicant is not properly prepared.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1, 1973
to AMEND Sections 2 -1 -1 and 3 -1 -1 to read:
2 -1 -1 Single family dwellings and mobile homes.
® 3 -1 -1 Single family dwellings and mobile homes.
An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1, 1973
to DELETE Sections 2- 1- 22(a); 2- 1- 22(b); 3- 1- 24(m); 3- 1- 24(ri).
An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1, 1973
to ENACT Article XXV, Mobile Home Community District MH -1.
Mr. Berg explained that amending Sections 2 -1 -1 and 3 -1 -1 would allow a mobile
home as a permitted use along with single - family dwellings, thus requiring a Building
Permit. He mentioned that a Conditional Use Permit for a mobile home had never been
turned down by the Board of Supervisors, and that units are never inspected by anyone
i
(PC 05/05/76) P. 10
under the present system and procedures.
Mr. Berg stated that deleting Sections 2- 1- 22(a); 2- 1- 22(b); 3- 1- 24(m); 3- 1 -24(n)
® would eliminate mobile homes and parks.
He said that enacting Article XXV, Mobile Home Community District MH -1 would
create a new mobile home district.
Mr. Berg also stated that he had met with mobile home park operators about the
map designating mobile home park boundaries, and that he had received two (2) requests
for changes.
Mr. Berg quoted:
"Gentlemen:__
We are requesting that the boundary for the Mobile Home Community District which is
to be set up in our area be in line with the back boundary shown on the 1.03 acre plat
enclosed.
This boundary line has survey markers in place and would be 325 feet from center of
Baker Lane."
(Letter from William J. Lockhart, Jr. for Arcadia Mobile Home Park, Inc. /William J.
Lockhart Estate/ Dellitt J. Lockhart, dated April 28, 1976, 1426 Baker Lane,
Winchester, VA) .
Mr. Berg stated that he requested that the mobile home park of T. G. Adams and Ray
® VanDyke outside of Stephens City not be included as a designation on the map and should
not be presented to the Board at this time.
Mr. Berg then explained the procedure that would be followed if the Board of Super-
visors approved these Ordinance Amendments - then, once everything is completed and
approved, an Ordinance would be presented for approval to repeal the Trailer Ordinance
and an action to remove mobile home subdivisions from A -1 and A -2 Zoning.
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, 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
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of said County of the fore -
mentioned Ordinance Amendments of Sections 2 -1 -1, 3 -1 -1, 2- 1- 22(a), 2- 1- 22(b), 3- 1- 24(m),
3- 1- 24(n); and enactment of Article XXV, Mobile Home Community District MH -1.
SUBDIVISIONS
Golliday - RT 625 & 638 LOTS - 2 lots - Opequon Magisterial District, at the inter-
section of Routes 625 and 638, A -2 Zoning, approved.by the Frederick - Winchester Health
Department and State Department of Highways and Transportation, submitted by Larry S.
• and Catherine C. Golliday.
y
L J
i
(PC 05/05/76) P. 11
James Golladay, Jr. abstained from participation and voting because he and Mr.
Golliday are related.
location has a foundation at this time, and that it meets all zoning and subdivision
requirements. He recommended $111 recreation impact fee for the proposed new house.
He stated that the initially 9 -acre tract is located West of Stephens City.
Mr. Rosenberger mentioned that the twenty -foot drainage might be exceptionally
large.
Mr. Brumback objected to the applicant having proceeded wtih construction prior
to having received approval from the County.
Mr. Berg stated that a Building Permit was not issued, and that this request is
basically a "bail -me -out" situation following the stop -work order issued by the Build-
ing Inspector.
Opposition
• Mr. John Pickeral appeared before the Commission and quoted Article III of A -2
Zoning from the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (p7) - traffic hazard for children,
well and septic contamination inevitable.
Opposition
Mr. Alfred Snapp appeared before the Commission and objected to the possible fur-
ther subdivision of Mr. Golliday's land because he (Mr. Snapp) maintains an apple
orchard adjacent.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback - YES,
Golladay, Jr. - ABSTAINED:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby table the subdivision request submitted by Larry S. and Catherine C. Golliday
for two (2) lots until May 19, 1976 so that the applicant may appear (or be represented)
before the Commission to answer questions concerning intent.
Planning Commission Public Hearing Policy
• Action - Resolution passed unanimously
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Keith Williams and approved by the
L
Mr. Berg
stated that the proposal is for a five
(5)- acre tract with an
existing
home at the
intersection of Routes 638 and 635. He
said that the proposed
new house
location has a foundation at this time, and that it meets all zoning and subdivision
requirements. He recommended $111 recreation impact fee for the proposed new house.
He stated that the initially 9 -acre tract is located West of Stephens City.
Mr. Rosenberger mentioned that the twenty -foot drainage might be exceptionally
large.
Mr. Brumback objected to the applicant having proceeded wtih construction prior
to having received approval from the County.
Mr. Berg stated that a Building Permit was not issued, and that this request is
basically a "bail -me -out" situation following the stop -work order issued by the Build-
ing Inspector.
Opposition
• Mr. John Pickeral appeared before the Commission and quoted Article III of A -2
Zoning from the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (p7) - traffic hazard for children,
well and septic contamination inevitable.
Opposition
Mr. Alfred Snapp appeared before the Commission and objected to the possible fur-
ther subdivision of Mr. Golliday's land because he (Mr. Snapp) maintains an apple
orchard adjacent.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved
by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback - YES,
Golladay, Jr. - ABSTAINED:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby table the subdivision request submitted by Larry S. and Catherine C. Golliday
for two (2) lots until May 19, 1976 so that the applicant may appear (or be represented)
before the Commission to answer questions concerning intent.
Planning Commission Public Hearing Policy
• Action - Resolution passed unanimously
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Keith Williams and approved by the
L
(PC 05/05/76) P. 12
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 initiate a POLICY requiring the representation of all applicant(s) and /or
petitioner(s), etc. at all Public Hearings or considerations by or before the said Plan-
ning Commission of said permit application and /or petition, etc.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger 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,
JV
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
r
C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman
r�
LJ
6 1