PC_08_18-76_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
J
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room August 18, 1976
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; George G. Snarr, Jr.;
Elmer Venskoske
NONE ABSENT
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of
Business.
MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1976 - Approved as Written
•
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby approve the Minutes of the Meeting of August 4, 1976 as written with no
corrections.
- LAND USE PLAN and MAPS
Mr. Berg stated that printed copies of the Land Use Plan are available in the
Department of Planning and Development at two dollars ($2) each. The public may
view copies of the plan and full -color maps at town offices of Stephens City and
Middletown, Virginia; and Clerk's office, County Administrator's office, Department
of Planning and Development, Winchester, Virginia.
ANNOUNCEMENT - ABANDONMENT /STORAGE STUDY COMMITTEE
•
The Chairman stated that, per the resolution on page three of the Minutes of the
Meeting of August 4, 1976, the following committee members have been appointed:
H. Ronald Berg - Chairman; Lawrence R. Ambrogi (Attorney for the Commonwealth);
James Golladay, Jr.; Herbert L. Sluder (Frederick - Winchester Health Department);
and Laura Pifer (The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.);
Planning Commission Chairman; and
a member of the Board of Supervisors will be named at a later date to the committee.
/ __z /
(PC 08/18/76) p 2
SITE PLANS
No. 33 - Forecast Investments - Retail Gift Shop - 16 + acres - Stonewall Magisterial
• District - Approved by Frederick - Winchester Health Department and State Department of
Highways and Transportation - Bounded on North by Route 672, West by Route 81, East by
Penn Central Railroad - Requested by E. Lynn Beightol and Seymour Kriwinsky.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Berg stated that a candleshop is requested that has received approvals from the
Highway Department for the entrance and the Health Department -- no problems with it
as far as the Staff is concerned, but he had thought the Commission might wish to be
informed. He said the Site Plan does meet requirements, as well as the fact that ample
parking spaces are planned in the extreme corner of the area.
Mr. DeHaven opined that all proposals for the area along Route 81 should be reviewed
by the Commission.
Lynn Beightol appeared before the Commission, and stated that they realize the impor-
tance of preventing pollution of the Clearbrook Stream. He said that they want the
shopping area to be nicer than any of the local area shops. He stated that the present
• plan is for one (1) 80' X 30', two -story building; and that they would later like to
have four to five buildings as a small specialty -item shopping area -- with each cor-
relating to the other on a rustic, barnlike theme. He said this area would be sixteen
acres North and five acres South of the stream.
Mr: Beightol stated their landscaping plans as well as stream cleanup plans, and
that their plans may also include a children's play area for shoppers' convenience.
Upon motion made by Manuel C. DeHaven, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; 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
Site Plan No. 33, Forecast Investments for a Retail Gift Shop ( Candleshop) located
in Stonewall Magisterial District as requested by E. Lynn Beightol and Seymour Kriwinsky.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does recommend the stipulation that a Site Plan be submitted to the Commission
prior to each building construction.
•
L
/1:1 O"
(PC 08/18/76) p 3
CUP No. 62 - Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park) - 491 spaces on 123 acres
Opequon Magisterial D istrict - Requested b Rayland Corporation (H..Ray.VanDyke
and T. G. Adams). /SEE Site Plan No. 034.7.
0 Action - Recommended Denial
Mr. Berg stated that this proposal had been referred back to the Planning Commission
by the Board of Supervisors for the addition of water and sewer plans and recreation
areas indicated on the Site Plan. He said that the developer had noted a 400 -foot area
around the sewage treatment plant. He said that the file contains a letter from Mr.
Costello stating that Lots 364 -379 are the lots not to be used and is now stipulated
on the plan. He said that two (2) recreation center areas are planned; one of which
will be in the area of the existing house. He said that, other than the changes he
had stated, the plan is the same as previously considered.
Mr. Tom Dickinson, Associate to Lewis M. Costello, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the applicants had complied with all ordinances and requirements; thus
demonstrating their willingness to cooperate and provide information as had been asked
• of them.
Mr. E. Eugene Gunter appeared before the Commission and stated that the County is
governed by Judge Woltz's opinion, and quoted from said opinion:
"...The applicant has the right to construct a mobile home park on the premises and
he need only comply with the administrative requirements of the ordinances in effect
upon a certain date." /Sic/
OPPOSITION
Mrs. Laura F. Pifer, Secretary, The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc.,
appeared before the Commission in opposition and read the following letter that she
had written August 18, 1976:
"The Frederick County Environmental Council once again would like to go on record
as oppossing the project of Forest Lake Estates in the Opequon District on Rt. 636
as proposed by Mr. T. G. Adams and Mr. H. Ray Van Dyke.
There are several questions that comeato mind in reviewing this project. For
instance, Why are new plans for the Sewer Treatment Plant being presented when plans
for such a plant were mentioned in Judge Woltz's decision on page 5, paragraph 18 73 -1?
Does the plan now being presented still address. -itself to the 173 units? (As mentioned
in the Decision). If the plan being presented today for a Sewer Treatment Plant addres-
ses itself to accomodate more than 173 units, then should this not be considered as a
• new plan which would have to meet the present requirements and not those of 1970 and
1974? Since I have been unable to find out who now has the original platt of this
proposed project, it has been thus far difficult to review what the original project
really was.
L
I
i
(PC 08/18/76) p 4,
I would like also at this time to ask you to review the statement given to you on
May 19, 1976 at which time the Council said and I quote,
'We consider that the effluent from a central sewage treatment plant required for
® the proposed development should be discharged into a stream which flows continuously.
The tributary of Crooked Run which runs through the area is frequently dry. We have
photographs taken on July 17, 1974 by David Smith of the Winchester Evening Star
accompanied by a notarized affidavid showing this stream bed at a point where it
crosses Route 636 a couple of miles down stream from the proposed mobile home
development. You may be assured that this stream is frequently dry particularly in
the summer when effluent odors are the most noticeable.' I have those pictures today
for you to study.
After seeing these pictures, you might be able to understand our concern of the
impact that such a plant might have on the area in question.
The topic of recreation is another matter for review. The relationship of the recrea-
tional lake to the sewer plant brings to mind the question: How is anyone going to
use a lake for recreational purposes, such as swimming, when the sewer lines will be
running over, under or near the same lake?
Also the Council feels that the developer should be explicit as to what areas are
to be left for recreational purposes before the final approval is given on the project;
instead of designating areas as recreational at a later date only after a trailer is
unable to be stabilized in that particular space.
There are many other questions still unanswered, such as: How is this project going
to affect,:the county schools that are already over - crowded? What about the considtions
of the road in the area of the project? What about the fire hazards?
All of these questions and more were asked in May of this year. Will these questions
be answered suitably before a final decision is made?
In closing, I would like to remind you that on March 234, 1976, the Council asked
what an Environmental and Economic Impact Statement for county and public review be
made. The Council is urging the completion of such statements be done by an indepen-
dent before a final decision is made by the county."
/s/ Laura F. Pifer
cc: State Water Control Board
Mrs. Pifer said that it was her understanding that Mr. Ambrogi had filed a petition
for the return of the original plat by Judge Woltz.
She showed the Commission pictures of the Crooked Run tributary.
Following a twelve (12)- minute recess, the Chairman Called the Meeting to Order
with Counsel present.
OPPOSITION
Mr. Mason Larwood, The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc., - _appeared before
the Commission and stated his concern about the reference in Judge Woltz's opinion on
page three to paragraph 20 -20 of the Trailer Ordinance because, he said, this paragraph
was not in effect at the time the was made. He stated that the Trailer
Ordinance was prepared in 1959 and revised November, 1970 -- which contained the para-
. griph in question. He contended that the referred paragraph did not exist at the time
the application was originally made.
/,�_y
i
(PC 08/18/76) p 5
Rebuttal
V
•
F_ I
L
Mr. Gunter stated that he felt neither the Commission nor the Board has final
authority on the water and sewer -- that is the province of the State Water Control
Board. He said that they (State Water Control Board) had given an "okay" subject to
approval of the local governing bodies.
He referred to the letter of March 1, 1974 from Don E. Kruger, P.E., Engineer-
Director, Fredreick County Sanitation Authority; which, he said, at that time approved,
conditionally, the sewage treatment plant as proposed.
Mr. Berg answered the Chairman's inquiry by saying that the Board of Supervisors
had not provided a list of questions.
Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger, Supervisor, appeared before the Commission to comment
on the Board's action, following inquiry by the Chairman.
Mr. Mason Larwood asked if the application in regard-.to the'stream bed had been
made available to the State Water Control Board.
Mr. VanDyke stated that the State Water Control Board had viewed the site.
Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Attorney for the Commonwealth, opined that the referenced
Paragraph 20 -20 is applicable only to the trailer sites that followed after the origi-
nal 173.
Mr. Berg stated that he had been advised by the engineers that the sewer lines
planned to cross the lake would be via a bridge rather than on or under the water.
Mr. Gunter contended that they had met requirements of the 1974 Ordinance.
Mr. Snarr asked Mr. Berg if the Site Plan meets requirements of the court decree
to which Mr. Berg replied that it does.,
Mr. Snarr said if the 173 spaces meet requirements as of application date and the
additional spaces meet requirements of the 1974 Ordinance, what then is there to be
considered further?
The Chairman said that the Commission is obligated to answer the Board's questions.
Mr. Brumback's motion, seconded by the Chairman, to adjourn into Executive Session
to discuss legal matters was defeated (,by_a vote of 3 -2/: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay,
Jr. - NO, Venskoske; Brumback - YES.
5/
pr
(PC 08/18/76) p 6
0
•
•
Mr. Berg read to the Commission the Minutes ffom,.the Minutes of the Meeting of June
8, 1976 of the Board of Supervisors at which Mr. Rosenberger had made a motion to table
the application and refer it back to the Planning Commission along with all the items
that the Board had questions about.
Mr. Berg read to the Commission from -the Minutes of the Meeting of June 23, 1976 of
the Board of Supervisors at'which Mr. Rosenberger had requested that questions relative
to the.proposed Forest Lake Estates Mobile Home Park be submitted to the Planning
Commission as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary delays in the Commission's consi-
deration and recommendation.
Mr. Berg stated that, at the meeting of May 19, 1976, the application was tabled by
the Planning Commission due to being incomplete; and at the meeting of June 2, 1976
the Planning Commission recommended denial with Mr. Costello requesting denial reasons
be forwarded by letter to the applicant.
Upon motion made by Manuel C. DeHaven, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by
the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Chairman; Elmer Venskoske - YES,
Snarr - ABSTENTION due to insufficient information, he said:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of said County of the Site
Plan appliation by Rayland Corporation (H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams) for Forest
Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park - CUP No. 62) of 491 spaces on 123 acres located in
Opequon Magisterial District, having duly considered the following:
(a) The - arid tendency of the stream in the vicinity of one of the two planned re-
creation areas, which had been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, Planning
Commission, Sanitation Authority and Staff;
(b) Safety, health and welfare of residents downstream from the proposal because of
the stream's tendency toward dryness;
(c) State Water Control Board has not approved the waste treatment plant and the
Planning Commission should hot be forced to approve the mobile home park before
the treatment plant is approved; and
(d) Requested spaces increased from the original 173.
Upon.motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and'approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors forward in writing to
the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission any request the Board may make of the
Planning Commission. / 6
J
(PC 08/18/76) p 7
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by James Golladay, Jr. 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.
Re spec fully Submitted,
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
C. Langdon Gor n, Chairman
•
•
/A