PC_09-17-75_Meeting_MinutesI
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, September 17, 1975
PRESENT: Keith Williams, Chairman; C. Langdon Gordon;
Richard Madigan; Frank Brumback;
Manuel DeHaven; H. Ronald Berg;
J. William Riley, III; J. 0. Renalds, III
ABSENT: James Golladay, Sr.; Elmer Venskoske
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and announced that the
first order of business is the approval of the Minutes of August 7,
1975.
® MINUTES - APPROVED
Upon motion::=made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel DeHaven
and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby move to dispense with the reading
of the Minutes of August 7, 1975.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Langdon Gordon
and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve the Minutes of August 7,
1975 as written.
C
/
pr
P. 2
El
1016W. �ZAWNDI
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 2.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF ELLA R.
BAKER, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 608, APPROXIMATELY 1.4
MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 522; IN GAINESBORO MAGIS-
TERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, LIMITED (A -1) TO RESIDENTIAL,
LIMITED (R -1).
Recommended Approval
Ronald Berg read the following letter from Herbert L. Sluder,
E
R.S., Sanitarian; dated September 10, 1975; Re: Baker Tract, 2.608
acres Va. Rte. 608, Frederick County, Virginia; CC: R. Wesley Williams,
Administrative Supervisor; addressed to Mr. Ronald Berg, Planning
Director:
"A soil evaluation was made of the above mentioned property about
a year ago, for purposes of installing septic tank and drainfield
systems to serve three small houses. The soil appeared suitable
for installing sewage systems to serve the houses, provided no
additional sewage increase is added.
It is possible that the one well serving these houses will have
to be moved closer to the road, or converted to a Class II water
supply in order to maintain proper distances to the proposed sewage
disposal systems.
If I can be of further service to you in this matter, please
feel free to contact me at your convenience."
Mr. Berg discussed with Mrs. Baker and the Commission members
Mrs. Baker's application; including a review of ground covered during
the meeting of September 4, 1975
He said that Class I and Class II
wells would be required.
Mrs. Baker stated that there is a field between her house and
the three (3) houses that has a trailer on it. She said that she
would like to make it three (3) lots instead of two (2) lots.
Ronald Berg stated that the letter from the Health Department
•
(See Page 2) is based upon two (2) lots -- one (1) lot containing
new house and one (1) lot containing three (3) houses.
/go
r G,
P. 3
Mrs. Baker disagreed with Mr. Berg's interpretation of the
• letter.
Langdon Gordon stated his belief that it would be spot zoning.
Mrs. Baker, responding to the Chairman's question to her of
her division intentions, stated that she preferred the following:
two
(2)
houses -
-- one (1)
lot
one
(1)
house -
-- one (1)
lot
new
(1)
house -
-- one (1)
lot
equalling a three (3) -lot division.
Ronald Berg stated that he had talked at length with Mr. Sluder
over the telephone and it was his understanding that Mr. Sluder
spoke of two (2) -lot division only. He continued that there would
be difficulty installing a septic system and that would not meet the
area requirements for R -1 zoning. He further stated that the only
division possible would be a two (2) -lot division.
Langdon Gordon stated the Commission would be setting a prece-
dent on this matter for future situations of this type. He stated
his concern re the jeopardy involved.
Lawrence Ambrogi stated that this issue may appear later in the
form of Variances and Conditional Use Permits; unless you have out-
lined reasoning to base your judgment upon.
Langdon Gordon asked if she could get any relief through the
Board of Zoning Appeals and still leave the property zoned agricultural.
Ronald Berg stated that BZA deals with unusual hardship cases,
® particular and unusual problems and that is not the case involved here.
He continued that he had gotten the impression from Mr. Sluder that
-11I
i
fMA
two (2) systems for three (3) houses would not be possible; that one
(1) of them could not be contained within lot lines of the one (1)
free - standing house -- it is too tight; not enough room to run the
line and it would not meet any of the zoning requirements.
Frank Brumback stated his opinion that the Commission would have
to look and act upon this as presented without reading anything into
it; and it is presented for one (1) -lot division.
Manuel DeHaven stated that if it is rezoned from A -1 to R -1
perhaps later it can be made into a subdivision.
Langdon Gordon suggested incorporating into it that it can be
only one (1) division.
® The Commission members discussed amongst themselves Mrs. Baker's
application.
Mrs. Baker stated that she did not know if there was as much
as an acre in the parcel of land with two (2) houses on it; but it
is wider at the end where they are than where she has her new home.
Ronald Berg stated that the three (3) houses are so close to-
gether that you can't run a line between them and come up with
40,000 square feet, 120 foot of frontage, etc. that is required.
He added that he had talked with two (2) surveyors about this.
Manuel DeHaven stated that she needs another quarter of an acre.
Mrs. Baker stated that there is 150 foot road frontage in front
® of the two (2) small houses; and 150 foot road frontage in front of
her new house.
193--
/_:_�
I
P. 5
1
Lawrence Ambrogi stated that he didn't see how she could do it.
17J
Ronald Berg asked Mrs. Baker if she has a buyer for one (1) of
the houses.
Mrs. Baker answered that she "had" a buyer for three (3) houses,
but he purchased another property
for the "end" house.
She said that she has a buyer now
The Chairman stated that the best the Commission can do.is to
divide her property in half; which would allow more than an acre
per lot, but it would throw three (3) houses into one (1) lot.
Ronald Berg stated that she doesn't have 140,000 square feet
as required for A -1 districts. He said that by going to R -1 she can
divide the property in half..
Mrs. Baker stated that she has two (2) wells on the property.
The Chairman stated that she would have to make sure that she
had an acre or more for her dwelling.
Mrs. Baker stated that it would help her if she could sell half
of it and keep half; even if she had to sell all three (3) houses on
one (1) lot.
Ronald Berg stated that further surveying is not needed now.
Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Manuel DeHaven
and unanimously approved,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
• Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to rezone parcel
of land for Ella Rose Baker, 2.608 acres, from A -1 to R -1.
L
P. 6
THE PICTURE SHOPPE
Tabled from August 20th Meeting
To Be Conintued
Ronald Berg referred to letter from The Picture'Shop dated
July 22, 1975 (Please refer to Minutes of 08/20/75, Page 7.) asking
for guidance from Planning Commission and zoning category for a
rather unique land use.
Mr. Berg showed the Commission pertinent information on the map;
which now is three (3) acres and has a home on it. He stated that
we have no zoning classification for this at this time. He said
that request is for the Commission to come up with a solution
for Mr. William Madigan's needs.
Mr. William Madigan appeared before the Commission and further
demonstrated his plans on a map and said that he does have a permit
for one (1)
building.
He said that since
1970
they have
acquired a
collection
of props
and costumes; mostly
from
MGM Studios.
He further
stated that they would like to house this collection as a museum.
He continued that they would like to re- construct "sets" which we
hope to acquire soon that are actually.- "false fronts -- not an entire
building.
Mr. W. Madigan showed the Commission photographs of the sets
that are planned. He stated that the access road has a 30 foot
right -of -way. He explained to the Commission the sets (false fronts)
that he planned to re- construct; including the swimming pool used
by Esther Williams in her first movie (which he will make one
• foot deep and turn into a fountain.
Richard Madigan stated that it sounded like quite a bit of.m
i
i
Mr. W. Madigan stated that the sets will be acquired from Lot
® Number Two which is part of 38 acres of which 1/3 will be cleared
for construction necessitating acquisition as soon as possible in
order to "save" these sets from destruction.
William Madigan stated that he didn't see how it would harm
the residences in the area (they are mostly relatives) and twenty
(20) visitors a week would satisfy him.
Mr. W. Madigan stated that he has four (4) acres including
30 foot right -of -way. He said it is possible to go to a 60 foot
right -of -way but he would rather not. He stated that he has tele-
phone poles and culvert installed already for 30 foot right -of -way.
Mr. W. Madigan stated that he hoped to eventually purchase
• more of the property bordering his property from relatives.
Ronald Berg stated that it is necessary to decide first what
to call this request and second to decide where it belongs.
Richard Madigan suggested it might be like outdoor theater.
Ronald Berg stated that a theater is permitted use in a business
zone.
Richard Madigan stated that he would go see the buildings or
props.
William Madigan asked Mr. Riley if this can be called an art
gallery, etc. since they will have paintings for display; and they
would even sell antiques if that would help any.
Richard Madigan stated that it would be more under a B -2 than
anything else. I�
William Madigan stated that it would mainly be open on Saturday
and Sunday with, perhaps, special rates for groups and /or organizations
by appointment through the week. He said that plans are to sell
pictures and framing and, if it would help any, we could sell antique
movie posters.
Frank Brumback suggested "gift shop" classification.
Ronald Berg stated that he thought it i's obviously of commercial
use and what bothers him about that is that if some sort of a museum
gallery or display is included into B -2 and rezoned to B -2 then some-
one could establish an automobile sales on that tract later. He said
it does not conform to B -2 and he is not sure it would fit with agri-
cultural: perhaps it would have to be added to zoning ordinance
0 category.
Langdon Gordon stated that he personally would not like to see
commercial established but rather agricultural "B" zoning because
we may be in trouble at a future date.
Richard Madigan suggested using a C.U.P. for "home occupations"
Lawrence Ambrogi suggested checking with counties with museums
for their classification.
Richard Madigan asked William Madigan if he is running under a
deadline.
William Madigan stated that he had a couple months before he
would like to know so that he can secure the "sets" before they are
1
destroyed and if he does not get a decision before that time he will
get choice "sets ".
FV
Ronald Berg suggested consideration of advising him on feasi-
• bility of this piece of property for this type of activity. He
said that he seriously questions it being realistic in future resi-
dential community
Richard Madigan stated his opinion that the Commission should
examine the property; then let William Madigan know of their decision,
as the only sensible thing to do and it would probably be beneficial
to everyone.
The Chairman stated that there were so many unknown factors
that we have had no experience with.
William Madigan stated that he would advertise via radio and
newspaper and the only sign anticipated would be a directional sign
• placed at driveway.
NO VOTE TAKEN -- THE COMMISSION TO EXAMINE PROPERTY AND RONALD
BERG TO INVESTIGATE CLASSIFICATIONS IN USE BY OTHER COUNTIES AND
TOWNS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THIS REQUEST.
FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Letter of September 10, 1975
The Chairman read the following portion of the letter from the
Frederick County Public School Board by Ray E. Boyce, Chairman; ad-
dressed to Keith Williams, Chairman, Frederick County Planning Com-
mission:
"The members of the Frederick County School Board and I, along with
Dr. Melton Wright, Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools,
• wish to express appreciation to you and the other members of the Plan -
ning Commission for the opportunity of meeting with you on July 10,
1975. We felt that this meeting provided an opportunity for us to
strengthen our communications as two important agencies in the county
LT -�
P. 10
• government, and although we realize that it was the kind of meeting
where all questions could not be fully answered and many answers
were approximations as far as numbers, dates, and so forth, we felt
that the experience was worthwhile for all of those who were involved.
Since meeting with you, the Frederick County School Board has
taken an option on 68.289 acres on State Route 739."
The Chairman commented that the letter goes on to point out
assets; then continued reading:
"During the sixty days option period, we will be interested in
the overall reaction we receive from .county officials, including the
Planning Commission, and citizens. We will be gathering additional
information, such as, approximate cost of water and sewer, samplings
of soil and assurance of the adequacy to handle drainage in conjunc-
tion with this site and the present Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School.
Of the numerous sites that we have explored, we believe that this is
the most acceptable site when all features are considered."
Ronald Berg asked if the Commission would like to meet with the
School Board again on new school site.
• Frank Brumback stated that all the remarks he had received were
that most people think it should be east of Winchester.
Langdon Gordon suggested a form letter be used as a "feeler"
for opinions.
Frank Brumback stated that not all people would be knowledgeable
about it.
Manuel DeHaven stated that this location is close to water and
•
sewer.
NO ACTION TAKEN -- THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED TO THE
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
1
1 1' 0'
i
P. 11
LAND USE PLAN
Presentation by Land Owners West of Winchester
To Be Continued
Mr. Robert T. Mitchell (attorney) appeared on behalf of the land
owners west of Route 637 in Frederick County who had previously ap-
peared requesting an opportunity to present information to the Plan-
ning Commission concerning the classification of this land under the
proposed Land Use Plan of the County.. He mentioned the petition that
had been presented to the Commission (refer to Agenda of 09/17/75,
Minutes of 08/07/75) and the points made in same; and in the attached
letter from J. Kenneth Robinson concerning the treatment and classifi-
cation of the L.U.P. He said that in presenting these concurrents to
the Commission, and hopefully reasons why we feel the land should be
designated other than is presently contemplated in the Plan, we made
•
an effort to obtain some outside assistance and opinions to determine,
if in fact, we have a valid basis for our persistence. He stated that
their presentation is not as complete as they would like for it to be,
but their time had been short.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the first gentleman that he would present
to the Commission is Mr. Hugh C. Dischinger, P.E. (civil engineer, a
private consultant in the Tidewater and Hampton area for about 23
years, land surveyor, past president of the Virginia section of Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers, member of Virginia Society of Profes-
sional Engineers, member of Virginia Association of Surveyors, partner
in the general engineering firm of Murry and Dischinger with emphasis
on water and,sewer engineering, land planning engineering and land
• development).
OF
P. 12
Mr. Mitchell stated that the second gentleman that he would
• present to the Commission is Mr. Rosser Payne.
Mr. Mitchell distributed a report from Mr. Payne of which he
said he would make copies available to the absent members.
Mr. Dischinger appeared before the Commission and said he would
like to recall to the Commission's memory a couple previous engineering
reports and go through some present points that they made with respect
to this property.
Mr. Dischinger stated that one report was made for the County
Planning Commission in October, 1967 by John McNair and Associates
that was a comprehensive water and sewer study for the County (this
was a typical report that was made for most of the counties in the
• State around that time) and it was made primarily for consideration
by Farmers Home Administration for funding of any water and sewer pro-
jects. He stated that the FHA authorized and financed the comprehen-
sive water and sewer survey to obtain a professional opinion concerning
future needs and the manner in which these needs can best be met. He
further stated that a major objective of this report has therefore been
to determine those areas where joint or cooperative action between two
or more communities can be most effective and economical. He commented
that Mr. McNair was speaking of the cooperation between the County and
the City of Winchester.
Mr. Dischinger stated that the next report was made by Alexander
Potter Associates in 1973 and was more restrictive in scope in that it
covered the Opequon Drainage Basin only -- it did not cover the entire
County.
P. 13
Mr. Dischinger stated that both reports covered areas of expected
• growth and you might expect that these areas are generally along the
main highways in the County and the reason for this, of course, is the
use of transportation plus the fact that when you're talking about
water and sewer facilities this is a convenient place to put the
collector and distribution lines for those facilities. He stated that
it tends to gravitate the growth to that area.
Mr. Dischinger stated that the proposed services include; in the
McNair report, water and sewage; the Potter report confines itself to
a regional sewage collection and disposal system. He further stated
that in both cases the reports cover this area that now lies west of
Route 37; and in general goes to the ridge west of Route 37 -- as the
western boundary of the Opequon drainage area.
•
Mr. Dischinger stated that the reports are clear as to the feasi-
bility of providing water and sewage in this particular area. He said
that they differ somewhat in some details, but, as mentioned, these
are general pointers; not intended to be specific -- in particular the
collection system for sewage in the Round Hill area, for instance, is
one in the McNair report that was anticipated to be pick it up by
gravity; carry it across Route 37 to a treatment plant east of Route
37 -- the Potter report also envisions picking up the sewage in the
same general location except that his treatment plant is located west
of Route 37. He stated that in both cases the treatment plant (which
is the determiner of the collection system ) is on Abrams Creek; which,
of course, makes sense from the engineering standpoint because of the
•
gravitational qualities -- that being the lowest point in topography
in the area.
(gl
i
P. 14
Mr. Dischinger stated that there are various maps attached to the
• reports which indicate the systems proposed and in each case the reports
say that at the time growth requires it that these form the basis for
0
a Master Plan to be developed in more detail as the requirements demand.
Mr. Dischinger stated again that the two (2) reports indicate that
it is feasible to areas and in addition to that there have
been some carrier pipes constructed through Route 37 during its con-
struction with the'obvious purpose of carrying water and sewer ser ices.
He further stated that in one case the carrier pipe is sloped in a dir-
ection that would indicate that the sewage system would flow from the
western side of Route 37 to a point east of it; which is a typical way
of crossing highway property now, of which I am sure you are aware, and
at considerable expense. He said that these carrier pipes are put in
• locations that generally fit in with the two (2) engineering reports
that I have mentioned.
Mr. Dischinger,:stated Mr. Mitchell, will be available following
Mr. Payne's presentation to answer any engineering questions.
Mr. Rosser Payne, stated Mr. Mitchell, is a planner of some con-
siderable reputation in the State of Virginia, he was the Chief Plan-
ner for Fairfax County for many years, is presently in the private
practice of planning and a professor of land use planning at the
University of Virginia.
Rosser H. Payne, Jr., A.I.P. (Rosser H. Payne, Jr. and Associates;
Warrenton, Virginia) appeared before the Commission and stated that
• the report presented to you contains what he hoped is a constructive
analysis of what has been done so far. He expressed his appreciation
to Mr. Ronald Berg for his very fine cooperation in furnishing hi =/ � �
P. 15
information to work with and said that he is fully aware that the
Commission has not fully completed all its work yet. He also said
that he is aware that the property owners, whom he represents, have
a very natural and deep concern; so this position paper that he pre-
sented to the Commission is an attempt from an outside analyst to
answer Mr. Madigan's question -- the expert isn't always the guy
with the briefcase who isn't home. He stated that the purpose is to
try to make the Commission's job easier and that he is not trying to
be critical; rather trying to present what he considers to be a
little more balanced situation for the Commission's consideration.
Mr. Payne referenced the first page of his report when he said
the area he was talking about is approximately ten (10) square miles
measuring on a U.S.G.S. map with a planimeter which is basically
going west from the City on Route 522 to Little North Mountain, com-
ing south all the way across that valley, across Route 50 to Cedar
Creek grade and back to the City that contains the upper fork of
Opequon, Stribling, Abrams and a small portion of the Redbud Branch
watershed.
Mr. Payne referenced his comment on Page 2 as he stated and
read: That the Plan " thus far is heavily oriented toward agricul-
ture and natural resource analysis. This is certainly valid as an
objective but not to the exclusion of areas for which numerous studies
and previous events have indicated future residential growth." He
stated that he described the area he was talking about, the character-
istics of that area, "trends of growth or change, transportation,
• employment, public facilities and utilities aspects he did not think
have been fully explored at least in the planning documents that have
been released.
[�3
i
ow l
Mr. Payne stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Dischinger
• and his.review of the engineers' reports and it is not completely
clear as to which study is going to be followed or which area of
alternate sewer and water service is going to be followed. He said
it is only clear to him as a planner that there has been a great deal
of money and effort expended to create residential densities in this
area and to provide for future utility service.
Mr. Payne noted that the existing zones, since your zoning map
was adopted about two (2) years ago, would permit a one (1) acre lot
size in the A -1 zone and the most of this area is zoned for that pur -'
pose. He stated that a one (1) acre lot is a residential lot -- it
is not truly an agricultural use. He said that in the "profession"
it is called a "holding" zone because it is the minimum required for
• septic tanks and wells until somebody comes along with water and sewer
lines and justifies change.
He stated that he listed some things that he considered to be the
I
philosophy of public sector planning with the outstanding objective
being the achieving of a reasonable balance in land use economics
and social goals for the future. He admitted it is difficult to pre-
dict both long and short -range growth and its ultimate effect on exist-
ing way of life in all respects as we know it; which is part of the
problem we are here to discuss today.
He stated that normally we can't get around the fact with your
configuration, and a major employment center in Winchester lying
generally in the eastern section of the County, that most people like
• to live reasonably near their jobs; desiring all types of public and
private services in the approximate vicinity of their residence.
1
/ 1
I
i
P. 17
Mr. Payne referred to the Analysis Reports when he stated that
the area apparently experienced a twenty -five (25) percent plus popu-
lation growth rate in the twenty (20) -year period of 1950 to 1970.
He stated that in all the population studies that he had_seen for
Frederick County indicate roughly doubling population shortly after
the year 2,000. He said that doesn't mean it will happen -- it just
seems that everybody that has done that work has concluded that it
is going to go up.
He stated that both the public and private sectors plans must
be taken into account if successful county plans are to result. He
said, generally speaking, many comprehensive plans that he had seen,
read and worked with (not necessarily Frederick County's) do not ade-
quately provide for the balance of interest; thus conflicts arise as,
• really, they have in this case. He commented that you can't continue
the major city and major transportation routes and the major industrial
employment rate that you have in an obvious key growth area of the ulti-
mate future. He continued that he thought the past policies and recent
engineering studies have poorly advised the full use of the natural
watershed of the Opequon Creek (very clear to him as a planner that
the engineers have said, "Don't skip this watershed simply because
the city happens to be in the middle of it.') He said that somebody
somewhere will overcome that problem as a natural turn of event. He
stated that it isn't said in the Plan that that's the case, but it
appeared to him that is what's happening.
Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that the A -2 and R -2 zoning
• is one (1) acre in 40,000 square feet per lot restrictively.
S5
/-P
or
I
Mr. Payne stated that in looking at the Land Area he tried to
• equate what this meant in terms of preservation of land; which is also
a valid concern. He said that having 431 square miles and Winchester
having four (4) more of that, the County Plan now envisioned the urban
development range of about 55 to 60 square miles generally east of
the City, as you know. He further stated that the area west of Win-
chester has the same basic characteristics, in his opinion, for proper
growth as it contains about 10 square miles as we described it; except
for the farming and orchard operations in limited sense, there is very
little difference in the planning aspects between the two (2) areas,
if you're looking at it from the point of view of residential growth.
Mr.-Payne spoke of "impact or percentage of area" -- how much are
you really sacrificing or what are you really preserving in terms of
• numbers? He said if the area west of Winchester were added, as we're
talking about, the proposed urban and residential areas in the plan
would be increased from 60 square miles to about 70 square miles --
this is 16% of the total land area in the County. He stated that it
also taking into account the complete Opequon Creek watershed and the
major watershed and the major highways on all sides of Winchester.
He'opined that--- therfocal point= of:the7 major productive activities
is achieved in the available land use balance for those who use this
City for that purpose.
Mr. Payne stated that from the planning aspect there is no reason
to assume that one person living in a subdivision near Route 37 on
Route 522 or Route 50, or anywhere else, would have anymore difficult
•
time
getting to work
than someone living on
Route
50 East. He
said
that
the employment
classification and the
travel
requirements
are
P. 19
basically the same. He respectfully suggested that the area west of
• Winchester which lies near Opequon Creek watershed and the related
villages for which engineering studies have been made will produce a
much better land use development pattern around the central city and
will result in a stronger planning philosophy for the County. He
continued that he thought it will avoid the constant confrontation
about how you're going to extend sewer, water, school and fire service
and industrial uses such as is out there now for building purposes; and
say that that is an area that should not be used. Mr. Payne said he
thought the Commission, almost on a weekly basis, would have to face
conflicts in that regard..
Mr. Payne spoke of the Planning Report when he mentioned the
following: three (3) objectives (Page 22), the ability of land to
• support certain uses, current land use and the desires of people, and
our goals.
Mr. Payne respectfully submitted that the area west of Winchester
stands on equal ground with the area east of Winchester excepting the
actual number of dwellings in place (more east of town than west), but
that isn't a general criteria for turning those things around.
Mr. Payne stated that the next elements were on Pages 3 -19 -- the
analysis was directed almost entirely toward land capability rather
than community locational factors covering a 15 -year planning period.
He expressed his thoughts that that's valid, but you need a balance
of locational factors so that you will have a principle by which you
can weigh a decision.
is
i
MWO]
Mr. Payne cited the "ground water" as an example -- the first
• statement points out that the best water supplies in the County lie
between Route 11 and Little North Mountain indicating that as far as
ground water is concerned that this is not a bad area either for resi-
dential growth (it it's not to be sewered now or for agriculture).
Mr. Payne stated that, since you can't stop development, that
you aught to permit it where the ground water is best so long as it's
there.
Mr. Payne cited the "surface water" -- the greatest source is
Back Creek and Cedar Creek at 180,000,000 gallons per day flow and
those areas are properly not planned for major growth. He said when
you eventually have to go to surface water that's the best place to
• get it and he was not suggesting anything different.
Mr. Payne commented on a regional study of Opequon Creek by Wiley
and Wilson for LFPDC re required regional water quality management
study that weighs three (3) pounds and is three (3) inches thick. He
said he examined it with the intent of how it related to the previous
studies that Mr. Dischinger had explained.
Mr. Payne stated that in Plate Nine they talk about the Regional
Land Use Plan and this area is, in large part, indicated on your year
2000 regional plan for what is called quote "medium density residential
uses ". He said that the sewer service maps, Plate 11, show what is
called an incremental sewer limited service; which limits it to the
eastern boundary of Winchester. He said they seemed to plan property
• development in stages -- nothing wrong with that; however, there are no
potential reservoir sites in this area, the water supply comes from
i
'►
P. 21
other areas, so there's no reason not to consider the fact that the
• Opequon watershed is truly a development watershed.
Mr. Payne spoke of the geology -- first of all there's an exist-
ing quarry there. He said the geology report points out that this
area is very well suited along with the area slightly east of Win-
chester for your best building stone. He said that it is much better
to have the residential development near the employment centers and
not have to haul that gravel so far which provides a natural situation
of which you should take advantage.
Next Mr. Payne spoke of the soils area as being important, too.
He referred to the soils map on Page 16 of report when he said it is
very easy to appreciate the fact that you're almost, by your natural
• conditions, forced to consider your ultimate development based on that
report; when it's more detailed. He stated that 250 square miles
have soils rated as having severe restrictions for urban development
compared to 431 square miles (in Class Croups 1,2,4 and part of 5).
He said that 100 square miles, generally west of the City, running
from the north to the south boundaries, including all of the area that
we are concerned with, is listed as having only moderate limitations
for urban development. He said that the planned area east of the City,
approximately 80 square miles of which you're planning 60, has soils
rated from very slight limitations to severe (largely meaning flood
plain in that area).
Mr. Payne emphasized the point that the addition of the ten (10)
square miles requested by these owners in a proper petition to the
• Commission some time ago is pretty well founded based upon the soils
analysis alone. +
t +
P. 22
0
Mr. Payne admittedly said that a trade -off can occur -- if you
• have good agricultural soil, you may have very good residential soil;
but he respectfully submitted that in an area that is bisected by three
(3) major highways with three (3) interchanges in the site itself in
the ten ('10) square miles with two (2) more adjunct to it north and
south; plus planned extensions of water and sewer line, plus a large
number of dwelling units and two (2) villages which are in the area;
would indicate that the trade -off outweighs the keeping of the agri-
cultural classification in this area (this is my judgment).
Mr. Payne stated that the soil association 3 in which these
properties are located have no soil problem and public participation
(Page 19) in response to questionnaires and meetings appears to be to
preserve the rural character of the County and preserve the low cost
of living. He suggested that 361 square miles is a pretty good job
and referred to Page 7 that simply outlined the details of the petition
that was presented a month ago by citizens who signed'it and they
cited their points which are valid and (they) deserve the same con-
sideration as the citizen who says, "I don't want any growth."
Mr. Payne stated that the remaining pests are simply comments
that they made on the objectives and he thought each one is met if
the inclusion of this ten (10) square mile area is considered. He
said as an example is the objective of clustered development in pro-
tection of Route 37 and he fully agrees, but he wouldn't do it phil-
osophically by changing the zoning. He stated that he would do it
through revising the site plan subdivision control ordinances to get
• the proper cluster design, the screening requirements, the so- called
quote, "buffer" (whatever that means) into an ordinance. He said that
A
i
P. 23
it also can be done by requiring limited access and service cons-
truction through subdivision design, but that he doubted it possible
to achieve what is wanted by simply stating it in a plan and then
using an agricultural zone with an one (1) acre lot size to achieve it.
Mr. Payne stated that the proposed plan has a number of districts
set up, but he only commented on one -- the urban development area
residential development district -- the area west of Winchester, as
they had described it, follows easily into all the categories for
residential development use if it is placed equally on the scales with
agricultural objectives and is simply asking the Commission to be
reasonable about that.
Mr. Payne stated that he thought the Plan emphasizes the pro-
tection of agriculture to a somewhat unrealistic level which weakens
its effect (not that it shouldn't, but don't overdo it). He continued
that the area planned for future urban growth is very small compara-
tively including our square miles of 16.5 percent -- leave us out
and you're 14.5 percent.
He stated that he thought physical plans should embrace entire
watersheds rather than convenient parts established purely as a public
sense of view. He said that private investment and centers actually
trigger planned activities and the criteria for land development
naturally seeks its own uniform level.
Mr. Payne further stated that in many respects the land west of
Winchester is more desirable for residential use than the area east
of Winchester, if you look at it in that sense. He said that he
thought, too, that the principle of comprehensive planning relative
i
i
P. 24
PJ
Mr. Payne stated that the trend in community development and
Mr. Payne spoke of the petition when he said it is logical and
u
Mr. Payne stated that the detailed review of the County Plan paper
Mr. Payne stated that he believed, finally, that the inclusion of
to utilities, community ventures, employment, 'transportation, public
and private facilities, and education are all equally served the
immediate vicinity of Winchester. He stated that if you take the physi-
cal limitations out; you can't really delineate it on any side -- it's
there as a major community center that can't be ignored.
changing character in this area is clearly residential; as evidenced
by recent events, land use patterns and physical characteristics of
the land. He said the County's transportation system is best utilized
by recognizing study area is readily accessible; which it certainly is
supportive and three (3),engineering reports, are similarly inclined
to discount those points, in his humble opinion, is to ignore the
facts.
reveals no strong reason why the area requested for residential use
should not be so indicated in the Plan.
the described areas requested would have little effect on the County
planning program and.no adverse effect, whatsoever, on the public
health safety or general welfare.
Mr. Payne, in conclusion, thanked the Commission and stated that
.•
he hoped the Commission would find his report helpful, and not critical.
He said he would be glad to answer any questions.
10
i
P. 25
Mr. Garland Cather appeared before the Commission representing
• the Round Hill community west of Winchester following a.meeting at the
Fire Hall the previous Thursday evening.
Mr. Cather stated that he was appointed to look into the situa-
tion about putting them into the agricultural district. He referred
to the square mile centering around the community center and the fire
hall there are 174 houses,'3 -4 churches, 4 stores, 3 home-and trailer
sales; so it's hard to classify them in an agricultural district. He
said they felt that they should be thought about as residential instead;
which is part of the ten (10) square miles.
Mr. Cather further stated that the community center was built in
1949; the fire station was built in 1963 (services a good bit of the
• western end of the County, including Gore).
Mr. Cather-stated that there is less than a three (3) -acre
average in this square mile. He said the people of the community are
interested and will provide a petition, if necessary.
Mr. Cather stated that there are a lot of sewer systems that have
been "in" for some twenty (20) years approximately of which he thought
were still in good working order; but the community may need some help
with these in the near future.
Robert T. Mitchell appeared before the Commission again and refer-
red to Mr. Payne's report, Page 1, containing the Statute (Section
15.1 -447: 1 -a) provides that the County shall consider the use of land,
characteristics and conditions of existing development and trends of
• growth or changes. He stated that he thought that all of the reports
�� 3
r
'►
P. 26
which are available to the County that have been prepared over the
• years have indicated the trend of growth and change with respect to
the property in question.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the Petition pointed out that the State
and Highway Department approved the placement of sleeves under Route 37;
which would not have been done at considerable expense to the land
owners if this hadn't been an anticipated trend in the development
area of the County. He asked the Commission's close consideration
to the enabling Statute, Mr. Payne's reportand the comments made here
today.
The Chairman thanked all the gentlemen for their information
and input. He said the Commission would certainly wrestly with what
• they had heard in the study of the present LUP; for he was quite sure
in its present form it will not be exactly as it will be enacted.
Richard Madigan stated that the:Planning Commission is to meet
the first of October with the Board of Supervisors for 'a joint hear-
ing on the LUP.
Ronald Berg stated that September 24 is the presentation by the
Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors (and there will only
be one public hearing scheduled thus far).
NO VOTE TAKEN -- TO BE CONTINUED WITH PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1975 AND JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON
OCTOBER 1, 1975.
•
F�AV1
l z- ADJOURNMENT i U � on motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel DeHaven
P
and unanimously approved,
BE IT RESOLVED, That:'the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby adjourn its meeting.
THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION,. THE
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
Respectfully submitted,
l
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
lliams, Chairman
r-i)
a,
r