PC_10-15-75_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, October 15,il975
I
PRESENT: Keith Williams, Chairman; C. Langdon Gordon;
Richard Madigan; Manuel DeHaven;
H. Ronald Berg; J. 0. Renalds, III;
Lawrence Ambrogi; Clinton Ritter
ABSENT: Elmer Venskoske; J. William Riley, III
CALL TO ORDER
Richard Madigan called the Meeting to Order in the absence of the
Chairman and stated that it was up to the Commission to select a Chair-
man to conduct the meeting.
Upon motion by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Frank Brumback and
approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That Richard Madigan will preside as Acting Chair-
man in the absence of the Chairman, Keith Williams; and Vice Chairman,
• Elmer Venskoske.
LAND USE PLAN
Discussion
Acting Chairman stated that the Land Use Plan was referred back to
the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors.
Frank Brumback stated that he realized he is a Junior member of the
Planning Commission, but asked if the Commission would stick by their
majority vote when a revision of the Land Use Plan is once again pre-
sented to the Board of Supervisors.
(NOTE: GROUP DISCUSSION occurs frequently throughout this meeting.)
Frank Brumback stated that the Board of Supervisors had questioned
whether the Commission had done its homework on the LUP. He said he
wanted to know if the Commission intended to thresh out the problems
in the LUP and present it to the Board of Supervisors as a body or as
• individuals.
I
(PC 10/15/75) P. 2
Acting Chairman stated that he is concerned that Route 37 will
create something like the Berlin Wall, as it is restricted. He stated
is his position is that of representing the people and when he is in disa-
greement with the concensus of opinion he tries to express his view -
points,'but will still go their way. He also said that he had personall,
felt that the area should be planned even though it may be twenty (20)
years before it is developed. He continued that lines would not have
been installed under Route 37 if they had not been planned for a purpose
and in close proximity to the market area and the hub of everything
(roads, schools, shopping, industry, etc.). He suggested drawing a
hard and fast line now at Route or it might end up with somebody getting
a dab rezoned at a time and a hodgepodge of something we will not be
proud of.
Langdon Gordon stated that everyone can't be "pleased ".
Manuel DeHaven stated that the County needs a tax base. He said
that he objects to the five (5)- acre tracts that are required because
they drive everything out of the County into the City limits. He said
that the whole Opequon Drainage Area should be considered and include
Round Hill (within Winchester vicinity). He said that the people that
installed the pipe had studied enough to know that they would take care
of everything west. He continued that five (5)- acre tracts were too
much and the roads could not sustain heavy traffic; as well as the fact
that they can strip the front end of it and build their low- income houses
Acting Chairman stated that five (5) acres is a lot of land with on(
(1) house on it and not enough to raise a cow, plant a garden, etc. He
said that we have heard enough about urban sprawl and he wondered if it
is the wisest use of the land.
• The Chairman, Keith Williams, arrived and assumed the Chair.
1
(PC 10/15/75) P. 3
Manuel DeHaven suggested beginning with 1973 and making a new LUP.
Richard Madigan stated that when the Planning Commission passes the
LUP with a majority vote it goes to the Board of Supervisors as being
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Frank Brumback stated that he wanted to be certain that the Plan-
ning Commission would abide by the majority vote.
Upon motion by Frank Brumback, seconded by Richard Madigan and
approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission would abide by the
majority vote (of Same) upon presentation to the Board of Supervisors
of the Land Use Plan by the Planning Commission.
Richar
Ronald Berg
"Start
• North
South
West
South
South
East
North
3 Madigan
pointed
at Route
on Route
on Route
on Route
on Route
on Route
on Route
on Route
Opequon Watershed West of Route 37
made the following boundary suggestion while
gut the perimeters on the map:
522 to Route 37 Intersection.
522 to Route 678.
678 to Route 679.
679 to Route 654.
654 to Route 50 to a point opposite Route 620.
620 to Intersection with Route 622 at the Opequon
622 to Intersection with Route 37.
37 back into Route 522.
The Commission discussed Mr. Madigan's proposal.
Frank Brumback questioned if the Supreme Court ruling meant that
the County would be required to supply water and sewer if the County
designates an area.
Clinton Ritter spoke of Loudoun County's development impact ordi-
nance being tested in court by Levitt Corporation, one of the largest
development corporations on the East Coast. He stated that a Board of
Supervisors has a right to turn down a developer if it is a tax -minus
proposal. He said that this alone does not give any developer a free
. hand, but rather that he has a lot more requirements than just that.
(PC 10/15/75) P. 4
Mr. Ritter stated his opinion that if our ordinance were a little
more clear as to cost or impact factor, then the tax consequences should
• be one of the most serious factors to consider. He continued that no-
thing is in the present ordinance as a guideline for the Board to go by.
He said that he thought it aught to be put down in black and white as
it certainly would clarify.
Mr. Ritter stated that a developer might be in complete compliance
but the County may have to consider disapproval if it (County) can't
afford to provide the services necessary.
Ronald Berg read to the Commission the following from the Piedmont
Virginian of October 8, 1975 (Vol. 5, No. 26, The Plains, VA):
"...To develop this land at less density, the lots would be more expen-
sive, thus constituting 'exclusionary zoning,' which is discriminatory,
said Fried. He claimed that the development was in accordance with the
County plan, but he emphasized the discriminatory zoning argument.
Fried's arguments were based on two recent State Supreme Court deci-
sions in Fairfax County called the Allman and Williams cases. The court
ruled for the developer in both cases arguing that a county cannot re-
strict development just because schools, roads and sewers are deficient
or_unavailable.
Fried had no doubt thatRoute 777 is inadequate, but he didn't want to
improve it himself because he felt that the court said he didn't have to
The availability of schools and sewer was questionable, but again Fried
contended that such services have always 'followed' development at the,
county's cost, and this is what the court has ruled..."
Mr. Berg again read from the same article:
"Levitt will use the Allman and Williams rulings in its newest suit
against the county, predicted Fried, and 'Levitt will prevail.' "
Richard Madigan stated that Mr. Berg may have impact information in
his file.
Clinton Ritter stated that the County can't be discriminatory or
capricious as the court held that Fairfax County had been.
Richard Madigan reminded the Commission that it had until 1990
(year of) to provide services. He asked what is wrong with developers
putting in their own lines, etc.
•
9- � '�
—T'�t
(PC 10/15/75) P. 5
Frank Brumback opinioned that simply because a county has a LUP on
the books did not obligate it (county) and courts cannot enforce some-
thing for which the County cannot pay.
Frank Brumback stated that we need to know the answerlbefore we can
proceed.
Richard Madigan suggested getting water and sewer plans.
Mr. Madigan stated that no rezoning is currently done in conjunction
with the LUP, but is it necessary to do so because now we have no plan-
ning to support a court case. He said that when you have a development
application the burden of proof is on the County and the LUP will serve
this purpose.
Clinton Ritter stated that he would study the court cases of Allman
and Williams closely.
The Commission discussed amongst themselves and in groups the urban
development area of LUP map and the flood plan in relation to size.
® Manuel DeHaven stated that fifteen (15) years is too long a period
of time.
Frank Brumback agreed with Mr. DeHaven.
Ronald Berg stated that the map can be staged any way the Commissior
would like it, but he wanted to know how tough did the Commission wanted
to be. He said that the present proposed LUP is not very tough (strict).
Mr. Berg stated that he didn't know how the Commission would con-
vince the public to accept a tougher LUP. He mentioned the alternative
comparable to Fauquier and Fairfax Counties of using drainage areas ..
designated by year. He said it is a very good way to plan, but he
questioned whether or not Frederick County is ready to digest such a
thing; and the proposed LUP is something much simpler that people could
0 more readily understand.
(PC 10/15/75) P. 6
Ronald Berg stated that the LUP was never drafted with the intent
of growth staging in mind.
Mr. Berg mentioned feasibility of developer installing his own
water and sewer within his subdivision.
Mr. Ritter stated that the courts will only intervent when police
powers are abused.
He mentioned
that
Fairfax
had ability to
perform and
that LUP would be
a good argument
if
used in
combination with
cost
figures.
Richard Madigan stated that it would take a long time'to get *ures;.
such as capital improvements program.
Ronald Berg asked the Commission what it will do in the meantime
while it is getting these figures and does not have a LUP.
Mr. Berg asked the Commission if it intended to concentrate its
time and energy o n. the people that need services.
• Mr. DeHaven stated that he agrees with land owners in the west end
of the County.
Mr. Berg asked who would pay for the services to those people. He
suggested tailoring Plan down to ability to provide services would still
not provide answer for them and that the people who are upset are the
same people who are not going to get something out of the Plan.
Mr. Ritter again mentioned the necessity (in his opinion) of a
checklist to provide consistancy and for standardizing protection againsl
public support of subdivisions and zoning ordinances that are not solid.
He suggested finding out from the Sanitation Authority where trunk lines
will be and Capital Improvements Program for a valuable financial
picture.
The Chairman stated that he would like to have a session of the
• Commission with Wellington Jones to discuss a five (5)- year incremental
basis predicated on economics.
��U
(PC 10/15/75) P. 7
Langdon Gordon suggested that the Board of Supervisors should be
included on the LUP hearings and information gathered by the Commission.
• Mr. Ritter suggested representatives from each department should
meet with the Planning Commission rather than give information to Mr.
Berg, so that they (Commission) may answer questions and outline major
points that we are going to try to plug into this thing and throw back
to the Board of Supervisors and ask for input from them.
Frank Brumback suggested the Commission discontinue discussion until
it received facts and figures.
LAND USE PLAN (Continued)
Printing-Extra Copies
Action - Recommended Tabling
Mr. Berg stated that the Board of Supervisors had requested that
one - hundred (100) copies of the Plan be printed by the Planning Commis-
sion. He said that in order to "break,even" financially they would
sell for nine dollars ($9.00) each. He then asked the Commission if it
wanted to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on printing
the Plan.
Richard Madigan stated that if a Board member had heard the con-
versation today they would not want copies made.
Manuel DeHaven stated that he thought the Board meant once we get
a new one drafted (LUP).
Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Frank Brumback and
approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend that extra copies of the
Land Use Plan not be printed until a new draft is made and recommended
by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
(PC 10/15/75) P. 8
MOBILE HOMES
DISCUSSION OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME
• RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
Action - No Vote
Ronald Berg stated that the State of Virginia passed a law about a
year ago that newly -sited mobile homes have tiedowns. He suggested that
since the tiedowns have to be inspected'by the Building Inspector anyway
a building permit be issued by the Building Inspector for inspecting the
mobile home as well as for the tiedowns. He said that this would mean
having to remove from Agricultural 1 and 2 zones (A -1 and A -2) the C.U.P
for mobile homes and writing a zoning district for mobile home parks
and subdivisions.
THE COMMISSION ASKED THAT A DRAFT OF THE CHANGES BE PRESENTED AT A
WORK SESSION.
VIRGINIA BYWAY SYSTEM
® Discuss Inclusion of Route 723
Action - No Vote (lacking information
Mr. Berg stated that the Highway Department has not yet furnished
the information that he needs to make a presentation at this time.
Mr. Berg also stated that Clarke County has requested that Route
723 be included in the Virginia Highways System.
Manuel DeHaven stated that this route is heavily used.
SUBDIVISIONS
Stonebrook 4 and 5
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Berg stated that the zoning is approved for all lots and that
the lots also meet regulations.
The Commission discussed this item.
• 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 recommend approval of Sections 4 and 5
of Stonebrook Subdivision. ��— ,
(PC 10/15/75) P. 9
SUBDIVISIONS
Discuss Southview Subdivision
•
No Action Necessary
Langdon Gordon addressed Ronald Berg when he asked ifthe Planning
Commission recommendations had been relayed to Southview's spokesman.
Mr. Berg answered that he had talked with Lee Ebert (appointed
spokesman) the next day (following meeting of October 1, 1975) and that
they had marked up the Plat. He said that the developer will go along
with extending lots back and then having a four (4)- acre lot to hold as
one (1) lot until water and sewer comes through
to show footage minimum.
ADJOURNMENT
then Deed;of Dedication
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and
C
approved unanimously,
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,
I
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
P
Keith Williams,
a -3