PC_12-03-75_Meeting_Minutes7
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
• Held in the Board of Supervisors'Room, December 3, 1975
PRESENT: Keith Williams, Chairman; Frank Brumback; Elmer Venskoske;
James Golladay, Jr.; Manuel DeHaven; C. Langdon Gordon
ABSENT: Richard Madigan
CALL TO ORDER
The Vice Chairman called the Meeting to Order because the Chairman
had not yet arrived and proceeded to the First Order of Business.
STAFF REPORT By The BRUMBACK COMMITTEE
Action -- None
Ronald Berg stated that he had contacted Planning Departments of other
counties and the State of Virginia, who are doing some work on strip build-
ing regulations now, and that he would be reporting to the Commission at the
next meeting..
• Frank Brumback stated that until they have recommendations for the
i
Commission they will keep it abreast of their finding's.
REQUEST Of J. RICHARD MICHAEL, JR.
Action -- Re- Application Required
for Rezoning to R -6 -
Ronald Berg read the letter re Cdr. Michael, from Attorney Benjamin M.
Butler, dated November 18, 1975 (File No. 2727):
"J. Richard Michael, Jr. has requested that I write you concerning the
rezoning of 4.67 acres which he had filed and rezoned to R -2 for townhouses
in 1972.
Subsequently, a new Zoning Ordinance was adopted and the land remained R -2;
however,,.Mr. Michael's use of the land did not change.
fie recently discovered that the land is still zoned R -2 and would, conse-
quently, like to have the Zoning Ordinance amended with regard to this prop—
erty showing the same to R -6 for townhouses and apartments.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
/s /McKEE and BUTLER, BENJAMIN M. BUTLER"
Mr. Berg distributed a plat of the forementioned property to the Commis-
• §ion and discussed the location with it. He stated that R -2 Zoning was
Multifamily formerly. He said that Apple Valley Road is along the North
boundary; and listed the adjoining landowners for the Members.
-7 70
(PC 12/03/75) P. 2
Mr, Brumback stated that he understood there to be a noticeable water
problem in that area.
• Mr. Berg agreed that a water problem does exist.
The question of time was discussed in re to the new Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Michael had applied initially in 1972 for
townhouses and was successful. He said that Public Hearings (with the Plan-
ning Commission and Board of Supervisors) would be necessary to amend Ordi-
nance to R -6 Zoning and someone would have to bear the expense. He stated
that it would be required that townhouses be built only where central water
and sewer are available. These services are not presently available on Mr.
Michael's land.
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by Frank Brumback and
approved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske;
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for
•
Virginia does hereby recommend that Mr. J. Richard Mi
application for rezoning to R -6 for townhouses.
Chairman asked Mr. Berg to inform Mr. .Michael's
Butler.
-- YES.
County of Frederick,
1, Jr. make another
resentative, Attorney
Langdon Gordon suggested mentioning in letter that Mr. Michael can't
have townhouses unless he has gotten public water and sewer.
Mr. Brumback said that if Mr. Michael can't meet the requirements then
rezoning would be pointless and everyone's time might be saved.
Mr. Berg stated that he had
Chairman suggested that Mr.
lack of information stating that
® of the area, particularly in the
planning agencies and interested
Upon motion made by Frank B
approved by the following vote:
A -95 REVIEW -- HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY
Action -- Tabled
not received a copy of the application.
Duncan, LFPDC, should be contacted about the
the Commission's intent is an impacteppaisal
use of funds as he was certain all the other
parties were.
rumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and
(PC 12/03/75) P. 3
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
® Virginia does hereby direct the Secretary to write a letter to Mr. R. Edward
Duncan, Lord Fairfax Planning Commission requesting more information because
it is the policy of the Planning Commission to be more informed before making
a decision.
Upon motion made by Langdon Gordon, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and
approved'by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby table the A -95 Review of Health Systems Agency until
further information is received.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION -- SUBDIVISIONS
ELVA S. CARPER LOTS -- Two (2) lots in Sunnyside, fronting Carper Drive.
Health and Highway Departments report no objections.
Action -- Recommended Contingent Approval
Mr. Berg acquainted the Commission with the property location and stated
that there are two (2) houses located on roughly a 14,000 square foot lot
® and a Right -of -Way that is approximately fourteen feet (14') wide. He said
that Mrs. Carper wishes to sell one (1) house to pay for the Sanitation
Authority contract for sewer connection for the other house and that; because
Carper Drive is a fourteen foot (14') Right -of -Way, itlis impossible for her
to meet the Right -of -Way requirements. Mr. Berg quoted some of the Right -of-
Way requirements and stated that she planned to sell the smaller of the two
(2) tracts.
He also stated that a degree of non - conformity would be involved. He
said that there is a shed and outhouses located close to the boundary that
affect the request.
Mr. Berg stated that both houses are under contract with the Sanitation
Authority and that Mr. Wines, the purchaser, has already made arrangements
on one (1) lot and Mrs. Carper has paid for hers.
• Chairman stated that he believed it would be very appropriate to add any
conditions the Commission wishes, for the record, because the request is an
exception to the Ordinance that's provided for within the body of same.
(PC 12/03/75) P. 4
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Frank Brumback and ap-
proved by the following vote:
is DeHaven;.Gordon; Gollad ay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of subdivision special consid-
eration of Elva S. Carper Lots (two lots in Sunnyside, fronting Carper Drive)
with the exception that water and sewer hookup or contract be completed be-
fore the property sale.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION -- SUBDIVISIONS
HIMELRIGHT LOTS -- Two (2) lots on Route 654, South ofINain. Highway approv-
ed.
Action -- Table4
Ronald Berg stated that this request is much the same as previous one;
and that there is a one (1) -story brick home facing Route 654 and a one (1)-
story brick home fronting a private lane that extends West from Route 654 of
which the original.lot lines were not shown on the plats that he had distrib-
uted to the Commission and ran West of the second brick) house. He also stat-
ed that she would like to sell the house that she had built for her parents.
® He said that in order to sell this highly- appraised house she has to divide
her property.
i
Mr. Berg stated that there will continue to be wells and septic systems
for the two (2) houses and that both systems will be wi the confines of
the lots. He said that two (2) health permits were issued in the sixties
M's) thus indicating their age and a new health permit had not been issued.
I
Mr. R. Wesley Williams, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, stated
that he was familiar with the properties and that it might be difficult to
add to the existing systems.
Mr. Berg stated that the second house is fronted by a- twenty (20)- foot
private drive that also serves several other houses.
Mr. Gordon questioned what would happen if the system malfunctions fol-
lowing a subdivision.
• R. Wesley Williams stated that all that could be done would be to add
more drain lines.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and ap-
-7
(PC 12/03/75) P. 5
proved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
is
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick
Virginia does hereby table the special consideration of Himelright Lots (two
lots on Route 654, South of Nain) until the Health Department has an oppor-
tunity to provide the Commission with a report.
Chairman commented that it
Mrs. Himelright the procedure t
icular proposal with the Health
uation.
GARBER SUBDIVISION -- Three (3)
might be advisable for ;Mr. Berg to moiew%sth
Trough which she will have to go on this part -
Department in order to get approval and eval-
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION -- SUBDIVISIONS
lots, fronting Route 6d8.
Action -- Recommended Previous Action
Rescended AND Rezoning Application
Mr. Berg stated that the Garber Subdivision was
ago by three (3) seqarate actions, but the plats were
that when the Board took up the matter one (1) member
these lots were,platted they were in three (3)- acre 1
a subdivision. He said that he took up the matter wit
Garber's counsel, who agreed that there would be such
proved some months
, t released. - He said
,ggested that when
.s and, therefore, not
Mr. Ben Butler, Mr.
cloud on the subdi-
vision and it should not be released. Mr. Berg also stated that the subdi-
vision was approved on the basis of re- subdividing (three lots of two) with-
out all the plat provisions for subdivision. That decision appeared to be
incorrect because it relied on the subdivision to amend the plat.
Chairman asked Mr. Berg if the same plat is being returned to the Com-
mission and if he had the forementioned dates.
Mr. Berg replied that it is the same plat and that he did not have the
action dates.
Upon motion made by Langdon Gordon, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and ap-
proved by the following vote:
• DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick
Virginia does hereby recommend that previous actions of June 5, 1975 and
March 6, 1975 be rescended and that Mr. Garber apply for a rezoning.
(PC 12/03/75) P. 6
A -95 REVIEW
Plaza Towers Apartment Complex, located behind Wards Shopping Center in the
City of Winchester -- comments requested by the Lord Fairfax Planning Dis-
® trict Commission of the Planning Commission.
Action -- Tabled
Mr. Berg stated the foregoing as being a non - agenda item and commented
that the City of Winchester also receives all A -95 Reviews of Frederick
County.
Mr. Berg stated that the only information he had was that the proposed
is a three (3)- story structure of eighty -four (84) units and approximately
six - hundred by four - hundred feet (600' x 400') e3ualling'two- hundred - forty-
thousand (240,000) square feet. He further stated that the application is
being processed through HUD and that he presumed it will be under the Section
Eight (8) Program (some of the units would be subsidized).
Upon motion made by Langdon Gordon, seconded by El' m i
er Venskoske and ap-
proved by the following vote:
® DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Briumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby table the A -95 Review of Plaza Towers Apartment Complex
until more information is received.
COMMERCIAL PRINTING
of Zoning Ordinance
Action -- Requested Approval
Mr. Berg stated the foregoing as being a non- agendI item and stated that
when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted (1973) one - thousand (1,000) copies were
printed and, at this time, the Department of Planning and Development has two -
to three - hundred copies that are hopelessly obsolete.
Mr. Berg stated that he had requested bids for two - hundred booklets,
printed one side: Commercial Press quoted five- hundred - nineteen dollars and
forty cents ($519.40) and Wisecarver Print Shop quoted five-hundred-seventy-
Mr. Berg also stated that there is a current master copy that is kept
up -to -date from which the printing would be done. He added that there are
five
dollars and no
cents ($575.00).
He suggested a recommendation to the
Board
of Supervisors
of using their "special
account ".
Mr. Berg also stated that there is a current master copy that is kept
up -to -date from which the printing would be done. He added that there are
(PC 12/03/75) P. 7
only five (5) up -to -date Ordinance available for sale,
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by James Golladay, Jr, and
40 approved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors that two - hundred
(200) each, single -sided copies be commercially printed of the Zoning Or-
dinance.
ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITION AMENDMENTS
Public Hearing scheduled 01/07/75
Sections 23 -3 and 23 -54
Action -- Announcement
Mr. Berg announced and explained the above.
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 001 -76 of R. MARSHALL' BROWN, 615 Iron City
Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, hereby requests that 364.256 acres, more or
less, bounded by the Berkeley County, West Virginia - Frederick County, Vir-
ginia line (North); Route 671 (East); Route 668 (South); a short distance
East of Route 11 (West), now zoned Agricultural - General (A -2) be rezoned:
Industrial - General (M -2). This parcel is designated as 34 -(A)- 3,4,5,6,8 on
Tax Map 34 and is in Stonewall Magisterial District.
• Action -- Tabled
Chairman read the application to the Commission.
Mr. R. Marshall Brown appeared before the
had purchased the property at least ten (10) years ago
and stated that he
that the purpose
of his request is that "one day" he can mine limestone and manufacture lime.
He stated that the property is underlain with the Mosshlim seam which is a
high - grade, high - quality, very desirable for use in steel manufacturing, lime
stone.
He stated that he has no immediate plans of beginning operation, just
future plans, of building a plant that will employ approximately seventy (70).
He said that modern electrostatic precipitators.can minimize the dust problem.
Mr. Brown stated that he is currently in the business of selling.lime-
® stone and lime to the steel industry.
Mr. Brumback asked how many permits are required.
Mr. Berg stated that there are three (3) or four (4) permits required:
.2-�? J�
(PC 12/03/75) P. 8
Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board,
Water Control Board, and
• fourth is a permit to cover employees of the plant.
Chairman asked if Mr. Brown had attempted to acquire the necessary per-
mits.
Mr. Brown stated that he had not.
Chairman asked Mr. Brown the distance between theiproperty and Route 11.
Mr. Brown replied that the property itself may be as close as three -hun-
dred (300) feet and estimated that the limestone seam is at a distance of
three - eighths (3/8) to- one -half (1/2) mile and is located immediately East of
the railroad track.
Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Brown the dimension of the limestone seam.
Mr. Brown stated that the property is approximately five - thousand (5,000)
feet long and the seam itself is roughly one - hundred - twenty (120) feet; which
proposed operation would be active.
Mr. Brown stated that he had acquired two (2) geological studies with
an estimated forty - million (40,000,000) tons of recoverable, high - grade, met-
allurgical stone and, depending, upon the size of the operation, would be
quarried at approximately one- to two - million (1,000,000 to 2,000,000) tons
of stone.per year; which would take, at that rate, twenty (20) to forty (40)
years -- a permanent structure would be necessary.
Mr. Brown also stated that the railroad would be the primary means of
transportation.
Chairman stated that there appears to be a number of adjacent properties
zoned as M -1 and M -2.
® Mr. Berg discussed the property location with the Commission by using
the map as illustration -- pointing out the adjacent zoning and use.
Opposition
��� "��
calculates to
approximately only fifteen
(15) acres, buit more land will be
•
disturbed for
the quarry operation.
Chairman
asked Mr. Brown the length
of time he wou estimate that the
proposed operation would be active.
Mr. Brown stated that he had acquired two (2) geological studies with
an estimated forty - million (40,000,000) tons of recoverable, high - grade, met-
allurgical stone and, depending, upon the size of the operation, would be
quarried at approximately one- to two - million (1,000,000 to 2,000,000) tons
of stone.per year; which would take, at that rate, twenty (20) to forty (40)
years -- a permanent structure would be necessary.
Mr. Brown also stated that the railroad would be the primary means of
transportation.
Chairman stated that there appears to be a number of adjacent properties
zoned as M -1 and M -2.
® Mr. Berg discussed the property location with the Commission by using
the map as illustration -- pointing out the adjacent zoning and use.
Opposition
��� "��
(PC 12/03/75) P. 9
Mr. Shep Campbell appeared before the Commission and presented a peti-
tion that had been signed by residents of Stonewall District, Clearbrook,
• Whitehall and Apple Pie Ridge Area.
Mr. Campbell read to the Commission an exerpt from Mrs. Jan Fadeley's
Letter to the Editor of the Winchester Evening Star re this rezoning appli-
cation, urging opposition to appear at the Planning Co ission meeting and
citing as reasons: health, tax and property ruination.'
Mr. Campbell cited one reason for opposition is air pollution /health
i
hazards
He stated that sewage treatment would possibly be required and they
feel it would be an unnecessary use of tax dollars.
He stated that the wasteland that would result would be unsightly.
Mr. Campbell asked what type of reclammation is planned following the
operation .
Mr. Campbell stated that, if the Commission would note the number of
• people standing in the back of the room, it recognize the opposition present
to this rezoning request.
Opposition
Mr. Jim Moyer appeared before the Commission in opposition and asked if
Mr. Brown will vacate and not provide land reclammation after twenty (20)
to forty (40) years.
Mr: Brown stated that he had stated that,the reserve would last that
length of time.
Opposition
Mr. Dale Sandmeier appeared before the Commission in opposition and
stated that he lives exactly three - tenths (3/10) of a mile from where the
buildings will be erected, at the railroad tracks.
•
He stated that
he had
seen how the air
pollution problems of
the Clear -
brook quarry are not
being
solved and that
the blasting can cause
extensive
structural damage, etc. to the surrounding property owners.
Mr. Sandmeier stated that he lives two (2) blocks from Route 11 and
a� �F - .
(PC 12/03/75) P. 10
that Mr. Brown could excavate as he pleases in that area. He said that Mr.
Brown will not be living in the community, but many of the people appearing
• in opposition will be.
Opposition
Mrs. Glenn Russell appeared before the Commission !in opposition and
stated that they had just built a new home (within a year) and the quarry
would be.right in the front yard -- the blasting would be damaging.
Opposition
Mr. Lewis Ebbert appeared before the Commission in opposition and stat-
ed that they live in the vicinity of the proposed quarry.
Mr. Ebbert asked the Commission if it allows spot zoning now; which is
what this 'rezoning application amounts to because approximately ninety -nine
percent (99 %) of Mr. Brown's land is presently adjacent to agriculturally-
2orellropaty, He stated that they are very much against rezoning to Industrial
unless the entire area is rezoned.
O Opposition
Mr. Kenneth Lewis appeared before the Commission in opposition and stat-
ed that property value will be lowered (he lives directly East of the rezon-
I
ing request property).
Opposition
Mrs. Doris Sandmeier appeared before the Commission in opposition and
asked if the blasting cause damage to Routes 11 and 81.
Opposition
Mr. Pat Russell appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
that he lives in the Stonewall District, engaged in farming and orchard oper-
ations. He stated that, in his opinion, the request should be denied because
there are no immediate plans to begin operation -- requirements could change
from year to year.
Opposition
Ms. Ruth Taylor appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
0
(PC 12/03/75) P. 11
that she lives on Route 669 East. She expressed concern of property evalua-
tion; especially if the blasting causes defects in wells, septic systems,
building foundations, etc.
Opposition
Ms. Wilma Slack appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
that she Aeson a sixty -eight (68)- acre (approximately) farm, West of the
railroad tracks. She spoke of the noise and air pollution, blasting damage,
that would be involved with the rezoning proposal.
Opposition
Mr. Hewitt Light appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
[I
that he rents land for farming purposes from Mr. Brown, adjoining property on
the East. He stated that if Mr. Brown opens a quarry he, Mr. Light, and his
family will have to move.
Rebuttal
Mr. R. Marshall Brown appeared before the Commission in rebuttal and
stated that he had not expected to be greeted with open arms. He suggested
they go to the expense of a model plant layout in relation to the property
that might be helpful to the Commission and opposition; and he would do so
if the Commission considered it helpful.
Mr. Brumback asked if the limestone in question is rare on the East
Coast.
Mr. Brown stated that a large quantity of limestone in the area, but
0
the Mossheim seam may vary anywhere from one - hundred to one - hundred -fifty
feet (100 -150') wide with unusual occurrences of more than one (1) seam to-
ward the South. He stated that, in Frederick County, the Mossheim seam is
the desirable seam of limestone. He stated that the freight rates are pro-
hibitive South of Strasburg. He also stated that Frye, M. J. Grove Company
(Stephens City and Middletown) and Chemstone Corporation (Strasburg) present-
ly mine this limestone. He stated that Chemstone probably mines approximate-
ly two - million (2,000,000) tons per year and that the other two (2) mines are
(PC 12/03/75) P. 12
smaller. He also stated that his proposed plant would most closely approxi-
mate with Chemstone plant.
Mr. Golladay asked Mr. Brown if he had done any research or plans to-
ward land reclammation or environmental impact.
Mr. Brown stated that he had done neither, but than he did plan to study
about the land reclammation requirements of the State.
Mr. Brumback stated that, as it stands now, the Cc 1, does not have
any environmental impact study or any information upon which to base its
judgement as well as the fact that Mr. Brown has given the impression that
he does not intend to begin mining operations'in the immediate future.
Chairman asked Mr. Berg if the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development controls the normal land reclammation procedures that are now a
'part of the State Ordinance regarding all mining operations.
Mr. Berg stated that the Federal regulation is only i if surface land is
mineral rather than coal. He stated that he had just r the regula-
tions and did not know if they contain a section on reclammation because he
had not had the time to examine them. .
Mr. DeHaven stated that he did not think the Commission should "act"
l
until Mr. Brown is ready to begin his operation.
Mr. Gordon stated that he concurred with Mr. DeHaven. He asked Mr.
I
Brown if he had considered withholding his request until a time when he has
immediate operational plans or did he want to follow through and get a de-
finite decision at this point.
Mr. Brown stated that he would be happy to withdraw for a reasonable
period. He also stated that the reason for making the request now is the
possibility of more new homes being built and more opposition at a future
date. He said that he would like to re -study and bring more information to
the Commission.
Mr. Brown, in speaking of the permits, stated that he thought it would
involve considerable expense which he could avoid if the Commission had a
,�_ F/ - ,
(PC 12/03/75) P. 13
negative vote. He asked which should come first.
Mr. Gordon stated that the Commission has a policy that it does not like
is to make plans that far ahead because it cannot be certain of what will happen
in the meantime. He stated that if it is not good for the persons here to-
day, it just possibly might not be good six (6) years from now. He also stat
ed that the Commission must consider strongly its position as well as Mr.
i
Brown's free enterprise option to do what he wishes with his property. He
stated that he did not feel the Commission was in a position to take positive
action at this meeting.
Mr. DeHaven stated that once the property is zoned M -2 it can be used
for many different types of operations.
I
Mr. Gordon suggested Mr. Brown should be offered the option of consider -
I
ing either withdrawing or getting the required permits.
Mr. Brown asked what that would constitute..
Mr. Berg stated that if the application is withdrawn at this time Mr.
• Brown would be required to re- apply.
Mr. Brown asked if the application could be tabled for six (6) months to
do research.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and ap-
proved by the following vote:
Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - -YES
Mr. DeHaven - ABSTAINED.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby table Mr. R. Marshall Brown's rezoning application un-
til Mr. Brown obtains the necessary permits from Department of Conservation
and Economic Development, Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board, Water
Control Board, etc. to provide the Commission with unbiased information be-
fore making a recommendation re the rezoning of 364.256 acres in Stonewall
Magisterial District.
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 005 -76 of MELVINA M. MOULDEN, 932 Allen
Drive, Winchester, Virginia, hereby requests that 98.70 acres, more or less,
® located near the intersection with Routes 739 and 671 (fronting the East side
of Route 739 and the South side of Route 671) now zoned Agricultural - General
(A -2) be rezoned: Residential- Limited (R -2). This parcel is designated as
32- (A) -63 on Tax Map 32 and is in Stonewall Magisterial District.
(PC 12/03/75) P. 14
tion -- Recommended Denial
Mr. Milton Harris, representative for applicant, appeared before the
• Commission and stated that the property lies between the Apple Pie Ridge Road
and Welltown Pike (abo
Apple Pie Ridge Road).
lots (about 1800 feet)
a total of eighty -five
that this property had
ed at $79,000.
at 2200 feet along Welltown Pike with balance along
He stated that they propose.to develop thirteen (13)
along the Welltown Pike at this time; with eventually
(85) lots (approximately 938 feet) developed. He said
been in his client's family since 1882 and was apprais
Mr. Harris stated that they intend to have a single - family dwelling
quality subdivision at least equal to that of Stonebrook Subdivision. He
also stated that restrictions will be contained within the Deed of Dedication
of price and spuare footage, etc. high enough to exceed'!FHA requirements.
Mr. Harris stated that the proposed subdivision would not be removing
land from agricultural use and the construction would provide jobs, result-
ing in tax revenue. He stated that people have to be living in an area be-
fore roads and facilities can be provided, even though it is not practical.
Mr. Harris referred to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia; the
i
case of Board of Supervisors, Fairfax County, versus Allen, 215 Virginia Re-
ports, Page 434 it was held that ... he read ...
"...the Board of Fairfax County had no policy that all necessary public
utilities and facilities be provided in advance of high - 'density zoning. They
follow due to cost increase and demand..."
He stated that the judge said that without people living out there the
county is not going to build schools without people driving on the road the
Highway Department of the State of Virginia is not going to build roads.
He stated that if there are such restrictions on the land that the pro-
perty owner can't use it, then the owner is deprived of substantial property
rights that are granted by the Federal Constitution.
•
Mr. Harris referred to another case that appeared in - the forementioned
reports when he quoted...
� 3
(PC 12/03/75) P. 15
"...if such depravation occurs that is unreasonable then it is con-
fiscatory and therefore illegal... due process of law..."
• He stated that some property will have to be sold before the developers
can provide private roads. He said that there will be a sixty -foot (60')
Right -of -Way at one end that will service anticipated lot
with property behind. He also stated that they propose a
tween two (2)` lots that would equal six (6) driveways for
(13) lots.
Mr. Harris stated that they had used backhoes to dig
(60) holes at a depth of three feet (3'). He stated that
s and to connect
joint driveway be-
the first thirteen
approximately sixty
the Health Depart-
ment believes-.that sixty to seventy percent (60 % -70 %) of the land would per-
colate. He said that a balance of fifty '(50) to sixty (60) lots instead of
the originally - proposed eighty -five (85) lots. He stated that the Commission
should not be concerned about the percolation tests because each lot would
have to pass a test individually.
• Mr. Harris also stated that they would include some off-street parking
restrictions to prevent vehicles being parking along the road.
Mr. Harris stated that the lots are forty- thousand (40,000) square feet
as compared to forty- three - thousand - five - hundred -sixty (43,560) square feet
for an acre.
Mr. Charles Kirkland, Surveyor, appeared before thi Commission and stat-
ed that the limestone outcroppings more or less parallel Apple Pie Ridge Road,
none are very wide, and that he didn't foresee any problems of accommodating
lot lines.
Mr. Kirkland stated that most of the lots along the road frontage will
be wider than the normal one - hundred - twenty feet (120') because depth is re-
stricted by eventually another tier of lots on the old street.
He stated that, because the road is rather narrow, they plan to add an-
is other fifteen feet (15') to the Right -of -Way. He said that he had suggested
to the owners that a high bank near Whitehall be rolled back to provide a
slight exit distance; which may give the Highway Department an opportunity
(PC 12/03/75) P. 16
to partially widen the roads, especially if the owner does much of the grad-
ing.
0 Mr. Harris stated that no obstructions are planned at the intersections,
such as shrubbery, at any corner lot which rise more than three feet (3')
above ground level within twenty -five feet (25') of the intersection -- pro-
viding as much sight distance as possible. He also stated that the lots will
be about three - hundred - thirty -three feet (333') deep and will have the ap-
propriate setbacks as required -by the County.
Mr. Kirkland stated that, to accommodate the rock outcroppings, there
will be two (2) double lots located at the rear of the subdivision.
Mr. Kirkland also stated that the land would average five percent (5 %)
grades, with a few short grades of eight percent (8%) nothing like fifteen
percent (158) grades.
Mr. Harris stated that it might take as long as ten (10) years before
subdivision completion because the owners have no beginning capital outlay.
• Mr. Kirkland showed the Commission the original plat of land in the
i
I
vicinity of Whitehall.
Mr. R. Wesley Williams, Health Department, stated that they had done a
"sample evaluation" of the property that included approximately sixty (60)
holes being dug.
Mr. Kirkland stated that the topsoil is waistdeep and apparently had
never been plowed -- turf is very much like prairie dirt.
Opposition
Mr. Shep Campbell appeared before the Commission and presented a peti-
tion from, he stated, the concerned citizens of the area containing more than
one - hundred - fifty, (150) signatures of people living in the area of the re-
zoning application that are in opposition.
•
Mr. Campbell
stated
their
opposition
to overcrowding
of Apple Pie
Ridge
School and other
schools
in the
Winchester
vicinity that
would result
in in-
creased taxes. He said that they object to the potential traffic hazard of
(PC 12/03/75) P. 17
approximately one - hundred (100) to one - hundred -fifty (150) vehicles. He
said that they are presently narrow and would possibly need repair.
•
He stated
that he had to provide a.two-
thousand foot (2000') drainfield
for his family
and was skeptical of the
i
rest of the lan I d perking very well
either.
Mr. Campbell asked who will be doing the developing and Mr. Harris re-
plied that Mr. Moulden would.
Mr. Campbell expressed his doubt that many people would be interested
in purchasing an expensive home built on one (1) acre or less and then having
to travel the distance from Whitehall to Winchester to and from their jobs.
Mr. Campbell also expressed interest in the restrictions that Frederick
i
County would impose on the development if it is approved and spoke of the
aesthetic value of county living being ruined by such a' development.
Mr. Campbell urged the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to
come to a workable agreement with the land use program.)
® Mr. Campbell stated his concern that a dangerous precedent would be set
of turning farms into a development anywhere in the County if this type of
development is approved.
Mr. Campbell concluded stating that he trusted the Commission's recom -...
mendation would best serve the majority in Frederick County -- not the minor-
ity.
Opposition
Mr. Sam Whitacre appeared before the Commission stating that he is an
adjoining landowner who considers this a strip development as well as a spot
development of farmland that would be setting a dangerous precedent.
He objected to lack of recreation area resulting in children vandaliz-
ing the neighbors, etc.
• Mr. Whitacre spoke of historical preservation of Whitehall as a histori-
cal crossroads community -- the grassroots upon which this country was built
-- that would be destroyed by such a development.
(PC 12/03/75) P. 18
He stated that he did not think the County could afford, under its tax
E
structure, a high- density, low -cost housing that would be a burden.
Opposition
Mr. Eugene Hoover appeared before the Commission and stated that his
home is approximately one -half to three - quarters (1/2 to 3/4) mile from the
proposed subdivision.
Mr. Hoover objected to the proposed subdivision being built before the
•
roads are properly conditioned and cited Gordondale Subdivision as an example
of a subdivision that was built fronting a dirt road that has not been re-
paired since the time those houses were erected, with the exception of a
scraper coming through a couple of times.
Mr. Hoover asked what would prevent Mr. J. P. Darlington, who had just
had a denial recommendation from the Commission, from bringing a discrimina-
tory suit against the County.
Mr. Hoover also emphasized that he would like to see the new Board of
Supervisors establish some ordinances in the future that the taxpayers of
this County will not have to leave their work and /or homes every two (2) or
three (3) weeks to protect their property /investment.
Opposition
Mr. J. Patrick Russell appeared before the Commission and stated that
they have seven or eight (7 -8) farms in the locality of the proposed rezon-
ing and that he agreed with Dr. Sam Whitacre re no proper recreational facil-
ities are provided for children. Mr. Russell cited ecological problems re-
sulting for the farmers that presently spray their orchards and stated that
the property is located three (3) miles from Welltown Pike -- the property
does not face it.
Mr. Russell questioned the land being too poor to farm because Mr. Kirk-
0
land had stated it had waisthigh turf. He said that he possible would have
no objections to "comparable to Stonebrook" houses, but once the property is
rezoned what would guarantee that quality of homes will be built because it
-i F /
(PC 12/03/75) P. 19
appeared that the lot size would dictate a frontage of sixty (60) -to eighty
(80)- feet.
Mr. Russell spoke of the two (2) schools in the Stonewall District that
are already filled to capacity.
Opposition
Mr. J. Robert Russell appeared before the Commission stating that he
was a little hesitant to speak, but that he felt his B lard of Supervisors
term would have expired before this application would be heard by them.
Mr. Russell stated that he lives approximately one -half mile from the
proposed subdivision that would be purely spot zoning in a primary agricul-
ture area. He also stated that he is concerned about the water and sewer
facilities that will be needed when the County is asked to bail out the de-
velopers; which generally cannot be accomplished by the County very expedient
ly
Mr. Russell commended the Planning Commission for its service to the
• County and, he stated, he hoped they can get the Land Use Plan completed.
Opposition
Mr. Jim Moyer appeared before the Commission and stated that he lives
on Front Royal Road and asked the goals of the Land Use!Plan, etc.
Chairman stated that he considered the answer too lengthy to be dis-
cussed during the Public Hearing and that he may go to the office of Plan-
ning and Development to see Mr. Berg for any information he needs.
Opposition
Mr. Lester Shickle appeared before the Commission and stated that he
owns seventy -five (75) acres approximately one -half (1/2) mile West of the
proposed rezoning on Route 671.
He stated.that he agrees with the previously stated opposition and that
• he did not believe.spot zoning should bedone if the master plan has that area
as agricultural -- it is also recognized as one of the better productive ag-
riculture areas in Frederick County.
Mr. Shickle stated that agricultural ground is needed to feed future
(PC 12/03/75) P. 20
generations.
Opposition
An unidentified gentleman appeared before the Commission.and stated that
he is not favorable of the proposed rezoning because there is less than an
acre for each lot; which is not enough land. He spoke of the children caus-
ing problems without proper recreational facilities.
Rebuttal
Mr. Harris stated that they would like to get along with all their
neighbors and'that they certainly do respect their views, but progress can-
not be held back forever. He said that commuting to jobs is not an issue
because many people live in the Winchester area and commute to Washington,
D. C. every day. He said that the mere fact that a school is overcrowded is
i
no reason that more houses cannot be built -- people have to live somewhere.
Mr. Harris referred to Mr. Whitacre's objection when, in fact, Mr.
® Whitacre is one of the leading developers in:the County. He said that they
possibly would build a road that would tie into Mr. Whitacre's property so
he could use his land better.
Mr. Harris stated that they are compelled to pay a recreational impact
fee which the County prefers to a recreational area being provided. He also
stated that they would possibly set aside some of the unusable land for re-
creation.
Mr. Harris stated that strip zoning is not an applicable term because
the proposed subdivision is in the Village of Whitehall and that eventually
all of that property would be developed -- one would ordinarily begin develop
ment along the road. He said that he
does
not
see Whitehall as the perfect
village that the opposition had said
it to
be --
that he believed the store
and school were no longer there.
• He said that they could always subdivide with higher acreage such as
five (5) acres, but they did not want to; not that the price of land would
be involved.
Mr. Harris emphatically stated that the frontages would not be sixty
(PC 12/03/75) P. 21
feet (60') but rather they would be one - hundred - twenty feet (120') upon which
a quality home can be built.
• Opposition Rebuttals
Mr. Campbell reminded the Commission that a great many of the houses at
Stonebrook had not been sold and asked Mr. Harris how much they anticipated
selling the houses for.
Application Rebuttal
Mr. Harris stated that the lots will be sold for approximately Seven-
thousand dollars ($7,000).
Upon motion made by Chairman (due to the absence of a motion) and second
ed by Manuel DeHaven and approved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
i
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby recommend denial of the Zoning Map Amendment
Petition No. 005 -76 of MELVINA M. MOULDEN requesting that 98.70 acres, more
or less, located near the intersection with Routes 739 and 671 be rezoned
Residential- Limited (R -2) in Stonewall Magisterial District.
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 002 -76 of RAY H. and KATHRYN E. BOWMAN,
Box 147, Clearbrook, Virginia, hereby request that 1.141acres, more or less,
fronting 466.01 feet on the East side of Route 11, beginning approximately
400 feet North of intersection with Route 672 East, nowl zoned Agricultural -
General (A -2) be rezoned: Business - General (B -2). This property is de-
signated as 33 -(A) -117, 118, 118A on Tax Map 33 and is in Stonewall Magis-
terial District.
Action -- Recommended Approval
I
Chairman read the above petition to the Commission and Ronald Berg gave
the Chairman a plot plan for the above petition.
Mr. Ben Butler, representing the applicants, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated that the petition refers to what is known as the Clear -
brook Shopping Center that has been in business for more than fifty (50)
years. He stated that Mr. Bowman purchased the property from Mr. Seville
under the impression that it was zoned business until Mr. Bowman applied for
• a building permit for a take -out ice cream facility (20' x 24' building) in
conjunction with his present business. Mr. Butler stated that Mr. Bowman
is simply asking that his property be recognized because I it was inadvertantly
(PC 12/03/75) P. 22
not included when the Zoning Ordinance went into effect. Mr. Butler ex-
plained that the plat shows consolidation of three (3) tracts of land that
• is owned by Mr. Bowman shown on two (2) separate deeds.
Chairman asked if the entrance would be changed and Mr. Bowman showed
i
the Commission, on the plat, the portion of the entrance that would be
changed.
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Langdon Gordon and ap-
proved by the following vote:
I
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment Petition
No. 002 -76 of Ray H. and Kathryn E. Bowman from Agricultural - General (A -2)
to Business - General (B -2) of 1.14 acres, more or less, located in Stonewall
Magisterial District.
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 003 -76 of FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC. Box 765,
Winchester, Virginia, hereby requests that 5.61 acres, more or less, located
at the Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Routes 669 and 670, now
zoned Agricultural - General (A -2) be rezoned: Industrial - Limited (M -1). This
parcel is designated as 33- (A) -90 on Tax Map 33 and is %n Stonewall Magister-
ial District.
Action -- Tabled
Chairman read the above petition to the Commission.)
Mr. Ben Butler, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Com-
mission and stated that the request is concerning a whit le block building that
was originally a packing shed that was used for apple storage; then used by
Holters, railroad wrecking crew, as operation headquarters; then used for
apple orchard equipment storage. He stated that the present proposal is that
the building be used again for warehousing center by an area tire distributor
and that the petitioner is attempting to conform to a five (5)- acre subdi-
vision requirement as well as the fact that warehouse zoning requirement of
light industry. He said that it is anticipated that no vehicles will be out-
side of the building and no recapping will be done.
•
Mr. Robert Solenberger stated that the petitioned property is on the tip
of the rest of his property.
Mr. Butler stated that they would be willing to rezone less than five
(PC 12/03/75) P. 23
(5) acres if the Planning Commission so recommends and that it is not an-
ticipated that the property be sold, rather that it would be leased.
• Mr. Brumback asked why the survey showed a forty (40)- foot Right -of -Way
and the application stated a thirty (30)- foot Right -of -Way on Route 669.
Mr. Butler stated that surely the survey was the more accurate but that
he had not searched the title to be certain which is correct.
Mr. Gordon expressed concern that an industrial island is being consid-
ered in the vicinity of existing homes and an agricultural area in the Land
Use Plan.
Chairman stated that an agricultural warehouse use is in compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gordon stated that the Commission must decide what to do with an ex-
isting building as to its best "use ".
Chairman stated that it is a matter of precedent and referred to a re-
commendation made one month ago by the Commission concerning a lesser puni-
tive of an adjacent property. He stated that he didn't feel that M -1 Zoning
is in any way a contribution to the community.
Mr. Solenberger stated that he had owned this property for approximate-
ly six (6) years and that the building was existing when he purchased it. He
said that they structurally modified the building by removing the second
I
floor and inserting trusses. He said that the building !height is about twen-
ty feet (20') and about one - hundred - twenty feet by forty feet (120' x 40')
inside dimensions with a concrete floor -- would be adequate for the pro-
posed use. He said that it is not conveniently located for orchard equip-
ment storage use and that they would like to get the most profitable use
possible from an existing building. He stated that it was his understanding
that it is necessary to rezone to be in conformance for leasing and that he
• understood why the Commission is hesitant that the property may be sold at a
later date.
Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Berg if he knew of any relief for Mr. Solenberger
under the existing Zoning Ordinance and Mr. Berg stated that there are non
Y A
(PC 12/03/75) P. 24
that immediately come to mind.
Clinton Ritter opinioned that one of the problems with the existing
Zoning Ordinance re the non - conforming use is the one -year time period and
suggested that it should be more flexible -- -perhaps initiated by the County
or the State Legislature. He commended Mr. Solenbergerl for his honesty of
having abandoned the building for two (2) years. Mr. Ritter stated that if
Mr. Solenberger is allowed to continue as a non - conforming use then probably
everyone would be happy because he had been one - hundred percent (100 %) honest
Mr.,Gordon said that what Mr. Ritter was saying then is that the Com-
mission would like to do something that it shouldn't.
Mr. Butler stated that perhaps in the future the Commission should ser-
iously consider different degrees of warehouse classifications because light
i
industry is much too severe ,zoning to require in this case. He said that he
thought the Zoning Ordinance for Frederick County is too much of what he
• would call a "canned" Zoning Ordinance and needs to be tailored to the
County's uses.
Mr. Gordon said that he wished to state -,for the record that the Com-
mission sees both sides of the situation pretty clearly.
Mr. DeHaven stated that some changes are badly needed.
Mr. Butler_�stated that they would be likely in favor of a conditional
zoning if there is such a thing and that they would enter into a contract
with the County whereby cessation of this use would result in reverting to
A -2 Zoning.
Mr. Berg stated that contract zoning is not permitted in the State of
Virginia.
Mr. Gordon said that they may be wrong to not permit it.
Mr. Butler requested the application be tabled to allow Counsel and
• Commission the time to explore what possibilities would be in the "use" of
the building. He said that it was obvious from the comments how the vote
would go. He stated that, if he could not arrive at a feasible and compat-
ible solution, he would withdraw the petition. �y3 ,
(PC 12/03/75) P. 25
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Frank Brumback and ap-
proved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby table Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 003 -76 of
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. per Mr. Benjamin Butler's (Counsel) request to give
him an opportunity to explore possible "uses" for the biuilding that would be
feasible and compatible with the Commission.
REZONING APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 004 -76 of MILLER AUTO SALES, INC., Route 1,
Box'90, Winchester, Virginia, hereby requests that 1.62 more or less,
located on the East side of Route 522, approximately three- tenths (3/10) mile
South of intersection with Route 644, now zoned Agricultural - General (A -2) be
rezoned: Business - General (B -2). This parcel is designated as 76 -(A) -4 on
Tax Map 76 and is in Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action -- Recommended Approval
Chairman read the petition to the Commission.
George Miller spoke for he and his twin brother asIthey appeared before
the Commission and stated that they are requesting thatltheir non- conforming
existing business (on Front Royal Road since 1964) be rezoned to conformance.
He stated that they are actively involved in trying to obtain a car franchise
in addition to their motorcycle business and that they have serviced used
cars and motorcycles for quite some time at that location.
Mr. Miller stated that he had talked to Messrs. Hslderman and George
Russell as well as the area landowners and that he had signed petitions stat-
ing that they are not opposed.
Mr. Miller stated that no additional land will be obtained and that
there are other existing businesses in the area: a trailer park and another
motorcycle shop on the other side of Mr. George Russell with one (1) house
between them. He also stated that the other motorcycle business is zoned
Agricultural.
Mr. Berg showed the Commission a location map.
Mr. Berg stated that as long as it is clearly stated that the Commis-1.
sion's intent is to recommend changing an existing business use from non -_
-2 17�
Mr. Gordon
asked what kind
of precedent would the Commission be setting
if it approved
this petition.
Mr. Berg stated that as long as it is clearly stated that the Commis-1.
sion's intent is to recommend changing an existing business use from non -_
-2 17�
(PC 12/03/75) P. 26
conforming to conforming in an commercial area there should be no problem
as opposed to the intent of rezoning a vacant lot. Mr. Berg reminded the
• Commission of their experience with the Unger non - conforming lot in approxi-
mately the same vicinity and stated that there are a nu I mber of properties in
the area that are.clearly non - commercial. !
Upon motion made by Langdon Gordon, seconded by Jai es Golladay, Jr. and
approved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment Peti-
tion No. 004 -76 of Miller Auto Sales, Inc. located in Shawnee Magisterial
District from non - conforming to conforming use of existing building and bus-
iness establishment from Agricultural - General (A -2) to Business - General (B -2).
SUBDIVISION REQUEST - PUBLIC HEARINGS
CATHER LOTS, Section 1 -- Four (4) lots fronting Route 654. Health and High-
way Departments approved.
Action -- Recommended Approval
• Chairman read the Subdivision Request to the Commission.
Mr. Berg showed the Commission the Plat and stated that the property was
recently rezoned for the purpose of residential subdivision. He stated that
there will be a requisition of One - hundred - eleven dollars ($111) per lot
Recreation Impact Fee.
Mr. Garland Cather appeared before the Commission.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and ap-
proved by "the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of Subdivision Request of
Cather Lots, Section 1 (four lots fronting Route 654).
PLAT REVISION REQUEST - PUBLIC HEARINGS
Elmer Oats Subdivision
Action -- Recommended Approval
• Mr. Berg stated that the request is for provisions to a previously -ap-
proved subdivision located off of Route 259. He stated that it had been dis-
covered upon exardning for a building permit that area requirements were not
a9�
(PC 12/03/75) P. 27
met; therefore, the former line is being moved sixty -one point sixty -six
feet (61.66') to bring the lot into conformance.
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by Frank Brumback and ap-
proved by the following vote:
DeHaven; Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for t County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of the Plat Revision Request of
Elmer Oats Subdivision to move former lot line 61.66 feet to bring the pre-
viously- approved subdivision (located off of Route 259)1 into conformance
with area requirements.
I_ D j1*11M
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback,- .seconded by Langdon Gordon and ap-
proved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Freder-
ick, Virginia does hereby adjourn its meeting.
THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE CO i ISSION, THE MEETING
WAS ADJOURNED.
r 1
U
C. Langd Gordon, Chairman
•
Respectfully Submitted,
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
X76 g