Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Get this document free



									At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Warren held
in the Warren County Government Center Board Room on September 9, 2009.

PRESENT:      Mark Bower, Chairman; David McDaniel, Vice-Chairman; Harry
              Krum;; and Victor Failmezger; also present Douglas Stanley,
              County Administrator; Blair Mitchell, County Attorney; Matt
              Wendling, Planner; and Linda Neighbors, Secretary.

ABSENT:       Lorraine Smelser; and Taryn Logan, Planning Director.

Call to Order:

Mr. Bower called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda:

Mr. Krum moved to adopt the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Failmezger
       Absent: Smelser

Approval of the regular meeting minutes of August 12, 2009.

Mr. McDaniel moved that the regular meeting minutes of August 12, 2009 be
approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Krum and passed on
the following vote:

       Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Failmezger
       Absent: Smelser

Public Presentations:

There were no public presentations.

Public Hearings:

       2009-07-02    Shelly Cook-Knighting

Mr. Stanley introduced this request for a conditional use permit for a rest home.
The property is located off Route 618 (Lee Burke Road), is zoned Agricultural
(A), and is identified on tax map 27R, section 2, as lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The land
is currently vacant and undeveloped. If her application is approved, the

applicant plans to consolidate the five (5) lots together and vacate the platted
right of way through the property so the property can be developed as a
cohesive entity over time. The applicant currently owns and operates Loving
Arms Rest Home located to the east across Lee Burke Road from this proposed
site. The applicant had submitted a statement of justification with her request
outlining the proposal. The project would consist of construction of five (5)
buildings each containing approximately twelve (12) adult care residences for a
total of sixty (60) units. The buildings would vary from 21,500 square feet to
30,700 square feet. The applicant states in her letter that the site will serve as a
future development for additional residential living offerings of Loving Arms.
The current Loving Arms facility offers all levels of care and this expansion to the
existing facility will offer not only suites but also apartment-style living. The
independent living units will range from 750 square feet to 1,000 square feet
offering full services and linking the facility to Loving Arms. He said concierge
services, wellness nursing, nursing assistants and nurses to plan for the care and
maintaining of the residents are all proposed and planned for the facility. The
facility will be designed as a rest home campus which will offer a life walking
trail system around the property as well as a 12,000 square foot community
center with an indoor pool which will be located in one of the buildings. All five
(5) building will have garages. The applicant states that approximately 40 full-
time employees and 5 part-time employees are proposed for this facility.

In conclusion, Mr. Stanley stated that this public hearing had been properly
advertised and adjacent property owners had been duly notified.

Mr. Krum asked if this was limited to seniors or if there were some other type of
age restrictions on the residents. He asked if it could change hands over time
and become an apartment house.

Mr. Stanley said a rest home or convalescent home was defined by the Warren
County Zoning Ordinance as “a facility containing beds for three or more adult
patients providing domiciliary care for the aged, chronically ill or convalescent
patients but including facilities for the care of mental, epileptic, or alcoholic
patients or drug addicts”. He said under that definition there would be
limitations on who could or couldn’t live at the facility.

Mr. McDaniel asked what type of age limitation was included in the term

Mr. Stanley said there were none (age limitation) in the Ordinance per se. He
said obviously the Commission could place whatever restrictions or limitations it
wanted as a condition on the permit.

There being no further comments from the Commission members, Mr. Bower
opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak for or
against the application.

James S. Percival of 155 Signal Court, Front Royal, addressed the Planning
Commission. He said his mother-in-law had visited him and his wife the
previous year and had met with Ms. Cook-Knighting at Loving Arms. He said
she fell in love with the place and these plans for the new facility. He said she
was actually planning on moving here from Florida in the next couple of years.
He said hopefully this project will be approved making him, his wife and his
mother-in-law very happy with him living on one side of Warren County and his
mother-in-law living on the other side of the County.

Tina Anderson of 248 Lee Burke Road, Front Royal spoke in favor of the
applicant’s request. She said she was probably one of the closest property
owners to the facility. She said she looked forward to its completion and felt it
would be a great thing for the community.

Shelly Cook-Knighting spoke in support of her request. She said many of her
neighbors had come out to support her and she greatly appreciated them. She
said most of the people lived on parcel “B” as shown on the conceptual map in
front of them this evening. She said she just wanted to make sure the
Commission understood there was community support for this project. She said
she had lived there all her life and these people were like family. She said she
lived there herself and wouldn’t want anything in the community that would be
a detriment. She said she wanted to add that the walking trail would be
dedicated in honor and memory of Martha Ellen Thorpe who lost her life
walking on Route 619. She said there was no where to walk out there except on
the road and she had been struck and killed by a vehicle.

There being no one else present who wished to speak for or against the
application, Mr. Bower closed the public hearing and turned the matter over to
the Commission members for their consideration.

Mr. Failmezger stated that he would like to commend the applicant for her
extensive work and detailed plans; as well as her willingness to answer
questions. He said it was overall a terrific project for Warren County but he
could not support it. He said it was the right project and the right time but the
problem as he saw it was from the Zoning Ordinance standpoint. He said the
definition in the ordinance allows three (3) or more (people) with no upper limit.
He said in his opinion this was an oversight by the Planning Commission that
needed to be addressed in the County’s Comprehensive Plan update. He

expressed concerns over this and future projects (for nursing homes) that may be
even larger. He reiterated it was a good project but felt it was in the wrong zone.

Mr. Failmezger observed that the Agricultural zoning district included a
provision for low-density residential development. He said a more proper
zoning (for this use) would be Suburban Residential which allows for higher
density and a combination of dwelling types while preserving open areas. He
said he would be comfortable putting a motion on the floor to table the
application and discuss these two questions in a work session:

      1. Should there be an upper level limit (on patients) for rest home
      2. Should the existing facility (Loving Arms) be rezoned along with some
         other similar facilities in the County to Suburban Residential?

Mr. Failmezger stated again that Suburban Residential was a more appropriate
zoning designation. He said he just wasn’t comfortable with five (5) buildings,
190 parking spaces, and seventy (70) people living there in an Agricultural zone.
He said again it was not the project, not the facility. He said the applicant had
terrific community support and the tax revenue generated would be good for the
County. He said his problem was whether the County had the right zoning for
this in the ordinance, therefore, he would move that the Planning Commission
table this application and have a work session in the next month. He said with
the two (2) issues he had mentioned, he could not support the application

Mr. McDaniel stated that he liked the project. He also stated that Mr.
Failmezger’s concern with regard to agricultural zoning seemed pertinent. He
said his own concerns about that were allayed by the support of the neighbors;
he said they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. He said he wouldn’t be
opposed to delaying the matter for due process but he tended to think he was in
favor of the project. He said he felt Mr. Failmezger’s concerns were legitimate.

Mr. Krum stated that he was in favor of this project. He said Ms. Cook-
Knighting had a good reputation for running a nice rest home while others were
not that good in the County. He added that his wife used to take their pets to
various rest homes and she gave this facility a great reference as well.

Mr. Bower said perhaps Mr. Stanley would give them some background on the
Zoning Ordinance and Agricultural zoning in the County.

Mr. Stanley noted that 60-70% of the County was zoned Agricultural. He said
when the Zoning Ordinance was crafted in 1973 there were a number of uses and

businesses throughout the County that needed to be taken into consideration.
He said he was sure that the County tried to accommodate various types of uses
that were already in the district. He said Darryl and Vicky Davison’s facility on
Buck Mountain came to mind as one being recently approved by the County. He
said typically the biggest hurdle for this type of facility was the ability to handle
the septic requirements. He said he believed the County would be hard-pressed
to do Suburban Residential if they didn’t have the ability to provide public
utilities in the area due to the density level of four (4) units per acre. He said
they could also look at the potential for Village Residential if they felt this type of
facility would fit into the village concept. He said he appreciated Mr.
Failmezger’s concerns but didn’t feel the previous Commissions and Boards gave
thought to an upper limit realizing that each one would have to come on its own
merits through the conditional use permit process, the public hearing phase with
input from the neighbors, review and comments from VDOT and the Health
Department. He said those were all opportunities for the Commission and Board
to place conditions and limitations on the permit. He said it was correct that the
way it is written, the sky is the limit so far as the size and scope of a facility.

Mr. Failmezger said part of his reason for bringing it up was because he did feel
it need to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and he did think there
needed to be some kind of limit (on size and occupancy).

Mr. Krum said this project was by far as good as or better than ones previously
approved and he felt it was a quality use of the land. He said he had looked at
the land out there and nobody was farming out there. He said you couldn’t
grow weeds on it.

Mr. Failmezger said in his view farming wasn’t the issue; in his view this was a
high density residential community and one he thought highly of but not in this
location. He said the Commission had an obligation to try and make sure it
conformed to good zoning practice. He said there were many people in this
County, he included, which was not born here but has owned property here
since 1977. He said he had lived all over the world and had chosen to live here
because of the strong agricultural area and open spaces. He said these people
needed to be considered; five buildings and 192 parking spaces in his view is
high density housing where the County zoning called for low density housing.
He said that essentially was his issue with this; he said nothing against Ms.
Cook-Knighting or the people present supporting her. He said to him it was a
fundamental zoning issue.

Mr. Krum said he didn’t know if the project would be seen from the road (Route
619). He said the County had allowed projects like this in the past and he didn’t
see any reason why this one should be treated differently.

Mr. Bower said he too supported the project. He said he felt Mr. Failmezger’s
concern could be addressed going forward in a work session but he wasn’t ready
to delay a vote on this project tonight. He said he felt it was a good location and
she had good neighbors all around. He said it was rare to have a request of this
nature where it was completely unopposed. He said the neighbors had all been
included on this project from the beginning and he applauded the applicant on
her homework.

Mr. Failmezger’s motion failed on the floor for lack of a second.

Mr. Krum moved that the Planning Commission forward this application to the
Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to approve the conditional use
permit request of Shelly Cook-Knighting for a rest home facility with the
conditions recommended by staff as follows:

1. The applicant shall comply with all Warren County Health Department,
   Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Health, and
   Warren County Building Inspections regulations and requirements and all
   State regulations and requirements regarding rest homes/assisted living

2. The applicant shall submit a formal site plan to the County, prior to the
   issuance of a building permit, showing the building, parking, well and septic
   system, landscaping, and outdoor lighting plan in accordance with the
   County Code.

3. The applicant shall hard surface the parking lot and access road prior to any
   occupancy permits being issued.

4. Building materials shall match the description in the statement of justification
   from the applicant for this application and include brick accents. All
   buildings shall be developed as a cohesive entity, ensuring that building
   placement, architectural treatment, pedestrian circulation and other elements
   work together functionally and aesthetically.

5. The applicant shall submit proof of adequate water supply to the Planning
   Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

6. The rest home shall be limited to 60 units.

7. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and in compliance with Section
   180-49.2 of the Warren County Zoning Ordinance.

8. The property shall be developed in general accordance with the conditional
   use permit site plan by Potesta & Associates dated June 2009, which includes
   the community center and other amenities.

9. The 16,360 square foot building housing the community center shall be
   constructed and shall have been issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the
   issuance of building permits for more than 25% of the total number of
   approved units. This condition shall ensure that the amenities of the
   community center are in place for the residents of the rest home.

10. As per VDOT’s letter dated July 16, 2009 and the County’s rest home
    definition, the facility shall only be for adult patients requiring care for the
    aged, chronically ill or convalescent patients.

11. The right-of-way shall be vacated and the lots shall be consolidated for the
    property to be developed as one rest home facility.

12. The community center and amenities shall be used solely for the rest home
    residents, resident’s guests and the rest home employees.

Mr. Krum and Mr. Mitchell discussed the possibility of adding another condition
to the motion for restricting children and further restricting the facility from ever
becoming apartment-type housing.

Mr. Failmezger stated that if this was a convalescent home there were probably
children who would benefit from a period of time at such a rest home; he would
not like to see an age-restriction wherever such a rest home is located. He said
surely there were people younger than 65 years old that needed assisted living
and he didn’t think they should put a limitation on that.

Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Bower joined the discussion both expressing their doubts
that such a restriction would be either needed or beneficial.

Mr. Krum said he would leave his original motion including recommended
conditions by staff as stated. The motion was seconded by Mr. McDaniel and
passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum
       No: Failmezger
       Absent: Smelser

      Z2009-08-01 Warren County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Stanley introduced this request to modify Chapter 180 of the Warren County
Code (Zoning Ordinance) to add “Buildings used primarily for federal, state,
county, or local government purposes” as a use allowed by right in the Industrial
(I) district. At their meeting on August 12, 2009, the Board of Supervisors voted
to refer to the Planning Commission a proposed ordinance amendment to amend
Section 180-28 of the Warren County Zoning Ordinance to allow “buildings used
primarily for federal, state, county or local government purposes” to be added as
a use by right in the Industrial (I) zoning district.

Mr. Stanley explained that the Board is considering two parcels totaling
approximately 28+/- acres for a proposed regional jail site. The Gilliam parcel is
currently zoned Industrial (I) and the Bruthru, LLC parcel is zoned Commercial
(C). The Warren County Zoning Ordinance currently allows buildings used
primarily for federal, state, county or local government purposes by right in the
Commercial (C) zoning but the use is currently not permitted in the Industrial (I)
zoning district which necessitates a zoning text amendment. The County had
signed letters of intent for the two properties identified for the site and has
directed the Architect to begin updating the Community based Corrections Plan
which has since been resubmitted to the State Department of Corrections with
the proposed site. He said a copy of the proposed amendment had been
included in the packets.

Mr. Stanley also informed the Commission that the Board has voted to ask the
Town Council to provide water and sewer for the site. He said the Board had
also been looking at the regional jail in Winchester as a model of what this
facility might look like and a citizen had posed the question of whether they
would be able to hold to that standard. He said that would be addressed in two
ways, one: to add language to the service agreement which Rappahannock,
Warren and Shenandoah would sign off on to require the facility to match that
type of architecture, and two: this site, as currently proposed, is located within
the Route 340/522 Corridor Overlay District which will provide an additional
layer of protection; the facility would be subject to our zoning ordinance and
would have to come back to the Planning Commission for site plan approval.

Mr. Krum asked Mr. Stanley what would happen if the County didn’t get a
regional jail.

Mr. Stanley said the way the Service Agreement is drafted, unless the General
Assembly supplies the funding any of the three jurisdictions can pull out of the
agreement; if any one of the three pulls out they didn’t have enough jurisdictions
to qualify as a regional jail so it would end the process. He said the Governor’s

statement was pretty clear that no other proposals, including a local jail, would
be funded. He said that would mean any local jail would have to be 100% locally
funded versus 50% funded on a regional basis.

Mr. Krum suggested deferring any action on this proposed amendment until the
County found out whether or not the regional jail would move forward; he said
that would keep them from cluttering up the zoning ordinance with something

Mr. Stanley said he believed the Board’s viewpoint was in trying to get
everything lined up and the issues addressed to know whether it’s a viable site;
otherwise they would be sending tens of thousands of dollars to go “down the
road” and then not have everything done, i.e. the ordinance amendment.

Mr. McDaniel said it just made sense to him that if it were allowed in the
Commercial district it should likewise be allowed in the Industrial district.

Mr. Mitchell said he would also point out that even though they were talking
about the regional jail now, this ordinance would apply to any type of federal,
state, county or local governmental facility being placed within the Industrial
zone. He said for instance if the Sheriff’s department wanted to put a sub-station
in an Industrial zone or if the Board wanted to put some other type of County
office in an Industrial zone, it would be allowed under this amendment.

Mr. Krum asked Mr. Mitchell why they didn’t put the regional jail on the AVTEX

Mr. Mitchell stated that the restrictive covenants on the AVTEX property would
not allow it.

Mr. Krum said he didn’t care for it; he said every time they had something ugly
they put it up in the northern part of the County.

There being no further discussion from the Commission members, Mr. Bower
opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak for or
against the proposed amendment.

Greg Williams of 76 Success Farm Lane, Front Royal, addressed the Planning
Commission. He said he felt he needed to come forward and at least voice his
opinion. He said he knew there were other steps in this whole process but he
had a personal vendetta to try and head this off at the pass. He said he felt this
was very situational-based and was not part of the comprehensive plan for the

Enterprise Zone. He said he had drafted a letter to the Board of Supervisors that
he would like to read to the Commission members with their permission.

Mr. Williams read a letter dated June 4, 2009 signed by him and incorporated
into these minutes in its entirety by reference. His letter, in part, posed the
following questions:

      What revenue will be generated from this facility?
      What quality employment opportunities are going to be offered to the
       County of Warren?
      How will this decision affect future industry and commercial businesses
       that want to come into this district? He said he couldn’t imagine a Red
       Lobster or other similar restaurant wanting to build next to a regional jail.
      Why, at this time, when government was looking to cut back, people are
       struggling, they are unemployed, are we are going to spend 2.1 million
       dollars of taxpayers’ money on this property that is way over-priced as it
       was intended for industrial and/or commercial use?

Mr. Williams completed reading his letter and stated that he was present this
evening to request that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
zoning ordinance amendment.

Mike Valerio of 6721 Winchester Road, Front Royal, addressed the Planning
Commission. He said he owned not one but three houses on Winchester Road
adjacent to the property being discussed. He said he had been told that the
values of the properties in the neighborhood were going to go down. He said
values had gone up during the last reassessment and his taxes had gone up; he
said now if the values were going to go down, were his taxes going to go down?
He said he hadn’t done much thinking about what would come in along with the
jail but he had 6.5 acres adjacent to the property and if the County wanted to buy
his 6.5 acres he would sell it to them. He said he was not for or against it; he was
just looking out for what he had and didn’t want to get lost in the shuffle with
the evaluation of property.

There being no one else present who wished to speak, Mr. Bower closed the
public hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission members for their

Mr. Bower asked Mr. Stanley what he could tell them (present at the meeting)
about property values.

Mr. Stanley said he wished to express that Mr. Williams was a friend and he
valued his comments this evening. He said the two of them had engaged in a

couple of conversations about the jail and he appreciated his concerns as a
nearby resident.

Mr. Stanley stated that there were two parcels, an industrial piece and a
commercial piece. He said first the industrial piece, the Gilliam property, was
under option for $65,000 per acre. He said they needed to remember that both of
these parcels had frontage on Route 340/522 so you get a little premium versus
other land that may be back in an industrial park because you have visibility.
Right now the EDA is marketing their property at a higher rate than $65,000 even
through its back off on Baugh Drive and not on the main road. The property has
Town water across the front and Town sewer through the back so lines didn’t
need to be extended to reach it so from that standpoint he felt comfortable saying
it was a bargain versus other land in the area for industrial property. The Board
of Supervisors, based on the Winchester model, has agreed the industrial park
setting is the best place for this type of facility. Don’t build it in a neighborhood,
don’t build it in a high density area, put it where you can have some synergy
with employees working work-release. The asking price for the commercial
piece was $125,000 per acre and the County had it under contract for $90,000. He
said he felt the Board would be hard-pressed to purchase 13 acres of commercial
property in the Enterprise Zone on the east side of Route 340/522. He said as
you went down toward the interstate it was at $300,000-$350,000 per acre near
Riverton Commons. Because of the zoning differential, there was a differential
in price. He said the fact was that land as many as 20 years ago was zoned
commercial. He said from a standpoint of purchasing the property, the value
that is on it had to be addressed because of the zoning classification.

Mr. Krum said Mr. Stanley couldn’t get the Planning Commission to approve a
commercial endeavor up there if he had to.

Mr. Stanley said Mr. Krum had to remember if it was by right; the Commission
didn’t have a choice.

Mr. Krum said he was back to his original statement; he was tired of having
everything dumped up in the northern part of the County. He said nobody else
in this County wanted to take anything and they just used the Enterprise Zone as
an excuse to put the crap, bluntly speaking.

Mr. Stanley said to address Mr. Krum’s comment; it was the water and sewer
accessibility and the traffic access. He said it was also the only area of the
County that had natural gas. He said when it came to heating and cooling a
facility of that size you would certainly want natural gas. He said when going
through a checklist of items needed for a facility such as this, this site is one that
meets the criteria. He said he believed the Board had said from day one if they

could find a better site………he said they did talk with the County Attorney
about the AVTEX site as a possibility; Happy Creek Industrial Park. He said all
those areas met the criteria of an industrial park area. He said it didn’t make a
lot of sense to go out and put this facility in an agricultural area on private water
and sewer; it just didn’t make a lot of sense. He said the criteria forced you to
keep coming back to an industrial park concept. He said Mr. Williams had
commented that you put land into a local government use and it was no longer
available for taxation purposes. He said the answer to that is cost avoidance.
The Con-Way trucking facility which was one-half or 13 acres of the site was
going to generate about $25,000 per year in tax revenue net to the County.
Double that for 26 acres is $50,000 per year meaning in 20 years you would
generate one million dollars in tax revenue. He said by going with a regional jail
over that same twenty years the County would save between seven and ten
million dollars based on previous estimates; but those numbers are being re-
worked right now by the County’s consultant. He said you would be hard-
pressed to come up with the tax revenue to offset the advantages of this type of
facility. He said everybody had struggled with the “best” location with limited
industrial parks in Warren County you had limited options.

Mr. Failmezger asked Mr. Stanley to clarify the rest of the process. He said what
they had before them tonight was the amendment to the ordinance. He said both
gentlemen who spoke (during the public hearing) had valid opinions and
concerns that needed to be heard in relation to the regional jail. He asked if that
(approval of the regional jail) would come back before the Commission before
going to the Board of Supervisors and, if so, when can these gentlemen expect to
have an opportunity to be heard again when the regional jail is considered.

Mr. Krum said this amendment deprived the Commission of any rights after this
regarding the jail.

Mr. Stanley said so far as land use and development, if the regional jail authority
is approved, if the General Assembly approves funding, if the design moved
forward, if water and sewer is approved by the Town, the Commission would
eventually be looking at a site plan application much like an industrial by-right
coming back to the Commission for approval. He said it wouldn’t be a
conditional use permit where there was an up or down vote, it would just be
required to meet the criteria and that would be the Commission’s role at that
time. He said so far as the Board of Supervisors there would be a number of
votes including a potential vote to approve a service authority agreement. He
said the first test of that would come next month in Shenandoah County in their
consideration of whether or not they would vote to move forward with the
regional jail. He said there would be a lot of “outs” where certain things would
have to happen in order for the process to move forward. He said there would

be other considerations including a public hearing by the Board on this item for
people to speak and a few other outlets.

Mr. Failmezger clarified with Mr. Stanley that there would in fact be a public
hearing at the Board of Supervisors level for the aforesaid gentlemen to speak
about their concerns related to the regional jail.

Mr. Stanley said the amendment yes; not necessarily the Service Authority
Agreement unless the Board elected to do that. He said they would certainly be
welcome to come to any Board meeting and give a public presentation. He noted
that the Board had received Mr. Williams’ letter that he had read during the
public hearing earlier in the evening.

Mr. Failmezger said he was just trying to understand when the public would get
its chance to express their opinions of yes or no about a regional jail; that was
really where he was going with his question.

Mr. Krum voiced his opinion that it would bring down property values in places
like Cedarville Heights and neighboring properties. He said he felt it would
bring values down.

Mr. Stanley said when he had contacted other jurisdictions several years ago
regarding the regional jail concept he asked them about impact on property
values. He said none of the jurisdictions he had contacted had responded that
there was any reduction but rather that values had continued to go up. Based on
the Winchester experience, he didn’t feel the County would see property values
dip 20%, 15% or even 5% because of this regional jail.

Mr. Krum said it couldn’t be compared to Winchester because 60-70% of that
property is rented. He said it was not a residential town similar to what was in
Warren County. He said it was a transient town to his way of thinking.

Mr. Stanley reiterated that he didn’t perceive values dropping; he said his
perception may be different but he just didn’t see it. He said it would lie
between Route 340/522 and an industrial area and that helped the County. He
said if they planned on putting this next to Blue Ridge Shadows he felt there
would be much more of an outcry (from the public). He said likewise if they
went north next to Family Dollar there would be much more of an outcry.

Mr. Krum said if they put it back in the mountain behind Blue Ridge Shadows
you wouldn’t even see it.

Mr. Stanley said then they would be dealing with an agricultural piece of
property and all the traffic would have to go through the subdivision to get

Mr. McDaniel stated that they were talking about a regional jail and while he
realized that was where this conversation was all going but the matter before the
Commission this evening was an ordinance amendment to allow federal, state,
county, and local buildings to be allowed in an industrial zoning and to him, it
was a no-brainer. He said he was going to support it and he felt everyone would
have another chance to voice their opinion on whether or not a regional jail
would end up going in there but in the big picture federal, state, county and local
facilities should be allowed in an industrial zone.

Mr. Bower said he agreed (with Mr. McDaniel); one way or the other the County
was going to go down this road whether it was a regional jail or a new County
jail that’s bigger than what the County had now. He said he felt this was
necessary and this didn’t mean it would be the same location if it was a County-
only jail. He said if the cost prospective was the only thing the County was
dealing with on the regional jail it was a slam-dunk. He said he didn’t think
anybody argued with that except for maybe a couple of people in Shenandoah
County. He said the Commission needed to salute this thing and send it to the
next level.

Mr. McDaniel said supporting this ordinance amendment did not mean you
supported the regional jail.

Mr. Failmezger said he would have to agree with Mr. McDaniel. He said if there
was a Sheriff’s Office sub-station out there or a small fire station those were
appropriate uses in an industrial area which is what they were considering
tonight. He said there was the 800 pound gorilla in the room which was the
regional jail but this amendment allows for some type of government facility on
industrial land whether small or large.

Mr. Krum asked Mr. Stanley if the County was going to spend twenty-seven
million dollars on the Sheriff’s building.

Mr. Stanley said the estimate was actually fourteen million and based on a visit
to Shenandoah last week he said they were probably looking at between seven
and nine million dollars, somewhere in that range.

Mr. Krum asked Mr. Stanley if that were the case, then how much would they be
spending on the (regional) jail.

Mr. Stanley responded that the estimates on the regional jail were in the sixty to
seventy million dollar range; if the State picks up half that amount that would
leave thirty to thirty-five million dollars; Warren County’s portion would be
somewhere along the lines of 48% so based on the 50% the County’s share would
be seventeen and one half million dollars.

Mr. Krum said so being truthful; the County was spending twenty-seven to
thirty million dollars plus interest on law enforcement for the next twenty years.
He said nobody knows when the recession was going to end with many people
projecting it out the next eight to ten years. He said he didn’t know what the job
market was in the County right now but he had doubts about money going out
in this County. He said the County went overboard so far as the school system
due to being behind twenty years they had spent a lot in the last few years and
he just wondered what the debt was going to look like in the whole County.

Mr. Bower commented that Mr. Krum needed to get to the subject at hand.

There being no further discussion, finding that the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment is required and appropriate for the public necessity, convenience
and general welfare and is good zoning practice, Mr. McDaniel moved that the
Planning Commission forward the proposed amendment to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Failmezger and passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Failmezger
       No: Krum
       Absent: Smelser

Authorization to Advertise:

       2009-09-01    E. F. Thompson, Inc.

Mr. Stanley introduced the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit for a
trucking facility. The property is located on Kelley Drive, is zoned Industrial (I)
and is identified on tax map 12, as lot 32A6, in the Kelley Industrial Park
containing approximately 3 acres. The property was formerly occupied by
Walden Foods, is currently owned by Green Industrial Realty and is presently
vacant. The applicant is leasing the parking lot area to park 8 tractors. The
applicant states in their letter that E. F. Thompson, Inc. has served as a contractor
for the United States Postal Service since 1964. They have a contract to haul
USPS products from the facility located across Kelley Drive from this property
(New Breed Logistics) to points in southeastern Virginia. These are scheduled
trips coming and going 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Mr. Stanley stated that as part of the staff report, Ms. Logan was recommending
that if the Planning Commission were to approve of this request that the
following conditions should be applied:

   1. The applicant shall comply with all Virginia Department of
      Transportation, Warren County Building Inspections Department, and
      Town of Front Royal regulations and requirements.
   2. There shall be no more than 8 tractors parked on the property.
   3. If the building is occupied in the future by this applicant or another
      applicant, the Planning Department must be notified. Additional parking
      may be needed to accommodate several uses on the property.
   4. The applicant shall ensure that drivers turn off their trucks if parked for
      more than 5 minutes.
   5. There shall be no outdoor storage located on the property.
   6. Landscaping shall be installed along the frontage of the property in
      accordance with Section 180-49.1 of the Warren County Zoning
      Ordinance. This landscaping shall consist of one tree and 10 shrubs for
      every 35 feet of linear street frontage and be approved by the Warren
      County Planning Department prior to installation.

Mr. Stanley said as a footnote, this property was approved prior to the County’s
landscaping ordinance so this would help bring this property in line with the
other properties that were developed in the industrial park.

Mr. Gary Thompson introduced himself as President of E. F. Thompson and
stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.

After brief discussion, Mr. Krum moved that the Planning Commission authorize
the proposed conditional use permit request for advertisement for a public
hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the
following vote:

      Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Failmezger
      Absent: Smelser

      2009-09-02    Marlon O. Mills

Mr. Wendling introduced the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit for
a commercial repair garage in conjunction with a single family dwelling. The
property is located on Route 55 East (John Marshall Highway), is zoned
Agricultural (A) and is identified on tax map 30, as lot 21C.

Mr. Wendling stated that Mr. Nelson Mills had been operating this business as a
non-conforming use since 1974 and had primarily worked on family and friends’
vehicles. His son, Marlon, would like to expand the business to the general
public and work on one to three vehicles daily by appointment only. He works
on automobiles, tractors and small engine equipment and has only one part-time
employee who is his son. The applicant is requesting hours of operation from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday by appointment only and closed
on Sunday.

Mr. Wendling continued that requests for comments had been sent to and
received from the Warren County Health Department and Virginia Department
of Transportation.

Mr. Wendling said the Health Department had commented that the conditions of
storage and disposal for waste automobile fluids, oil and fuel were a concern
with this type of business. Mr. Mills is proposing that his business would likely
never exceed a volume of twenty gallons on the premises at any given time and
would be disposed of on a frequent basis. The Health department also felt that
there wouldn’t be a sufficient increase in the use of the residence’s restroom
facilities to warrant a negative impact to their existing sewage treatment system.

Mr. Wendling noted that VDOT had stated that based on the 55 MPH posted
speed limit and a requirement to have 610’ of unobstructed sight distance in each
direction that the entrance did not meet their minimum requirements for a
commercial entrance. The existing entrance sight distance to the east is 350’ and
to the west is 525’ along John Marshall Highway. VDOT does not recommend an
increase in the use of this substandard entrance which fails to meet the sight
distance standards. In other cases where this has been an issue, the applicants
had proposed that customers would not come to the property. Staff has
encouraged the applicant to meet with VDOT before the public hearing to see if
the situation can be resolved. Meanwhile, staff has included in its recommended
conditions for the permit that the business shall not generate customers to the
property due to the fact that VDOT cannot support any increase in the use of the
existing subdivision entrance.

Mr. Wendling stated that he would be happy to answer any questions and that
Mr. Mills was also present to answer any questions.

Mr. Bower said he had not gone on the site visits but had driven down Route 55
and there was indeed a lot of traffic on the road. He said he didn’t know how
the applicant felt about not having customers come to his garage.

Mr. Mills said over the past couple of months, he had a couple of people call him
and he had actually gone to their house, done an initial diagnostic inspection and
then took their vehicle to his garage. He said he had one person come up the
driveway looking for someone to fix his car because he was going on vacation
the next day. He said he did want appointments only; he said he had lived there
for 30+ years and the driveway visibility is marginal. He reiterated that the only
way he wanted to operate was by appointment only and he was willing to go get
their cars as he had no issue with that. He said it would be safer for his
customers because they would not be used to the driveway. He said Mr. Bower
was absolutely right about the traffic on Route 55, he said it was probably 18,000-
19,000 trips per day ten years ago and was probably more than that now. He
said unfortunately in Warren County many roads had line of sight issues.

Mr. Failmezger asked Mr. Mills if he would be willing to have a restriction
placed on his conditional use permit that only you or your son and part-time
employee would go and pick up the cars so that people would not actually be
visiting your facility.

Mr. Mills said he was perfectly willing to pick up his work; he said because of the
road and entrance he didn’t want people going in and out and actually preferred
to pick up their cars.

Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Mills if he had a sign out there now.

Mr. Mills said he had a small sign there.

Mr. McDaniel said his thought was that if there was sign, it would encourage
people to come in there.

Mr. Failmezger agreed that the sign would be an issue because people would
want to come in and then that would not work with VDOT.

After some continued discussion, the Commission members suggested that staff
modify the suggested conditions so there would be no customer traffic in and out
of Mr. Mills’ driveway entrance.

Mr. Bower asked Mr. Mills if he had talked to his neighbors about his plans for
the garage.

Mr. Mills said he only had one neighbor behind his property and they had a
good relationship with him. He said the other neighbors were so far away they
didn’t even see them.

Mr. Bower told Mr. Mills he just wouldn’t want this advertised for a public
hearing and then have a half of dozen angry neighbors show up to protest his

Mr. Failmezger and Mr. Mills discussed the proper disposal of waste fluids and
where Mr. Mills planned on taking such waste products.

Mr. Wendling also called the Commission’s attention to the proposed condition
numbered six regarding disposal of mercury switches and other automobile

After their discussion, Mr. Krum moved that the Planning Commission authorize
the proposed conditional use permit request for advertisement for a public
hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the
following vote:

       Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Failmezger
       Absent: Smelser

Commission Matters:

       Update – 2009/2010 Comprehensive Plan Citizen Survey

Mr. Stanley reported that the Comprehensive Plan Citizen Survey was up on the
County’s web site under the scroll bar. He said inserts would also be going into
each of the real estate tax bills being mailed by the Treasurer’s Office. He said
21,000 inserts had been made so 21,000 people would be getting a notice of the
citizen survey in their tax bills.

Mr. Stanley commented that the Board of Supervisors had tentatively scheduled
if the Planning Commission was agreeable, to meet with them on October 14,
2009, at 6:00 p.m. prior to their regular Planning Commission meeting to discuss
the Town water/sewer policy and what the Planning Commission had planned
on sending to the Town.

Mr. Krum questioned why the Planning Commission was stopped from sending
their letter to the Town.

Mr. Stanley said basically the Board Chairman had stated the Board would like
to meet with the Planning Commission before the Commission sent anything
over to the Town so they didn’t ruffle any feathers on the other side of the table.

Mr. Bower stated that he may be out of town and unable to attend the meeting
that evening but if everyone else was in agreement, he felt it should move

After discussion, there was a consensus among the Planning Commission
members to meet with the Board of Supervisors at 6:00 p.m. on October 14th
immediately prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Krum reiterated his position that there needed to be some sort of resolution
in that regard.

       Commission Members:

Mr. Failmezger said he did want the Commission to follow up on the total
number of rest homes currently in the County. He said there may be some other
things out there that needed to be addressed as well.

Mr. Krum stated that while Mr. Stanley was present he did want to ask him
about wind generated power in the County. He said the Commission had
received a memo from Mr. Stanley stating there was no place in Warren County
within one and one half miles to place a wind farm.

Mr. Stanley said there had been a comment made during the Board’s discussion
that there should be no commercial wind farms within one mile of residential
areas. He said that precipitated the mapping of the County to see where there
would be room and that there was almost no place with that much open space.
He said the only place where those types of facilities were viable would be up on
ridgelines meaning there was almost no place available if you had to have the
mile limit.

       County Attorney:

Mr. Mitchell said he had nothing further to report.

       Planning Director:

Mr. Stanley reminded the Commission members that the Town may be
contacting the Planning Department about the two Planning Commissions
getting together for a joint meeting. He said he felt it was a great idea especially
since the County needed to designate an urban development area in their next
Comprehensive Plan amendment which means an area that can receive the
growth of this entire community over the next twenty years with a density of
four units per acre or more and the fact that you really need public water and

sewer to accomplish that. He said the Town and County would have to work
together so he felt a joint meeting was very important as the County began the
Comprehensive Plan process. He said to him the logical place was either
somewhere in Town or at a location where the Town could do a boundary
adjustment into the Town to provide those services.

Mr. Bower said with regard to the regional jail, he would hope there was
something the Board of Supervisors could get in front of the public that would
clearly show the difference between a new local jail versus a regional jail with
State matching funds. He said clearly cost was the driving factor; not that there
were any great areas to put it but cost was certainly the main factor.

Mr. Stanley stated that the County’s financial consultant, Davenport, was in the
process of updating the financials and that would be in the Board’s hands prior
to any consideration of the service authority. He said he was hoping the press
would talk about the numbers and he was sure the Shenandoah County Board
would be talking about them as well. He said the only thing that had not been
discussed but he considered a valid point was the County jail, as of this morning,
had 131 inmates at a combination of the jail and work release center. He said
with its current location, the argument could be made that pulling it away from
downtown had a value to it. He said he didn’t know what dollar figure you
would put on it, but there would be a value to the Town in doing that.


There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.



To top