Frederick County approves Appleland Properties land‑use change after contested public hearing

The Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted to amend the county comprehensive plan to change the future‑land‑use designation for four parcels totaling about 96.83 acres (the "Appleland Properties") from business to residential and to include the parcels within the county—nvironment's Urban Development Area.

The vote followed a public hearing in which county planning staff, the applicant and representatives of the town of Stephens City debated whether a planned north–south collector road should be retained through the subject parcels. Planning staff recommended keeping a collector connection that would better complete the surrounding planned Steven/Stephens City bypass; the Planning Commission had recommended removing the northern collector through the property. The Board approved the amendment by a recorded vote (final tally reported in the meeting as 5-2). The change does not authorize any construction or rezoning; rezoning would follow if the applicant seeks development entitlements.

Why it matters: The affected parcels are adjacent to Stephens City and to existing and planned residential development. County and town planning officials described the decision as shaping how traffic will be routed around Stephens City and how future development intensity could occur near Route 11 and Interstate 81. The board and public raised concerns about whether a major collector through an age‑restricted neighborhood would invite higher‑intensity commercial uses and whether it would create conflicts with planned neighborhood character.

What the record shows: County staff said the applicant proposes to limit future development on the parcels to age‑restricted housing and requested removal of certain planned roadway segments. Staff noted the parcels are immediately north of Stephens City, adjoin Newtown Crossing/Valley Pike subdivision, and are adjacent to the Appleland Park/golf course. Staff also proposed amended text to the Kernstown area plan to emphasize age‑restricted housing and buffering along Opequon Creek and to adjust the planned transportation network to preserve a meaningful conclusion to the town bypass.

The applicant nd its transportation consultant, Kevin Zitzman of Grove Slade, argued that age‑restricted residential development would generate far fewer vehicle trips than a high‑intensity business designation and that routing a higher‑speed collector through an age‑restricted neighborhood would be inappropriate. Ty Lawson, representing Appleland Properties, said the project would connect to existing rights‑of‑way, wrap around the golf course and provide neighborhood streets rather than a regional boulevard.

Staff and town representatives disagreed on how to protect the long‑term function of the Stephens City bypass. Mike Major, town planner for Stephens City, and David Griffin, who has worked on the town's plans for decades, urged the board to keep the northern terminus of the bypass to preserve regional traffic function and to protect investments made by other landowners and the town.

Board debate centered on two issues: whether the comprehensive plan should retain the staff's proposed collector alignment to complete the bypass, and whether the county should convert the subject parcels from business to residential. Several supervisors said they preferred to preserve business designation; others favored the applicant's proposal and stressed that rezoning would provide additional review and mitigation opportunities.

Outcome and next steps: The Board approved the comprehensive plan amendment to change the four parcels from business to residential and include them in the Urban Development Area. The action is a plan amendment only; any rezoning or site plan will come later and would be a separate, public approval process. Stephens City representatives said they will provide additional comments through normal channels as rezoning and design reviews occur.

Ending: The planning staff noted the amendment will be followed by rezoning review if the applicant files for entitlements; the board emphasized that specific road designs, proffers and details would be examined at that subsequent stage.