Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of Winchester East rezoning after hours of testimony on roads, schools and water
Summary
The Frederick County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of rezoning application 10-24 (Winchester East at Opeckin Crossing), following staff presentations, applicant revisions to proffers and nearly two hours of public comment raising concerns about traffic, school capacity, groundwater and emergency access.
The Frederick County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of rezoning 10-24, known as Winchester East at Opeckin Crossing, after a lengthy public hearing and follow-up discussion from commissioners.
County planning staff presented the request as an application to rezone about 91.7 acres from RA (rural area) to RP (residential performance) with proffers that would allow up to 303 residential units and include a range of transportation, parks and monetary proffers. Tyler Klein, county planning staff, said the applicant revised proffers on Jan. 6 to provide monetary contributions matching the county’s capital impact model and to dedicate right of way for a future collector road described in the county’s Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study.
“They have agreed to provide the full monetary contribution reflected in our capital impact model,” Klein said, summarizing the updated proffer package, which also limits construction hours and includes public access to a natural-surface trail along Opeckin Creek.
Residents and community representatives opposed the rezoning during the public hearing, citing traffic and safety on nearby residential streets, school overcrowding and uncertainty about water supply. Jedediah Siever, president of the Cincinnati Glen homeowners association, told commissioners his neighborhood lacks sidewalks and said the development would add hundreds of vehicle trips to small local roads.
“This is going to add to our county—300 new homes on top of the 6,000 already approved homes,” Siever said, noting a petition and neighborhood signatures opposed to the rezoning.
Commissioners questioned several technical and timing details in the transportation proffer. Commissioner Roger Thomas raised concerns about a land bay on the east side of the project that, in the proposed layout, would rely on a single internal access and could leave dozens of homes with only one way in and out if that entrance were blocked. Kevin Sitzman, the applicant’s traffic consultant, explained the traffic impact study scope and said meetings with county staff and VDOT shaped which intersections were analyzed and that the study used counts taken in May and August 2024.
“We included the intersections that VDOT and county staff requested us to,” Sitzman said, and added that even with the development the modeled worst-case delays at studied intersections remained below the county’s target level of service threshold.
Applicant representative Ty Lawson told commissioners the developer removed a per‑unit credit for right‑of‑way dedication and pledged to construct a two‑lane segment of the future collector road and to proffer the 104‑foot minimum right‑of‑way for that corridor. Lawson also said the applicant plans to bond the construction of the two‑lane section so it would be delivered even if market conditions change.
Commissioners raised broader infrastructure concerns, including school capacity and groundwater. Klein noted the capital impact model is limited by Virginia law to collecting proffers for public safety, schools and parks; the model shows the three nearest schools—Greenwood Mill Elementary, Admiral Byrd Middle and Millbrook High—would be further stressed by the proposed units if other pipeline development were also built.
After discussion among commissioners and hearing from the public, a motion to recommend denial of rezoning 10-24 carried on a roll‑call vote. The planning commission’s recorded roll call in the meeting transcript shows multiple commissioners voting to recommend denial; the commission chair said the motion carried and that the item will go to the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 12 for a public hearing and final action.
The staff report and the applicant’s revised proffers remain part of the record. The applicant and county staff said they have been and will continue to coordinate with VDOT, Frederick Water and adjacent property owners on questions about utility capacity and the long‑term alignment and timing of the collector road.
