Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030313 March 13, 2003 Hagerstown, Maryland A special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by President Gregory I. Snook with the following members present: Vice President William J. Wivell, and Commissioners James F. Kercheval, John C. Munson, and Doris J. Nipps. JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION The Commissioners met with the Board of Education in the media room of the County Administration Building. The following members of the Board of Education were present: Bernadette Wagner, Ed Forrest, Roxanne Ober, Russell Williams, Jacqueline Fischer, and Paul Bailey. Staff members present were Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, Superintendent of Schools; Dr. Patricia Abernethy, Assistant Superintendent of Schools; Dennis McGee, Director of Facilities Management; William Blum, Chief Operating Officer; Chris Carter, Director of Transportation; and Christian South, Director of Budget & Finance. Second Quarter Budget Adjustments Motion made by Commissioner Nipps, seconded by Munson, to approve the following second quarter budget adjustments as requested by the Board of Education by decreasing the following categories: Revenue - $26,005; Mid-Level Administration - $135,625; Instructional Salaries - $253,765; and Fixed Charges - $139,665, and to increase the following categories: Administration - $46,900; Instructional Textbooks & Supplies - $120,000; Special Education - $60,945; Student Personnel Services - $275; Student Health Services - $1,620; Student Transportation Services - $23,310; and Operation of Plant - $250,000, for a total adjustment to the Fund Balance of $0. Unanimously approved. Consolidation of Operations William Blum informed the Commissioners that he is participating in a subcommittee of the Greater Hagerstown Committee on the possible consolidation of services between the Board of Education, Hagerstown Community College, Washington County government, and the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Blum stated that they have identified printing, Internet services through Sailor, and the franchise agreement for provision of fiber, as areas where these entities have combined efforts. He informed the Commissioners that other areas include cafeteria and food service, health care, heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel, and office supplies. Mr. Blum informed the Commissioners that the Board is updating its printing facilities at the Technical High School and could provide savings by performing printing services for the County that would also help them to recoup the cost of equipment. Commissioner Wivell stated that he would like to pursue other areas for consolidation and suggested that a small subcommittee be formed to investigate the matter. After discussion, it was the consensus of the group to proceed with appointing a subcommittee to choose specific items for consideration. Commissioner Wivell and Roxanne Ober agreed to be on the subcommittee. CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Commissioner Nipps, seconded by Wivell, to convene in closed session at 8:20 a.m. to consider the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and matters directly related thereto, in accordance with Section 10-508 of the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Unanimously approved. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION Motion made by Commissioner Kercheval, seconded by Wivell, to reconvene in open session at 9:20 a.m. Unanimously approved. In closed session, the Commissioners considered the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and matters directly related thereto. Present during closed session were Commissioners Gregory I. Snook, William J. Wivell, James F. Kercheval, John C. Munson, and Doris J. Nipps. Also present at various times were Rodney Shoop, County Administrator; John Martirano, Assistant County Attorney; Joni Bittner, MARCH 13, 2003 PAGE TWO County Clerk; Gary Rohrer, Director of Public Works; Robert Arch,Director of Planning & Community Development; Board of Education members Bernadette Wagner, Ed Forrest, Roxanne Ober, Russell Williams, Jacqueline Fischer, and Paul Bailey; Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, Superintendent of Schools; Dr. Patricia Abernethy, Assistant Superintendent of Schools; Dennis McGee, Director of Facilities Management; William Blum, Chief Operating Officer; Chris Carter, Director of Transportation; and Christian South, Director of Budget & Finance; Board of Education Staff members Shulamit Finklestein, and Debra Cechovic. RECESS The Commissioners recessed at this time and reconvened in the County Commissioners’ Meeting Room at 10:09 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Snook began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. REZONING MAP AMENDMENT – RZ-02-008 – PAUL CRAMPTON Richard Douglas, County Attorney, reviewed map amendment RZ-02- 008, submitted by Paul Crampton to rezone the subject property from Agriculture (A) to Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (A/PUD). Mr. Douglas stated that the Planning Commission has recommended that the rezoning be denied. Motion made by Commissioner Nipps, seconded by Munson, to adopt the findings of fact set forth in the report of the County Attorney, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. Unanimously approved. Motion made by Commissioner Nipps, seconded by Munson, that there has been a convincing demonstration that the proposed rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (A/PUD) would be appropriate and logical for the subject property for the following reasons. Motion carried with the Commissioners voting as follows: Nipps, Munson, and Snook voting “AYE,” Wivell voting “NO,” and Kercheval “ABSTAINING.” Purpose of the PUD District The purpose of the PUD district is to permit a greater degree of flexibility and creativity in the design and development of residential areas than is possible under conventional zoning standards, promote a more harmonious variety of housing choices, a more varied level of community amenities, and the promotion of adequate open space and scenic attractiveness. By comparison, in the Agricultural district (the present zoning), only single-family, two-family and semi-detached dwellings are permitted. Other permitted uses in the Agricultural District include churches, mobile homes, hospitals, research laboratories, and public buildings. The proposed Emerald Pointe PUD includes a variety of housing types: single- family, semi-detached, townhouses and a retirement center, an adaptive use of an historic structure, open space, and two reforestation areas as amenities for the PUD (a commercial area.) The PUD would permit more flexibility and creativity in the design and development of residential areas than would be possible under conventional zoning standards. The Planning Staff concluded that the applicant’s concept is consistent with the PUD purpose as defined in Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the County The County’s revised 2002 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as within the Urban Growth Area. Factors in setting the boundary include: availability of public water and sewer, efficiency of expansion of water and sewer facilities, existing land use, zoning, and development trends and the potential for development. Located in the Low Density Policy Area, with densities in the two to four units per acre range, it is consistent with the high end of the Low Density Policy area, approximately half of the maximum anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan for a PUD. The PUD is consistent with those policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant testified that it would be a MARCH 13, 2003 PAGE THREE development compatible with existing developments. The staff agrees that Crampton’s proposal would equal or exceed the quality of the South Pointe PUD. Emerald Pointe is an alternative to conventional developments in keeping with the Plan’s goals and policies as long as the provision of adequate infrastructure is addressed. The Plan discusses adequacy of public facilities only in general terms. The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance covers these issues in greater detail. The compatibility of the proposed PUD with neighboring properties Compatibility considers the land uses surrounding the proposed PUD. The proposed development would be surrounded by major residential developments, Foxleigh Meadows on the west, Paramount Terrace to the immediate north, the village of Paramount, and Spring Valley, a sizable residential development that is north of Paramount. Emerald Pointe will reflect the existing residential character of the surrounding area and will continue to maintain and manage the natural drainage system that exists. Dissimilarity in price and design from residences in the immediate area does not make it incompatible, in that a goal of the Plan is to provide a variety of housing. The dictionary definition of the term “compatible” suggests that the word denotes the ability to exist in harmony. With the residential nature of the surrounding areas, the property is appropriate for the uses proposed, and Emerald Pointe will not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. Emerald Pointe reflects a mix of residential uses, a retirement center, and ancillary supporting commercial activities – all of which are fully compatible with the area in which they are situate. The property’s current Agricultural classification already permits single-family, two-family, and semi-detached residences along with a variety of commercial uses. Density of up to four units per acre is permitted if two-family or semi-detached residences were proposed and serviced by public water. Therefore, the density allowed in an Agricultural District is consistent with the four units in a PUD. The only use proposed in Emerald Pointe that is not allowed in the “A” district is town-homes. Therefore, much of it could be developed without the PUD. The retirement center proposed for the area adjacent to the Marsh Pike/Leitersburg Pike intersection is not totally compatible with the residences of Foxleigh Meadows and the other surrounding subdivisions. One unit provides for single-family living while the other is a larger building providing approximately 126 bedroom units with common areas for residents to gather. Even though these dwellings are different in scale, they still provide living space for area residents, unlike the previous proposed use of a commercial shopping center. The retirement center could, therefore, be viewed as a transitional residential use between Leitersburg Pike and the single-family dwellings that occur further north along Marsh Pike. Also, land close to this busy intersection may not be the best site for single-family residences, especially with a possible upgrade resulting from an Eastern Boulevard extension. It should be pointed out that the current Agricultural zoning of the subject property principally permits retirement and nursing homes. Thus, a floating zone would not have to be approved for the construction of a retirement center. Issues such as increased traffic and impact on schools arise when discussion of PUD compatibility is discussed. However, these issues are better addressed under the Effect on Community Infrastructure section. The effect of the PUD on community infrastructure The adoption of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) in 1990 has taken on a supportive role that was previously the sole responsibility of this item in the Zoning Ordinance during the rezoning stage when considering the deliberation of PUD cases. Due to this change, it would appear that now the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners would only have to address infrastructure issues at the zoning stage that would appear to be highly unsolvable. MARCH 13, 2003 PAGE FOUR Increased traffic was a major concern of neighborhood residents who testified at the public hearing. Terrence McGee, Chief Engineer, did not take exception to the rezoning. He responded “all issues can be adequately addressed through the site plan approval process.” The existing Traffic Impact Study will need to be revised to reflect the new plan. The Engineering Department has no final comments on the updated traffic study. State Highway Administration has no objection to approval stipulation that access be denied to Leitersburg Pike. A revised traffic study would be required. There was a significant amount of testimony on the PUD’s impact on the neighborhood schools - Northern Middle, North Hagerstown High, Paramount Elementary School - 405 (capacity 486), Northern Middle – 706 (capacity 880), and North Hagerstown High – 1,168 (capacity 1,431). In conclusion, the schools in this area would be considered adequate at this time. However, that may not true when development plans are submitted for approval. Paramount Elementary has the least available capacity. It has capacity for an additional 81 students or one new elementary student for every five units. There are 131 units in the County that are approved but not built out to occupancy or a total of 26 students in the pipeline. In addition, Hagerstown has 138 townhouses in the Cortland Manor Plan, an additional 28 students in the pipeline. Two hundred sixty-seven units were subjected to APFO testing under the new policies. This would equate to 54 students or a total of 108 students from this development or in the pipeline. The PUD is projected for build-out over ten years, assuming that not all 54 students would come on line in the same year, there would be an available capacity of 81 students. Conclusion: It would seem that projected student population from this PUD as well as approved developments would not generate an inadequate condition in the near future. Actual student numbers from South Pointe, which is nearly built out, show three elementary, four middle, and one senior high school student. Neither says that public school capacity must be adequate in order for a PUD zoning to be approved. However, the impact on schools must be considered in density and appropriateness. The APFO gives the Commissioners and the Planning Commission control of school adequacy. Article V of the APFO states that “all residential new development shall be served by public schools which are currently adequate or programmed in the Washington County Capital Budget or six-year Capital Improvement Program to be adequate within six (6) years of final plat or site plan approval.” The PUD contains 267 dwelling units consisting of single-family, semi-detached, and townhouse housing. The retirement center would not be considered due to the age of the residents. In the development plan review stages, the developer should be investigating the adequacy of the schools and prepare a course of action if an adequacy problem is anticipated. The Planning Commission shall determine if the schools are adequate during the Final Development Plan review stage. As specified under Zoning Ordinance section 16.6(d)2ii, agreements for responsibility between County and developer for providing on- site and off-site improvements shall be developed as part of the Final Development Plan. This would include addressing the developer’s responsibility for school adequacy if he intends to continue with the project. If any of the schools are determined to be inadequate, and the developer does not wish to make them so, the final plat or site plan cannot be approved. If approval of the plat does not occur within six months, the PUD zoning designation would be lost and the property would revert back to its original, underlying classification. Motion made by Commissioner Munson, seconded by Nipps, based upon the previous motions for rezoning case RZ-02-008 that the proposed rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (A/PUD) is granted. Motion carried with Commissioners Nipps, Munson, and Snook voting “AYE,” Commissioner Wivell voting “NO,” and Commissioner Kercheval “ABSTAINING.” (As a resident of the adjacent neighborhood, Commissioner Kercheval chose to abstain.) BUDGET WORKSHOP – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET Debra Bastian, Director of Finance, Robert Arch, Director of Planning & MARCH 13, 2003 PAGE FIVE Community Development, and Gary Rohrer, Director of Public Works, attended the workshop. Ms. Bastian provided a summary of the projects and the changes made by the staff in Draft #3 of the CIP budget. She then presented funding scenarios for bond fund borrowing in FY 2004 of $8 million, $10 million, and $12 million, using current revenue projections and assuming new revenue sources. The Commissioners discussed the options presented and it was the consensus to use the $10 million borrowing option for planning purposes. The Commissioners then discussed CIP requests made by the Board of Education and Hagerstown Community College. They did not reach a consensus on the amount of funding for these two entities. Mr. Shoop then outlined a compromise plan for the Commissioners’ review. There was no consensus reached on this option. The Commissioners authorized Ms. Bastian to submit an application for Maryland Water Quality bond funding for Cell No. 3 at the landfill. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Commissioner Kercheval, seconded by Wivell, to adjourn at 12:12 p.m. Unanimously approved. , County Administrator __________________________, County Attorney ___________________________,County Clerk