Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 MinutesWASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 2014 208 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Drew Bowen and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Chief of Plan Review & Permitting Tim Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:13 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2013 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS -Beaver Creek Speakeasy Ms. Kelly presented a request by Elizabeth Hopkinson to allow for offsite parking for her existing catering business [Beaver Creek Speakeasy] at 20432 Beaver Creek Road, which is 1.92 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to have on-site events under a tent at the dwelling that was previously approved for a bed and breakfast. The new proposal would require 30 parking spaces to be provided on-site for the tented events and an additional 12 spaces would be required if there are functions inside the house as well. The previously approved site plan for the bed and breakfast shows 6 parking spaces on the site. The applicant has contacted the Beaver Creek Church of the Brethren officials and has obtained approval from them to use the church parking for patrons during hours when it is not being used for church functions. In accordance with Section 22.12(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, there are four conditions associated with the approval of shared parking facilities. The Planning Commission may approve the sharing of parking facilities between one or more uses based on a detailed parking study. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his concern regarding safety for patrons going between the church parking lot and the event site. Commissioner McKinley noted that additional information has been submitted that indicates there should not be any conflicts between the church's use of the parking area and the applicant's use. Mr. Wiley noted that the proposed low-speed vehicle that would be used to transport patrons between the parking area and the event site is not a legal vehicle for on-road use. Ms. Hopkinson, applicant, stated that the proposal has changed and this type of vehicle would not be used. Mr. Wiley also expressed his concern with regard to pedestrian traffic between the two sites. Mr. Fred Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates [the consultant] stated that the distance between the Church's parking area and the event site is approximately 540 feet. This exceeds the 500 foot distance cited in the Zoning Ordinance , which Mr. Frederick indicated is for pedestrian traffic. He noted that guests going to the event site will be shuttled from one site to the other. Mr. Frederick also noted there is enough room at the back of the site where parking could be accommodated; however, this property is close to the Beaver Creek, which is protected. The applicant would like to use this space, if needed, but retain the grass instead of paving. Mr. Lung stated that this request would need to be reviewed by Staff during the site plan phase. Mr. Frederick addressed concerns of buffering between the event site and the neighboring properties . He stated there are evergreen trees surrounding the site that provides year-round buffering. Commissioner McKinley asked if one of the conditions of renting this facility would be no pedestrian traffic [guests must be shuttled]. Ms. Hopkinson stated that event invitations will inform guests that there will be shuttle service provided from the parking area to the event area. She also noted that the contract for leasing/renting the event space will require that shuttle service be provided. Commissioner McKinley would like the applicant [via a statement in the contract or on the event invitations] to encourage all guests to use the shuttle service. Mr. Reiber asked what the average size of events would be. Ms. Hopkinson stated that she could accommodate up to 80 people; however, the majority of her current clientele are parties of 16 to 20 people. She believes that the majority of events will be between 30 to 50 people . Mr. Reiber asked what type of shuttle service would be provided. Ms. Hopkinson believes a majority of the shuttles will be provided by party buses or limousines . Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the request for shared parking with the following conditions: 1. There will be no more than 80 guests at an event. 2. The tents will be located on sites 1 and 2 as shown on the drawing accompanying this request. 3. There will be shuttle service provided from the church parking area to the event site. 4 . If the Church of the Brethren decides NOT to allow parking at their location, the Beaver Creek Speakeasy forfeits the right to host any/all events. [If this happens, a new site plan may be submitted to the Washington County Planning Commission for approval of new parking arrangements .] 209 5. The site plan for the Beaver Creek Spreakeasy must be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . Wal mart/Arnett Farms (PSP-10-001) Mr. Lung presented an update on the proposed Walmart site located south of Col. HK Douglas Drive. A site plan was approved with conditions on July 1, 2013 by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lung is requesting clarification of the condition specific to the State Highway Administration's approval. In a letter dated July 3, 2013, the State Highway Administration states, "SHA has no objection to the site plan approval, however, we request inclusion in the project after such time as the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is approved by all agencies." A second letter dated October 15, 2013 was received from the SHA stating that due to the government shutdown, there was a delay in receiving acceptance of the Interstate Access Pointe Approval Submitted from the Federal Highway Administration. Staff is requesting verification from the Planning Commission that State Highway's letter of July 3, 2013 and the follow-up letter of October 15, 2013 is sufficient to meet the Planning Commission's condition of site plan approval regarding SHA approval. Discussion and Comments: There was a brief discussion regarding the traffic study and the road improvements on Maryland Route 65 including the interstate ramps . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to accept the State Highway Administration's letter of July 3, 2014 which is sufficient to meet the Planning Commission's approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Thursday, January 16, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Hancock Town Growth Area Meeting, Town Hall , 126 West High Street, Hancock, Maryland 2. Wednesday, January 29, 2014 , 7:00 p.m. -Clear Spring Town Growth Area meeting, Clear Spring High School , 12630 Broadfording Road, Clear Spring , Maryland 3. Monday, February 3, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting (Location: TBA) 4. Wednesday, February 12, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Boonsboro Town Growth Area meeting, Shafer Park Community Center, Park Drive, Boonsboro, Maryland 5. Wednesday, February 26, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Smithsburg Town Growth Area meeting , Town Hall, 21 West Water Street, 2nd Floor, Smithsburg, Maryland ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. So ordered. Res4 b m~tt".".: ./ ~~---· l){rry Reib er, Chairman - --.. "-- WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 2014 210 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Hancock, 126 High Street, Hancock, Maryland for the purpose of reviewing proposed zoning and town growth area boundary changes. Members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber , Clint W iley, Drew Bowen and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were : Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Chief Planner Jill Baker, Associate Planner Justin Lindley and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . STAFF PRESENTATION Ms. Baker gave a brief background and history of the implementation of the land use policy recommendations established in the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the County in 2002. A comprehensive rezoning of the rural areas of the County was completed in 2005 and a comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area was completed in 2012. The comprehensive rezoning of the Town Growth Areas is the final step in implementing the land use recommendations . Ms. Baker noted there have been several questions associated with the proposed rezoning and she addressed each as follows: 1. Is this an annexation? Ms . Baker explained that the proposed changes are not part of an annexation plan. The County cannot annex property into a municipality; annexations must be initiated by the property owner or the municipality. 2. Will this change my property taxes? Ms . Baker noted that the zoning changes will not affect property taxes. Property taxes are based on land use, not zoning. 3. Will I be required to hook up to public water and/or sewer? Ms . Baker stated this is not a plan to hook up existing development to public water and sewer. The Zoning Ordinance requires new development to connect to public water and public sewer unless there are extenuating circumstances . At this time , there are no plans to extend services in this area. 4 . Is agriculture an allowed use? Ms. Baker stated that every zoning district in Washington County allows agriculture as a use . 5. Can I have animals? Animal husbandry is a permitted use; however, the number of animals is limited based on the amount of manure the animals produce . Ms. Baker then presented a summary of changes proposed by the Planning Commission following comments received during public input meetings held in August 2013 and a workshop meeting held by the Planning Commission in November 2013. The proposed changes are as follows: • North Pennsylvania Avenue -All properties north of the Town limits were removed from the Town Growth Area (TGA) and given the zoning designation of EC (Environmental Conservation). • Robinson Road -All properties along Robinson Road prev iously zoned Residential Transition (RT) have been removed from the Town Growth Area and zoned EC . • Hess Road -All properties along Hess Road previously zoned RT have been removed from the TGA and zoned EC . • Tulip Lane -All properties along Tulip Lane previously zoned RT (with the exception of Parcels of 29 and 11) have been removed from the TGA and zoned EC. • Sensel Road -Properties on the western portion of Sensel Road previously zoned Rural Urban (RU) have been left in the TGA and with a zoning designation of RT. Properties located on the remainder of Sensel Road previously zoned RT have been removed from the TGA and zoned to EC. Ms . Baker announced that the Planning Commission will continue to take public comment on the proposed changes to the Town Growth Areas through the end of February 2014. Future meetings will be held in Clear Spring, Boonsboro and Smithsburg . Public Comments • Alvin Funk, 6123 Hess Road: Mr. Funk asked for an explanation of the differences between the zoning designations of C (Conservation) and EC (Environmental Conservation). He requested that his property remain in the Conservation district. • Joe Lashley, 14701 Warfordsburg Road: Mr. Lashley requested that the zoning does not change from Hl-1 to RT (Residential Transition) on his property. • Matt Mills, 1654 Creek Road: Mr. Mills asked for an explanation of the Planning Commission's goal for the community. Mr. Bowen stated that the Planning Commission's role is to recommend zoning changes to account for future growth . The Planning Commission does not make the changes, only the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to make those changes . He noted that the State of Maryland requires that all entities that have zoning must update their plans every 5 to 10 years. Mr. Bowen explained that each municipality around the County has its own zoning authority and each municipality can expand its town boundaries. Mr. Mills believes that the community does not want any changes and that businesses need to be brought to the 211 Main Street of Hancock, not the back roads. Mr. Bowen reiterated that the County Commissioners have no zoning authority within the Town of Hancock boundaries. • Cheryl Funk, 6123 Hess Road: Ms. Funk thanked the Planning Commission for recommending that her property be taken out of the growth area. She asked why her property was being zoned from C (Conservation) to EC (Environmental Conservation). Mr. Wiley explained that the zoning designation Conservation is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with EC . Ms. Baker further explained that the EC designation has a density of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. The proposed RT zoning would have allowed for development within the Town Growth Area; however, rural properties outside the Growth Area are meant to be preserved , not developed. Ms. Funk asked if her well or septic were to fail , will she be allowed to replace them . Commission members told her she would be allowed to replace them. • Paul Golden, 6106 Hess Road: Mr. Golden expressed his opinion that the property owners on Sensel Hill want "everything left as it is". A petition was circulated and 90% of the residents do not want any change. He believes that if water and sewer are extended past an existing property, property owners will be forced to hook up . • Louise Golden, 6056 Sensel Road : Ms. Golden expressed her opinion that many of the properties on Sensel Hill would not be able to develop because the lots are not large enough. She also believes that if water and sewer are extended, everyone will be forced to hook up. • Joan Leavy, 6229 Robinson Road : Ms. Leavy expressed her opinion that the proposed EC zoning designation for her property is too restrictive. She wants the property to remain in the C zoning district in order to be able to subdiv ide the property in the future for a family member, if needed. • Michelle Iden, 6107 Sensel Road: Ms. Iden expressed her concern regarding the condition of the public roads in the area. Commissioner McKinley stated he would check into the poor road conditions in the Sensel Road/Hess Road area. • Jessie Unger, 20908 Leitersburg Pike : Ms. Unger stated that she owns Parcels 13 and 95 . She believes that parcels 29 and 11 should keep their current zoning and remain outside of the Town Growth Area because they have "boxed in" the adjoining properties. She fears that these properties will be developed in the future [possibly with Section 8 housing], which would be in her backyard . • Carol Fox, 5932 Sensel Road : Ms . Fox owns parcels 62, 54 and 45 and would like to be taken out of the Town Growth Area. • Pat Crouse, representing her mother Pat McKinley: Ms. Crouse thanked the Commission members for the zoning change to her property along Warfordsburg Road. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. --. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 29, 2014 212 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Clear Spring at the Clear Spring High School Cafeteria located at 12630 Broadfording Road, Clear Spring, Maryland for the purpose of reviewing proposed zoning and town growth area boundary changes. Members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber and Clint Wiley, Staff members present were: Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Chief Planner Jill Baker, Associate Planner Justin Lindley and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENTATION Ms. Baker gave a brief background and history of the implementation of the land use policy recommendations established in the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the County in 2002. A comprehensive rezoning of the rural areas of the County was completed in 2005 and a comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area was completed in 2012. The comprehensive rezoning of the Town Growth Areas is the final step in implementing the land use recommendations. Ms. Baker noted there have been several questions associated with the proposed rezoning and she addressed each as follows: 1. Is this an annexation? Ms. Baker explained that the proposed changes are not part of an annexation plan. The County does not have the authority to initiate annexations in a municipality; annexations must be initiated by the property owner or the municipality. 2. Will this change my property taxes? Ms. Baker noted that the zoning changes will not affect property taxes. Property taxes are based on land use, not zoning. She acknowledged that property taxes could increase if the Commissioners decide to raise taxes, but taxes would not change based solely on the zoning/rezoning of property. 3. Will I be required to hook up to public water and/or sewer? Ms. Baker stated this is not a plan to extend public water and sewer services. The Zoning Ordinance requires "new development" to connect to public water and public sewer unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as proximity to water/sewer lines or no available capacity. 4. Is agriculture an allowed use? Ms. Baker stated that every zoning district in Washington County allows agriculture as a use. 5. Can I have animals? Animal husbandry is a permitted use; however, the number of animals is limited based on the amount of manure the animals produce. Ms. Baker then presented a summary of changes proposed by the Planning Commission following comments received during public input meetings held in August 2013 and a workshop meeting held by the Planning Commission in November 2013 . The proposed changes are as follows: • Plumb Grove Mansion property -The property is currently zoned RR and is located within the Town Growth Area.· A change was requested due to the historical nature of the property. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and is now recommending that the property be moved outside the Town Growth Area with a zoning designation of EC (Environmental Conservation). • Clear Spring School complex -The Clear Spring Historical Society requested that the Clear Spring school complex be removed from the Town Growth Area. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and due to the public ownership of the property and existing infrastructure, the Planning Commission decided this request would not be appropriate; therefore, it is recommended that the school complex be left in the Town Growth Area. • 12211 & 12213 Big Spring Road: The property owner has requested that the property be zoned RU (Residential Urban). The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and recommends that the property be zoned RU. Ms. Baker announced that the Planning Commission will continue to take public comment on the proposed changes to the Town Growth Areas through the end of February 2014. Future town meetings will be held in Boonsboro and Smithsburg in February. Public hearings will be held with the Board of County Commissioners prior to adoption of any changes in the zoning or changes to the town boundary. Public Comment. • Betty Shank, 11981 Big Spring Road (P.O. Box 182): Ms. Shank stated that petitions with over 400 signatures from the community were presented to staff requesting that the proposed changes to the zoning and Town Growth Area boundary not be made. However, she believes that the Planning Commission did not consider what the community wanted. Ms. Shank stated that the Town's infrastructure does not have the capacity to handle any growth and noted that the proposed RT district would require new development to hook on to public water and sewer. Ms. Shank stated that the Clear Spring Historical Society requested the Plumb Grove Mansion property be zoned P (Preservation), not EC (Environmental Conservation). She expressed her 213 concern regarding the HI (Highway Interchange) zoning designation with regard to truck stops as a permitted use. Ms . Baker briefly addressed the request for Preservation zoning for the Plumb Grove property. She explained that a Preservation zoning designation on the property would create "spot zoning", which is illegal by State law. She further explained that the County has a Historic Preservation overlay zone that the Historical Society could apply for; however, this zoning classification could not be put on the property as part of the comprehensive rezoning in accordance with Maryland State law. • Johnna Maravelis, 138 Cumberland Street: Ms. Maravelis stated that she and her husband have recently moved to Clear Spring after living in Williamsport for 22 years. She discussed the Pilot truck stop and her concerns for safety issues and changes in the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Maravelis expressed her concerns with regard to the proposed changes and stated that she does not want to see the Town change. • Lisa Poole, P.O. Box 434: Ms. Poole expressed her opinion that when zoning changes other changes will follow. She believes that the property owners of Clear Spring are not being heard and that the Clear Spring area is the next "target" for development. • Don Bragunier: Mr. Bragunier expressed his concern regarding an increase in his taxes. Ms. Baker explained that if the property is continued to be used for agricultural purposes, taxes will not increase. However, if the property is subdivided and developed, taxes will increase because the use of the property has changed . • Mary Glen Baer, 11705 Rocky Meadow Road: Ms. Baer stated that the people of Clear Spring do not want development. "We're like Hancock. Leave us alone". Mr. Goodrich briefly addressed the differences between the RR (Rural Residential), which is being eliminated, and the RT (Residential Transitional) zoning districts as follows: • There is a slight increase in density. • Land uses have been revised with some commercial uses being removed. • Public water and sewer is required for new development. Mr. Goodrich stressed the point that property owners are still in control of what happens on their own property. There was a question from the audience asking where truck stops could be located. Mr. Goodrich responded that truck stops are allowed in the Highway Interchange zoning district. He noted that the area shown on the map around Clear Spring designated HI (Highway Interchange) is already zoned HI and permits uses that are allowed in the Industrial Restricted zone. • Brian Grush, Clear Spring Creamery, 12621 National Pike: Mr. Grush expressed his opinion that the residents of Clear Spring have a right to be concerned about property taxes being raised due to his experience with Alleghany County. • Michael Johnson, 154 Cumberland Street: Mr. Johnson asked if a County Commissioner is present during all of the Town Growth Area meetings. Mr. Reiber responded that Commissioner Baker is in attendance at this evening's meeting and Commissioner McKinley [the Ex-Officio to the Planning Commission] was present at the meeting in Hancock. Commissioner Baker stated, from the audience, that he attended the meeting in order to hear the concerns of the residents of Clear Spring. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Reiber adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m . ...__ WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2014 214 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Boonsboro, at the Community Building in Shafer Park, Boonsboro, Maryland for the purpose of reviewing proposed zoning and town growth area boundary changes . Members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen, Denny Reeder and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Chief Planner Jill Baker, Associate Planner Justin Lindley and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the public meeting to order at 7:05 p.m . STAFF PRESENTATION Ms. Baker began the presentation by stating that changes are being proposed in order to help prepare for future growth. Planning for growth does not start with zoning, but with an acknowledgement of how the community is today, how we want it to look in the future, and how to get there through the transition period. Ms. Baker stated that the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2002. The recommendations made to manage growth now need to be implemented. Ms. Baker discussed the goals and recommendations as follows: • Plan for development to be as cost-effective as possible for taxpayers • Preserve agricultural/rural way of life • Plan for compatibility with existing uses Ms. Baker discussed the proposed changes to the zoning and adjustments to the Town Growth Area boundary. She briefly explained the differences between the RR (Rural Residential) and RT (Residential Transition) zoning districts. PUBLIC COMMENT • Floyd Beaver, 20108 Scenic View Court: Mr. Beaver expressed his concern with regard to hooking up to public sewer . Ms. Baker stated that there is currently no proposal to put in public utilities . She noted that any~ development should hook up to public water and sewer, where feasible. Ms . Baker also noted that Washington County has no authority over water and sewer issues in the Town of Boonsboro. Mr. Beaver asked if he taxes would increase. Mr. Bowen stated that taxes are based on the land use of the property and if the land use does not change , then the taxes will not change. He also stated that Mr. Beaver's property could not be annexed into the Town unless he petitions the Town for annexation. • Donald Olden , 222 South Main Street: Mr. Olden asked if the zoning changes can he still pasture cows on the property. Mr. Reiber said he could continue to pasture cows. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m . 215 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 26, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Smithsburg, at the Town Hall , Smithsburg, Maryland for the purpose of reviewing proposed zoning and town growth area boundary changes. Members present were : Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen, and Denny Reeder . Staff members present were: Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Chief Planner Jill Baker, Associate Planner Justin Lindley and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENTATION Ms. Baker began the presentation by stating that changes are being proposed in order to help prepare for future growth. Growth is an inevitable side effect of our County's proximity to the large metropolitan areas such as Washington , DC and Baltimore. Ms. Baker explained that the County is not promoting or forcing development into communities. Development is a personal decision that lies solely with the land owner. County staff is trying to help citizens understand that development is part of the future and help decide how to manage the effects. Planning for growth does not start with zoning, but with an acknowledgement of how the community is today, how we want it to look in the future, and how to get there through the transition period. Ms. Baker stated that the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2002 . The recommendations made to manage growth now need to be implemented. Ms. Baker discussed the goals and recommendations as follows: • Plan for development to be as cost-effective as possible for taxpayers • Preserve agricultural/rural way of life • Plan for compatibility with existing uses Ms. Baker discussed the proposed changes to the zoning and adjustments to the Town Growth Area boundary. She briefly explained the differences between the RR (Rural Residential) and RT (Residential Transition) zoning districts. Ms. Baker briefly reviewed the changes from requests by individual property owners following the August 2013 public meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Joe Lane, 12030 Hippan Hill Road: Mr . Lane expressed his opinion that the Town of Smithsburg is almost at capacity for sewer and water and with the proposed changes infrastructure would need to be expanded . This would be a considerable cost for both the Town of Smithsburg and its residents. Mr. Lane expressed his opinion that some of the properties proposed to be zoned residential were previously or are currently orchards and rezoning them for residential uses will encourage development. He stated, "The sole purpose of this rezoning is to make it possible for Smithsburg to increase by approximately two Whispering Hills worth of development". Mr. Lane also expressed concern for school capacity issues and traffic issues on Maryland Route 66. Thomas Britner , 37 North Conococheague Street: Mr. Britner, general counsel for Bowman Cavetown LLC which owns property at the intersection of Maryland Routes 64 and 66, does not want its zoning changed from Business Local. Barry Martin, 12508 Bradbury Avenue: Mr . Martin expressed his opinion that the Town's infrastructure is outdated and cannot support additional development. Bill Wivell, P.O . Box 73 : Mr. Wivell submitted a formal zoning request for a small parcel at the intersection of Cavetown Church Road and Maryland Route 64 . Evan Price, 12539 Bradbury Avenue: Mr. Price stated that he is adamantly opposed to the Town Growth Area proposal. Nancy Hall, P.O. Box 177, Cavetown: Ms. Hall expressed her opinion that a rural community does not need 24-hour businesses . She is opposed to the change from RR (Residential, Rural) to RT (Residential Transitional). Doug Leather, 12032 Mapleville Road : Mr. Leather, facilities manager for the George M. Bushey & Sons companies, stated that a formal request was made for Parcel 422 to be zoned IR (Industrial Restricted). This parcel is currently being used as a drainage easement for the 4 lots currently zoned IR that surround it. The Commission "took a 1 O minute recess to answer specific questions . Leigh Zahm, 113 Sherri's Way: Mr. Zahm expressed his opinion that there is value in being proactive and planning for the future . He expressed concern for additional infrastructure when development occurs. He 216 -would like to see concentrated growth. Mr. Zahm stated he is against the proposed Sheetz at the intersection of Maryland Routes 66 and 64 due to traffic issues. Eric Davis, 12525 Bradbury Avenue: Mr. Davis expressed his concern with regard to the parcels owned by his family that are currently being used for agricultural purposes . He also expressed concern regarding the aging infrastructure, school capacity, traffic, and water and sewer capacity issues. Matt Harsh, 13220 Edgemont Road: Mr. Harsh owns a parcel along Fruit Tree Drive (78 acres). He believes that the neighboring property should not be in the Town Growth Area and should not be zoned RT because it is a wetland and grown up with woods. Mr. Bowen explained that the zoning that is implemented in Washington County and the municipalities is granted by State Law (Article 66B). State law requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan must be updated every few years. Mr. Bowen noted that the Town Growth Area boundary identified on the County's map came directly from the Town of Smithsburg. He explained that the Town of Smithsburg can expand its boundaries through annexation. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 10 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, April 7, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Sam Ecker, David Kline and Ex-officio William McKinley . Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve \Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Associate Planner; Fred Nugent, Parks &. Environmental Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner and Cody Shaw, Associate Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . MINUTES Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2014 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2014 public rezoning meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 29, 2014 public rezoning meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2014 public rezoning meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2014 public rezoning meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS SITE PLANS Shoney's Former Site Redevelopment (SP-14-011) Ms . Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the redevelopment of the former Shoney's site located along the north side of Valley Mall Road. The site is 0.40 acres in size and is currently zoned PB (Planned Business). The developer is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a 600 square foot building with a height of 20 feet that will house two restaurants (a nationally known coffee shop and a Noodles restaurant). A 1,300 square foot patio is also proposed and one restaurant will have a drive-thru window. Eighty-one parking spaces are required for the site and 47 parking spaces will be located on the site with the remaining 34 parking spaces to be located across Valley Mall Road on Valley Mall property. Ms. Kelly briefly explained the parking requirements as mandated by the Zoning Ordinance and the parking across Valley Mall Road. The developer is proposing a Declaration of Easement for shared access and parking that will allow the restaurant patrons that need the overflow parking to park anywhere at the Valley Mall. A note will be added to the site plan referencing the recording data of the easement and information regarding the number of parking spaces to be shared with the Valley Mall. Part of the County's road improvements for the Underpass Way and Valley Mall Road intersection will include the widening and lane upgrades and a crosswalk across Valley Mall Road. The County is planning to install a full-movement traffic signal as well as sidewalk and lighting improvements. The site will be served by public water and public sewer. An enclosed dumpster will be located to the rear of the site. Access to the site will be from Ramp F into the site, a right-in/right-out from Valley Mall Road and access onto Underpass Way. Interior traffic will be controlled by pavement markings and small signs. Freight and delivery services will occur two times per week. There are one to five employees proposed for the coffee shop and eight to 10 employees are proposed for the restaurant Hours of operation for the proposed coffee shop are 5:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday thru Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. The restaurant will operate from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Sunday . Signage will be building mounted and the existing pylon sign will remain on site and be refaced. Lighting will be building mounted and the existing pole lights will remain . Most of the existing landscaping will remain on site with the relocation of a tree and shrub 11 in front of the site. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there is less than 20,000 square feet of disturbance. All agency approvals have been received. Comments and Discussion: Mr. Wiley expressed his concern regarding pedestrians crossing Valley Mall Road to access the site and believes that pedestrians will not use the crosswalk. He suggested low shrubbery or fencing placed in front of the parking spaces along Valley Mall Road. Commissioner McKinley concurred that a barrier should be present in this area. There was a brief discussion regarding the change in parking requirements since the time that the former Shoney's restaurant was constructed and now. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan with additional landscaping along the parking spaces at the Valley Mall to encourage pedestrians to use the crosswalk. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Cavetown Storage {SP-14-006) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for Cavetown Storage located at 12121 Mapleville Road in Smithsburg. The site is 3 acres in size and is currently zoned IR (industrial Restricted). In September 2013, a special exception request was granted for the site to construct a stick-built mini- warehouse facility. There will be no employees and the hours of operation will be 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The developer is proposing 150 storage bays. Six parking spaces are required and six parking spaces will be provided. No waste will be generated from the site. Storm water management will be handled via bio-retention areas. Landscaping will be provided in the bio-retention areas and there is existing landscaping on the site. Proposed lighting for the site will be LED wall-pack fixtures with full cut-off features. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were addressed and recorded in Plat Folio 5405. Discussion and comments: Mr. Reiber asked if there would be landscaping between the storage facility and the neighboring residential properties. Mr. Shaw stated there is an existing shrub and tree line and additional landscaping of Leyland Cypress will be required. Commissioner McKinley asked about sight distance from the site unto Mapleville Road. Mr. Steve Cvijanovich of Renn Engineering, the consultant, stated that the existing entrance was constructed after obtaining a permit in 1988 from the State Highway Administration. The State Highway Administration has reviewed the current site plan and did not have any changes or comments. No physical changes are being proposed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. Community Rescue Services Maugansville Facility {SP-13-029} Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed Community Rescue Services facility located at 13727 Oliver Drive. The site is 0.78 acres and is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). There will be two employees per shift. Hours of operation will be 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Ten parking spaces are required and ten parking spaces will be provided. Solid waste will be collected in a screened dumpster. There will be pole mounted and building mounted lights with full cut-off features. Landscaping has been addressed using tree plantings. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements have been addressed through a payment-in-lieu recorded at Plat Folio 5563. Storm water management will be handled through surface sand filters. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if there are any traffic concerns with the existing businesses in the area. Mr. Shaw stated that the State Highway Administration and the Washington County Division of Public Works has reviewed the site plan and have no traffic concerns at this time. Mr. Reiber asked if all reviewing agency approvals have been received. Mr. Shaw stated that approvals are pending from the Health Department and City of Hagerstown Water & Sewer Department, which are both awaiting allocation forms. Mr. Gordon Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, Inc., the consultant, stated that the site will be served by public water and public sewer. Public Comment: Mr. William C. Wantz, 123 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, representative for Diamond Development Corporation and Raj Patel and his wife who maintain a residence inside the neighboring hotel facility. Mr. Wantz stated that in his review of the Zoning Ordinance, there is a 75 foot buffer required for this property under the HI zoning district requirements . He expressed his opinion that the two land uses (a hotel and an ambulance facility) are not compatible uses. Mr. Wantz 12 gave a brief presentation and provided handouts for Commission members. He requested that the Planning Commission withhold approval of the site plan pending review of the buffer requirements. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to table the site plan approval request until the May 5th meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. FOREST CONSERVATION Mr. Nugent gave a brief presentation regarding a proposed Forest Banking program. He reviewed all of the techniques for mitigation and stressed the importance of on-site mitigation of existing forest. Afforestation is the next preferred method of mitigation with the payment-in-lieu being the least preferred method. Mr. Nugent explained that changes would be needed to the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Discussion and Comments: There was a brief discussion regarding the forest banking program and the use of property which is already in another easement program. Commission members expressed their opinions that trees being planted for mitigation should be of a larger caliber instead of the whips that are currently being planted in most areas. There was a brief discussion regarding the survival of tree plantings, inspections performed to insure survival, the cost to developers involved in requiring larger caliber trees, and natural regeneration of forests. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the 1 !-'2 " caliber trees to be used for replanting (per the current text) is too small. Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that natural regeneration is the best method for reforestation of an area. A workshop will be held at a later date to discuss the proposed forest banking program further. OTHER BUSINESS Lauren Stephens Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a request for a waiver from the public water and sewer requirement in the RS (Residential Suburban) zoning district under Section 8.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located along Edward Doub Road, south of Sterling Road. The site contains 5.67 acres and is currently zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The owner is proposing to subdivide one residential lot from the property. Mr. Lung informed Commission members that lot 1 was subdivided in 1981, lot 2 was subdivided in 1990, and lot 3 was subdivided in 2008. All three of these lots are served by on-site well and septic. As part of the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) in 2012, a text amendment was adopted that requires all new development within the UGA to be served by public water and public sewer. However, the Planning Commission has the authority to waive this requirement after consultation and advice from the Health Department. Prior to a decision to grant or not grant a waiver of this requirement, the Planning Commission shall consider specific items as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lung stated that if the waiver is granted, a subdivision plat must be submitted to the Department of Plan Review & Permitting for approval. A note, called the "Interim Facilities Certification", will be required to be shown on the subdivision plat. Essentially, this note says that at such time as public facilities are available, the owner must hook on. Mr. Lung explained where the nearest connections for water and sewer are currently located. The City of Hagerstown Water Department has informed Mr. Lung that an existing water line in the area is substandard and they would not allow a connection to this line. He also noted that gravity sewer flow from the existing manhole in the area is unattainable according to the County's Department of Water Quality. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked how many more lots could be subdivided from this property. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that there is currently two panhandle lots that have been subdivided from the original tract of land. He noted that there is approximately 100 feet of road frontage along Doub Road, thus allowing only two additional panhandles on the property. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the waiver request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. Rosewood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan Mr. Lung presented for review a revision to the approved Final Development Plan for the Rosewood PUD located along Robinwood Drive. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission make a L 13 decision to determine if the proposed change is a minor or major change and if a public hearing would be required. The developer is proposing to revise the previously approved development plan showing an office/commercial area along Capitol Lane to residential townhomes. This change would result in a decrease in the PUD commercial area from 28.8% to 22.2% and increase the overall residential units from 355 to 403 units. The developer is requesting that a 0.39 commercial area adjoining the existing Varsity Professional Center be retained as commercial area. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the changes as presented and that no public hearing is needed. The motion was seconde_d by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. Town Growth Areas (RZ-13-003} Ms. Baker distributed copies of additional public comments that were received following the Planning Commission's public rezoning meetings held in each of the Town Growth Areas. By consensus, the Planning Commission decided to hold a Workshop meeting later in the month to review the requested changes prior to making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Commission will also discuss the Forest Banking program in further detail. Rezoning Calendar Changes Mr. Goodrich distributed copies of a revised rezoning calendar. The next application deadline is July 11, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Due to election of County Commissioners this fall, staff is proposing that the Planning Commission's public meeting be moved from October to September in order to allow enough time for the current Board of County Commissioners to hold their public hearing and make their decision on all rezoning applications that are received in July. INITIAL ADVICE AC & T Redevelopment Mr. Justin Doty of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, presented a proposed desi&n for the redevelopment of the A C & T Travel Center located at the northwest of the intersection of Halfway Boulevard and Hopewell Road. The site consists of several uses including the AC & T Travel Center, S & S Tire (to the west) and a Super 8 Motel (to the northwest). The Travel Center is currently functioning as a multi-use facility which includes an A C & T Exxon convenience store, 8 fueling positions for automobiles, 8 fueling positions for semi-trucks, a truck washing facility, and a Thermo-King service facility. The focus of the proposed project is for the Travel Center only. Mr. Doty noted that there are currently concerns regarding internal traffic circulation, parking issues, stacking of vehicles at the existing fueling positions, and there is limited room for growth at the automobile fueling pumps. The proposed concept plan would address the following: 1) reduce the number of services provided at the Travel Center by relocating Thermo-King and the truck washing facility to another site thereby reducing the different types of traffic patterns experienced within the site; 2) re-locate the convenience store; 3) relocate automobile fueling pumps from the side of the building to the front of the building; 4) install a concrete median to create greater separation between the truck and the automobile fueling areas; 5) traffic impacts at the intersection of Halfway Boulevard and Hopewell Road have been determined to be negligible according to a preliminary study performed by a traffic engineer, therefore, a full impact traffic study will not be required at this time; 6) close the existing right-in entrance at the corner of the intersection from Halfway Boulevard onto the site; 7) the curb median along Hopewell Road will be extended to the southwest to better clarify a full movement access point further from the intersection and in line with the opposing driveway across Hopewell Road; 8) the primary sign for the site will be relocated to the existing grass strip closer to the inter- section; 9) additional green space and site trees will be provided. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the concept plan provides improvements on the site and in the surrounding area. He asked the consultant to make sure that the relocation of the sign will not create any sight distance issues. Mr. Lung stated that the new sign would 14 -have to meet sign location standards, which require a 25 foot setback from the property line. Mr. Reeder expressed his opinion that this would be a good time to address security issues with the bulk tank field area. OLD BUSINESS (March agenda items) Washington County's Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Mr. Goodrich stated that a report of the County's Land Preservation programs must be submitted to the Maryland Department of Planning every three year~ in order to "certify" the programs. When programs receive a certified status , the County retains more of the collected agricultural transfer tax, which is collected on conveyances of agriculturally assessed property from one owner to another where there is no agreement that the property will stay in agricultural use. 2015-2024 Capital Improvements Program Mr. Goodrich provided a list of all projects that are proposed to be funded in the FY 2015 capital budget. A budget hearing will be conducted on May 6th by the Board of County Commissioners. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to recommend approval of the CIP based on its consistency with the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, April 21, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission public rezoning meeting, Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room #1, Hagerstown, Maryland 2. Monday, May 5, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland Respectfully submitted, ~ Terry Reiber, Chairman • WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC REZONING MEETING April 21, 2014 15 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting on Monday, April 21, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Court House, Room 1, 24 Summit Avenue, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, Sam Ecker, Drew Bowen, David Kline and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Associate Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . NEW BUSINESS RZ-14-001 -Cumberland Valley Veterinary Clinic Real Estate LLC and UP Associates Limited Partnership Staff Presentation Ms. Baker presented a proposed map amendment for the Cumberland Valley Veterinary Clinic Real Estate LLC (CWC) and UP Associates Limited Partnership (UPLC) for property located at 17743 Virginia Avenue and 1302 Virginia Avenue, Hagerstown, Maryland. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning on two parcels from RU (Residential Urban) to BG (Business General). Parcel 911 consists of approximately 1.64 acres and is owned by CVVC. Parcel 830 consists of approximately 4.05 acres and is owned by UPLC. Only a portion of Parcel 830 is subject to this rezoning application. There is currently a subdivision plat being reviewed by the Department of Plan Review & Permitting for the portion of Parcel 830 that CWC is proposing to purchase from UPLC. Both properties are located within the Halfway election district #26 . A 30 year analysis of census data shows a modest increase of approximately 13 .5% in population in this election district. Parcel 911 is currently improved with a residential use that is served by public water provided by the City of Hagerstown and public sewer provided by Washington County. Parcel 830 is currently unimproved in the area of the subject rezoning case and is designated as W-1 (existing water service) and S-3 (programmed sewer service) in the 2009 Water & Sewerage Plan. The rezoning request was forwarded to the Washington County Health Department, City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Department of Water Quality for review and comment. No comments have been received to date. The Volunteer Fire Company of Halfway provides both emergency services and fire protection to the subject parcels; to date, no comments have been received . Both parcels are located within the Lincolnshire Elementary, Springfield Middle and Williamsport High school districts. The requested change to BG, if granted, would eliminate the potential for new residential development and therefore, would have no impact on school capacities . The two parcels are currently landlocked. Parcel 911 has a right-of-way access over an adjacent parcel in the front. Parcel 830 does not have direct access to a public road at the location of the requested rezoning. While the direct access is not available individually, the owner intends to combine and expand the use of the animal hospital currently in existence on Parcel 825 that is adjacent to Virginia Avenue and use the existing entrances. Virginia Avenue is classified as an "Other Principal Arterial" and as such can expect traffic in excess of 20,000 ADT in an urban area. There are no historic or recent traffic counts available from the Maryland State Highway Administration for this segment of roadway. This request was sent to the Maryland SHA for comment and no comments have been received to date . The Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting has reviewed this request. They have provided the following comment, "No information was provided indicating how access will be provided to the subject site nor has any evaluation of the adequacy of the existing entrance to US Route 11 on the adjoining BG zoned property been made to determine its ability to support commercial development as permitted in the BG zoning district on the subject site." Existing development within the area of the subject parcels is dominated by residential subdivisions especially north of Virginia Avenue and south of Oak Ridge Drive. There are some pockets of Business General and Business Local zoning along Virginia Avenue and at the intersection of Virginia Avenue and Halfway Boulevard. The subject parcels are immediately adjacent to an existing pocket of BG zoning. There is a reference to a potential historic site on the rear portion of Parcel 911 related to a grove of oak trees which is believed to be the inspiration for the naming of Oak Ridge Drive. The applicant is proposing that the County made a mistake in the zoning of these properties during the Urban Growth Area comprehensive rezoning which was approved in 2012. Staff has analyzed the justification statement provided by the applicant and does not believe that the burden of proof has been met to warrant a change in the zoning of these properties based upon the limited information provided. Applicant's Presentation Mr. William Wantz, 123 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland, legal counsel for the applicant, presented the applicant's request. Mr. Wantz discussed the concept of the "mistake" rule as it applies to this request. He stated that a new entrance is not proposed unless it is required by the County or the State Highway Administration. Mr. Wantz asked questions of Dr. Edward Wurmb, the applicant, to confirm information previously presented. Dr. Wurmb stated that the Clinic was established in 1940. He stated that the property currently under contract with UP Associates would be used to improve parking 16 and to expand the existing facility to include hospice care, rehabilitation services, nutritional counseling, group planning for pet owners, and improved boarding and kennel facilities. Both indoor and outdoor kennels are proposed for a total of 30 kennels . Dr. Wurmb stated that the expansion would cost approximately $500 ,000 and would provide employment opportunities for approximately 15 to 20 additional people when finished. Public Comments April Griffith, 11117 Glenside Avenue, Hagerstown -Ms. Griffith expressed her concern with regard to the noise generated by the additional outdoor kennels. She asked if consideration could be given to placing the kennels on the other side of building . \ Larry Michaels, 17753 Virginia Avenue, Hagerstown -"Mr. Michaels complained about the noise from the existing kennels and stated that the outside kennels did not exist at the time he purchased his home. He stated that he is not opposed to and does not want to interfere with the clinic; however, the boarding needs to be modified to eliminate outdoor cages and runways. He also noted that the noise and odor are overwhelming and needs to be stopped. He believes these issues have a negative impact on neighboring property values. Mr. Michaels suggested that the outdoor kennels , runs and cages be removed and that doors and windows be kept closed to the inside cage area. He is not opposed to the BG zoning. Staff's Closing Comments Ms. Baker noted that this is the first step in a series of requirements that would be required for the expansion of the animal hospital. The BG zoning allows for many different types of uses and would not preclude another type of business to locate on this property. A site plan will be required for the expansion, at which time buffering, screening, etc. will be reviewed. Ms. Baker noted that outside kennels and runways are a special exception use in the BG zoning district; therefore, if the zoning is approved there will be another public hearing through the Board of Zoning Appeals at which time the public will be able to comment. There will be a public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the zoning should be changed at which time the public will be able to comment. Signs will be posted for both the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Zoning Appeals public hearings. RZ-14-002 -Map & Text Amendment for Rural Business Ms . Baker presented a map and text amendment to amend the Washington County Zoning Ordinance by repealing, in its entirety, Art icle 5E -Rural Business Existing and an amendment to Article 5F -Rural Business New to merge the two zoning districts into one new floating district called Rural Business. The two zoning districts were established in 2005 as part of the Rural Area Comprehensive Rezoning. The intent of these districts is to allow for a wider variety of commercial uses while still maintaining some influence over intens ity and compatibility, to allow more flexibility to property owners with existing commercial uses to change or expand, and to provide an opportunity for citizens to voice their opinions on new or large expansions of commercial development. The purpose of this amendment is to expand the flexibility of the Rural Business properties and to help provide more predictability in future endeavors. The proposed amendment would repeal the Euclidean zone of Rural Business Existing and combine its content with the Rural Business New district and rename it to a Rural Bus iness floating zone. A map amendment is being requested on approximately 229 distinct properties . Each of the properties is being proposed to change their Euclidean zone from RB --E (Rural Business Existing) to a zone that is more appropriate to the majority of the surrounding properties . Mr. Baker stated that the proposed text amendment portion of this application would eliminate the current intensity analysis that is required in the Rural Business Existing district , which will save property owners time by eliminating the need to get a formal determination from the County as to whether or not the use may expand or change without the need for a new public hearing . The proposed text changes will uniformly limit expansion of existing commercial uses to 35% or 45% (w ith Board of Zoning Appeals approval). Other text changes include reducing the minimum building setback for rear and side yards from 100 feet to 50 feet. Proposed language would be added for a full or partial termination of the Rural Business floating zone without a public hearing process should the property owner request it. The definitions of home occupation and resident business would be changed to be limited to a square footage rather than a percentage of the structure. There are no proposed changes to the permitted uses, bulk requirements, or signage, in the RB zone. There are no proposed changes to the area or parcels that have existing RB-E districts. As an addendum to the staff report, Ms. Baker shared verbal public comments that she has received over the past several weeks. She has received numerous comments with regard to the limitations of expansion. The majority of those commenting believe the limitation is a hindrance to their businesses. Ms. Baker stated that staff has been contacted by two property owners that have expressed their desire to have changes in their Rural Business status. • The first property is located at 2403 Harpers Ferry Road in Sharpsburg, which is the location of the former Mad Dog Saloon that sustained a business closure fire last year . The property owner wants to re-establish the tavern business and discovered that the current zoning is RV (Rural Village). The property owner is requesting that the RB floating zone be established on this property as part of the comprehensive rezoning. The property owner believes that the property was mistakenly overlooked in 2005 . 17 • The second property is located at 14109 Greencastle Pike, which is listed as Gibney's Florist. It is currently zoned RB-E. The property owner has requested that no RB Overlay be applied to this property due to the fact that the property is residential and has not been used commercially in the 30 years that they have lived there. Public Comments Richard Nye, 11244 Kemps Mill Road, Williamsport -Mr. Nye asked why the staff is proposing the change to the Rural Business zoning. Ms . Baker explained that there have been several occasions where having the Rural Business zoning as a static zone has become a hindrance to the property owners and cited several examples. Michael Schaefer, 148 W. Washington Street, Hagerstown -Mr. Schaefer commented on Article 5F.5 as it relates to expansion which states , "In order to minimize potential conflict with environmental sensitivity, infrastructure availability, and/or land use, expansion of existing uses including structures, parking facilities, storm water management facilities and any other changes relating to the use shall be limited to a maximum of a 35% increase in the original area of the use. With Board of Zoning approval, an additional 10% to allow a total increase of 45% of the original use areas." Mr. Schaeffer expressed his opinion that this language is confusing and suggested more articulate language be used. Joseph Chukla Jr., 2131 O Leiters Mill Road, Hagerstown -Mr. Chukla asked the following questions : Who is involved in the process when the business changes uses or wants to expand?; Who evaluates the intensity of a use?; What are the front yard setbacks? He concurred with Mr . Schaefer's comments. Fred Frederick of Frederick , Seibert & Associates, 128 S. Potomac Street, Hagerstown -Mr. Frederick expressed his concern regarding the 35% limitation for expansion . He cited several examples of businesses that have expanded without the limitations and believes that the limitations would force businesses to move elsewhere. He expressed his support for making the Rural Business a floating zone. Leroy Myers, 14627 National Pike , Clear Spring -Mr. Myers expressed his concern with regard to the 35% expansion limitation . Todd Easterday, 20320 Ayoub Lane, Hagerstown -Mr. Easterday expressed his opinion that the 35% expansion limitation is too restrictive and his current business would be unable to grow. He believes there are many businesses that need to remain in the rural area and would not do well in a town setting. Sherry Olden, Blue Ridge Riding Club, 8332 Mapleville Road, Boonsboro -Ms. Olden stated the Blue Ridge Riding Club was zoned RB-E in 2005 during the Rural Rezoning. She questioned why they are zoned as a Rural Business and how would the floating zone affect her taxes. Ms . Baker stated that the Rural Business Existing zone was placed on the property because the property is open to the public. She stated that taxes are based on land use [not zoning] and is determined by the State Tax Assessment office. RZ-13-004-Limited Multiple Parcel Clustering Program Ms. Baker presented a proposed text amendment to amend the Washington County Zoning Ordinance to add a new section titled Division XII -Limited Multiple Parcel Clustering Program . The purpose of the text amendment is to allow adjacent properties under a singular ownership to effectively cluster all of the development potential unto one or more pieces of existing land . It is intended to give additional opportunity for rural property owners to regain potential development. The program would be limited to adjacent parcels under singular ownership in an effort to monitor the clustering effects on land development impacts, land preservation efforts and land purchasing. UPCOMING MEETINGS Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 2:00 p.m., Planning Commiss ion Workshop meeting, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland Monday, May 5, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Planning Commission regular meeting, 100 West Washington Street ; Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m . Respectful ~itted, ,..-- ~ ,<; -· Terry Reib er, c na1rm an 18 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, April 23, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Drew Bowen, David Kline and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Associate Planner; Fred Nugent, Park~ & Environmental Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. ' CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m . TOWN GROWTH AREA REZONINGS -Town of Hancock Ms . Baker presented verbal and written requests from citizens of Hancock, which were received following the public rezoning meeting held on January 16, 2014. Planning Commission members reviewed the following individual requests: • 14701 Warfordsburg Road (Parcel 100) o Current Zoning : Hl-1 (Highway Interchange 1) o Proposed Zoning: RT (Residential Transitional) o Requested Zoning: EC (Environmental Conservation) -Property owner wants to remain rural and does not want to hook up to public water and sewer. Ms. Baker explained that the property is immediately adjacent to the Town limits and it is surrounded by proposed HI zoning to the north which has long been established as an employment area by the Town of Hancock. She also noted that public water and sewer hook-ups are not required as part of this comprehensive rezoning and is meant for new development only. There are currently no water or sewer lines in this area. o Planning Commission Recommendation : RT • North Pennsylvania Avenue [west side of Pennsylvania Avenue (Parcel 130) (also including Parcels 124, 79 and 69) o Current Zoning: BG (Business General) and RUIC o Proposed Zoning: EC o Requested Zoning: BG and RUIC (Residential Urban/Conservation) -Property owner has requested leaving the larger parcel (P.130) as BG but rezoning the three smaller parcels (124, 79 , 69) as RU . The smaller parcels are currently improved with residential uses and the RU zone would be consistent with RU zoning currently in place across the road. • Michael -East side of Pennsylvania Avenue (P. 81) (also including parcels 98, 41 and 8) o Current Zoning: P. 81 (RUIC); P. 98, 41 & 6 (RU) o Proposed Zoning: P. 81 (EC); P. 98 & 6 (EC); P. 41 (RT) o Requested Zoning: P. 81 (RUIC) -Property owner of P . 81 has requested leaving the zoning as it currently exists. Staff recommends leaving the front portion of P.81 zoned RU as it currently exists. The rear portion of the property currently zoned C is recommended to be removed from the Growth Area and zoned EC. While property owners of P. 98, 41 and 6 have not requested a change, staff recommends leaving these parcels zoned RU to be consistent with their current zoning and with the P. 81 request to remain RU . o Planning Commission Recommendation: Parcel 130 should be zoned BG with the exception of the 3 single family lots [RU zoning] and Parcel 81 will have the split zoning of RU and EC. • 6229 Robinson Road (Parcel 92) o Current Zoning: C (Conservation) o Proposed Zoning: EC o Requested Zoning: C -Property owner stated during the public meeting that they wanted to retain their ability to subdivide their property and were concerned they wouldn't be able to do so under the EC zoning. Ms. Baker stated that she verified with the Qepartment of Plan Review & Permitting staff that this parcel, as well as the others changing from C to EC would qualify for exemption lots as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, they would not lose the ability to subdivide. o Planning Commission Recommendation: EC 19 • 6123 Hess Road (Parcel 90) o Current Zoning: C o Proposed Zoning: EC o Requested Zoning: C -Ms . Baker stated that this property abuts the current Town boundary. The owner wants to be able to subdivide the property in the future. Ms. Baker re iterated her comments from the previous request and that the property would qualify for exemption lots . o Planning Commission Recommendation: EC • Non-owner Request (Parcel 29 and Parcel 1 ~) o Current Zoning: C o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning : EC -Ms . Baker stated that a resident requested these properties to be removed from the Growth Area because they do not want Section 8 housing to be built in the area . Ms. Baker stated that the County cannot dictate where low-income housing can be located and the property owners of these two parcels have not made a formal request. o Planning Commission Recommendation: RT • 5932 Sensel Road (Parcels 62, 45 and 54) o Current Zoning: RU o Proposed Zoning RU o Requested Zoning : EC -The property owners want to be removed from the Growth Area because they do not want to hook up to public water and sewer. Ms. Baker explained there are several properties between these parcels and the Growth Area boundary as well as properties zoned EC . She believes the RU zoning is more compatible with these parcels due to their size and the proximity to public water and sewer. o Planning Commission Recommendation : RU -Town of Clear Spring Ms . Baker stated that no individual parcel requests have been received to date since the public meeting, which was held on January 29, 2014. She noted there have been no changes proposed to the Growth Area that was established in 2002 except the removal of Plumb Grove Mansion. The Plumb Grove Mansion site is proposed to be designated EC. Ms. Baker explained that a Historic Preservation overlay could be applied for by the owners; however, this cannot be done as part of the comprehensive rezoning process. Mr. Wiley suggested that if the property is zoned EC, staff should contact representatives of Plumb Grove and offer to assist them through the rezoning process if they desire to have the HP overlay put on this property. Ms . Baker noted that during the public meetings, infrastructure was a major concern especially water services. She distributed copies of a letter that was received from the Town of Clear Spring reinforcing the fact that they have control over public water and sewer service. Mr. Goodrich reiterated that there is no proposal to enlarge the current Growth Area boundary, which has been in existence since 1973 . Mr. Wiley asked if the Growth Area could be reduced in size, but leave the underlying zoning in place. Mr. Bowen suggested holding another public meeting in Clear Spring. Ms. Baker discussed the Highway Interchange zoning and concerns voiced about the intensity of this zone. She noted that many of the parcels designated with the HI zone are already developed with a commercial use. The County's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use; however, it does not specify that it must be zoned HI. Members discussed changing this area of HI zoning to a BG (Business General) zoning designation, which would provide for less intensive uses. Planning Commission members were instructed to further analyze the issues individually and to consider the two major points for the next meeting. The two major points for members to consider until the May 5th meeting are as follows: 1. Leave the Growth Area as it currently exists and has existed since 1973; or 2. Repeal or reduce the Growth Area -Town of Boonsboro Ms . Baker stated there have been no individual property owner requests since the public meeting held on February 1 ih. She noted that only one citizen spoke during the public meeting and voiced concerns with regard to hooking up to public water and sewer. There was no further discussion. -Town of Smithsburg Ms. Baker wesented individual requests that have been received since the public meeting held on February 26 h. • Cavetown Planing (Parcel 422) 20 o Current Zoning: RR (Residential Rural) o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning: IR {Industrial Restricted) -Ms. Baker noted that this parcel contains the regional storm water management pond that services the businesses. The property owner is requesting IR zoning to be consistent with the surrounding properties also owned by Cavetown Planing. Ms. Baker also stated that staff recommends splitting the zoning of the parcel due to the panhandle configuration of the property. She stated that it would be more appropriate to zone the bulk of the property IR but leave the panhandle portion zoned RT to be consistent with surrounding residential uses. o Planning Commission Recommendation: IR/RT • Ridenour Family LLC (Parcel 330) o Current Zoning: A(R) (Agricultural Rural) o Proposed Zoning A(R) o Requested Zoning: RT -This property is located outside of both the County and Town of Smithsburg delineated growth areas. The property owner is requesting that the property be put into the Growth Area and be rezoned to RT. Staff does not support this request because there is currently limited capacity at the Smithsburg waste water treatment plant and the Town of Smithsburg has a Water Resources Element that has been approved and evaluated, which shows no additional capacity available in the foreseeable future. o Planning Commission Recommendation: A(R) • Wivell Property (Parcel 333) o Current Zoning: RR o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning: BL (Business Local) -Staff completed a site visit to the property and noted a flowing stream bisecting the property. While it is adjacent to existing commercial zoning, Staff believes the environmental features of the property warrant a less intensive use. o Planning Commission Recommendation: BL • 12214 and 12119 Wolfsville Road (Parcels 28 and 94) o Current Zoning: RR o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning: BL -These two properties are adjacent to existing co'mmercial zoning and uses; however these parcels are currently being used as residential properties. Property owner requested BL during the initial round of meetings and the Planning Commission recommended leaving the zoning RT. o Planning Commission Recommendation: BL • 12849 Bikle Road (Parcel 213) o Current Zoning: A (Agriculture) o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning: A -The property is currently used as a farm and the property owners want it to remain that way. Ms. Baker noted that the Agriculture zoning district is being repealed from the Zoning Ordinance. The RT zoning will allow the property to remain as a farm and will not impede the existing farm operation. o Planning Commission Recommendation: RT • Parcel 225 -non-owner request o Current Zoning: A o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning: A(R) -This property is located at the corner of Fruit Tree Drive and Maryland Route 64. Staff is proposing to include this property in the Town Growth Area in order to match the Town of Smithsburg's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Matt Harsh spoke at the public meeting. He believes there are too many environmental issues for the property to be included in the Growth Area and developed intensively. The existing property owner has not contacted Staff to request a change. o Planning Commission Recommendation: RT • Hudson (Parcel 78) and Wivell (Parcel 717, Lots 1 and 2) o Current Zoning: RR o Rroposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning: EC -The property owners want to be outside of the Town Growth Area and believe that the property location for the boundary should follow Crystal Falls Drive and Federal Lookout Road. Ms. Baker noted that these properties are shown in the Town of Smithsburg's Comprehensive Plan within the Growth Area. These properties 21 were the subject of a subdivision in 1999 and are located within a reasonable distance of public water and sewer facilities. o Planning Commission Recommendation: RT • 22114. 22 11 8 and 2 2122 Jefferso n Bo ul evard. 12021 Itn yre Ro ad (Parce ls 30 6 a nd 358 . Lot s 4- fil o Current Zoning: A o Proposed Zoning: RT o Requested Zoning : BL -This property has been approved for a mini-warehouse facility as a special exception use by th~ Board of Zoning Appeals and therefore would be limited to that specific use. However:, rezoning the property to BL would open it up to more potentially intense commercial uses. There is existing residential development surrounding the currently vacant property that may be impacted if the property would be opened up to more business uses. Property owner requested BL in the previous round of public meetings and the Planning Commission recommended leaving it zoned RT. o Planning Commission Recommendation: BL Ms . Baker reminded Commission members that last year the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning request for Parcels 83, 154, 87 and 86 located at the intersection at Maryland Route 64 and Maryland Route 66. These properties were rezoned to Business Local. This decision has been appealed in Circuit Court and has been remanded back to the Board of County Commissioners. The Court determined that Parcel 87 was zoned inappropriately. Staff is recommending that the properties be zoned BL, including Parcel 87. Following review of the individual requests, the Planning Commission, by consensus, agreed that the proposed TGA zoning maps with these latest changes were acceptable to present to the Board of County Commissioners as their recommended changes with the exception of Clear Spring. Further discussion regarding the Clear Spring Town Growth Area was scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. Another discussion concerning Clear Spring's Growth Area ensued . Mr. Wiley suggested that citizens need to be made aware of the consequences of shrinking the growth area boundary, such as the loss of priority funding for public utilities if it is needed in the future. FOREST BANKING Mr. Nugent reminded Commission members that forest banking is process whereby a land owner puts an easement either on forested or afforested land. Developers would negotiate with the land owner to use all or portion of the forested land to meet mitigation responsibilities. The current cost for a payment in lieu is $.30/$.36 per square foot for mitigation. Mr. Nugent believes that this would give the County, through the approval process, the opportunity to focus preservation where it should be. Discussion: Mr. Bowen asked if an individual property owner means a single individual or if it could also be a corporation . Mr. Nugent stated it could mean a corporation . Mr . Bowen asked if this would include municipalities. Mr. Nugent believes this issue needs to be discussed further . Mr. Bowen explained how the forest banking process works in Frederick County, Maryland. There was a brief discussion regarding the progression of Forest Conservation choices. Mr. Goodrich stated that the first priority is on-site planting and/or retention. There was a discussion with regard to the various mitigation choices and the pros and cons of each. Mr. Goodrich noted that there are more stringent storm water management regulations being adopted by the State. By consensus, the Planning Commission recommends moving forward with the proposed Forest Banking program. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4 :00 p .m . Re~ T ~~ 22 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 5, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Sam Ecker, Drew Bowen and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Associate Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner and Cody Shaw, Associate Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . MINUTES Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2014 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Community Rescue Service Maugansville Facility (SP-13-029) Mr. Terry Irwin presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed Community Rescue Service"s facility located along the north side of Oliver Drive on 0.78 acre. The property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). He noted that staff has met with the County Attorney who has determined that no buffer yards are required for the proposed use on this lot. This determination is consistent with previous interpretations and application of this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The County Attorney does not believe the additional buffer yard is applicable to situations where a dwelling is an accessory to another principal permitted use in the HI district. Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked if all reviewing agency approvals have been received. Mr. Gordon Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, Inc., the consultant, stated that the City of Hagerstown Water Department has recently approved the pre-annexation agreement with CRS. This agreement will be forwarded to the Washington County Health Department. ' Public Comment: Mr. William C. Wantz, legal representative for Diamond Development Corporation, stated that only one issue from the previous meeting has been addressed with regard to the setbacks. The second issue to be addressed falls under Section 19.8A, which states that where the adjoining lot is zoned for or contains dwellings, hospitals, nursing homes, etc., there shall be a 75 foot buffer. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that staff and the County Attorney's office have addressed the issue. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon receiving all agency approvals . The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved . NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Rosewood Village Phase IIB (SV-14-005) Mr. Irwin (on behalf of Mr. Tim Lung) presented for review and approval a modification request for Rosewood Village, Phase IIB located along O'Neals Place. The applicant is requesting a modification from the previously approved side and rear yard setbacks. The requested side yard setback is from the approved 10 foot setback to 7 feet on Lots 106, 111, 112, 119, 120, 123, 124, 127, 128, 132, 138, 139, and 143 and the approved 20 foot rear yard setback to 14 feet on Lots 124-127. The utility providers and the Department of Emergency Services had no comments on this request. The Department of Plan Review & Permitting has reviewed the project and has no objection to the request if the following conditions are met: certain design and grading issues must be addressed as part of the revised site plan and grading plan review. Mr. Irwin noted that care should be taken when designing the Forest Conservation planting area adjacent to lot 124 to avoid conflicts. The applicant should be aware of the close proximity of the forest area to the setback area. Discussion and Comment: Mr. Reiber asked why the modification was needed. Mr. Steve Cvijanovich of Renn Engineering stated it is due to changes in the design of the townhomes by the current builder that are different from the original proposal. The current design has projections such as bay windows and entry bays that extend the current setback. Mr. Bowen asked if the design of additional buildings in other phases of the project have been reviewed to assure that another modification will not be needed. Mr. Sassan Shaool, developer of Rosewood Village, stated that this unit is not being built anywhere else right now; and, if this building footprint is used in other phases, the request for reductions will be made during the initial phase of the project, not as an amendment. 23 Mr. Cvijanovich stated that the applicant is aware of the Forest Conservation requirements and has no objections. Motion and Vote: Mr . Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon meeting all requ irements outlined by the Department of Plan Review & Permitting . The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. -SUBDIVISIONS Van Lear Manor-Section 17, Lots 563-577 (PP-13-003) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a preliminary plat for Section 17, Lots 565-577 of Van Lear Manor located along Hershey Drive. The property is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). The developer is proposing to develop 15 single-family lots on 7.5 acres. All lots will have frontage onto Hershey Drive, which is an existing County road. All lots will be served by existing public sewer and public water . Forest Conservation requirements were met by retaining forest on Lots 565-571. The Forest Conservation Plan for this area of Section 17 was previously approved as part of Section 16 in 2000. All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS U.S. Silica-Tonoloway Ridge Phase I (SP-13-018) Mr . Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for U.S. Silica -Tonoloway Ridge Phase I located along the east side of Woodmont Road (Tax Map 31, Parcel 12). The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because it is being used for surface mining. All structures, parking spaces, etc. will meet the zoning setbacks required by the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. The Maryland Department of the Environment mining program reviews, approves, inspects and addresses compliance issues for sediment and erosion control and storm water management for all areas within the limits of mining. This plan was presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals (AP2013-001) on March 1, 2013. The BZA granted authorization to utilize up to a 5 acre portion of the Betty J. Hoffman property for access, crushing and loading of materials for off-site transport of sandstone that will be extracted from the adjoining lands of U.S. Silica. The property is currently zoned EC/IM (Environmental Conservation with the Industrial Mineral overlay). The mining permit area is 82. 7 acres. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 7:00 a .m. to 7:00 p.m. There will be up to 100 truck trips per day with one fuel truck per day. Staff has no objection to the approval of this plan as presented because it meets as Zoning Ordinance requirements . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Michael Shifler of Fox & Associates, Inc. introduced several representatives from U.S . Silica: Mr. Drew Anderson, Director of Mine Planning & Development; Scott Griffin, Berkeley Springs Plant Manager; Carol Hudak, Permanent Project Manager; and Jerry Brumbaugh of Wampaw Hardware Company. Also present was Tim Kellerman from Triad Engineering, Mr. Anderson gave a brief history of U.S. Silica and its mining operations and Mr. Griffin gave a brief description of the quarrying and processing methods used. Mr. Wiley asked if prod uct ion would be moved to Hancock . Mr. Anderson stated there are no plans to move production at th is ti me , wh ich wou ld requ ire a lot of capital funds. Mr. Wiley asked how many trucks are used in the course of a day a t the Berkeley Springs facility. Mr. Griffin stated this is a rail and truck facility with approximately 50 to 60 trucks per day. Commissioner McKinley asked if Woodmont Road would be adequate to handle the trucks. Mr. Shifler stated that a road adequacy determination was performed on Woodmont Road as required by the County's Road Adequacy Policies. U.S . Silica will be required to post a bond for approximately $230,000 to guarantee that the road will be repaired if it can be proven that the truck traffic is damaging Woodmont Road. Members also discussed the water and environmental effects on the surrounding area, blasting effects on surrounding properties, screening for adjacent properties; natural reclamation of abandoned mining areas, etc. Mr. Wiley asked if there is a plan in place to provide water for neighboring properties if there is an emergency situation related to the mining of this property. Mr. Anderson stated there is a plan in place and U.S. Silica would provide water for residents and farm animals if it is determined that the mining activity has damaged private wells. Mr. Shifler stated that all applicable permits have been received from Maryland Department of the Environment. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved . 24 OTHER BUSINESS RZ-14-001 -Cumberland Valley Veterinary Clinic Real Estate LLC and UP Associates Limited Partnership Recommendation Ms . Baker reminded Commission members that a public meeting was held on April 21st to receive public comment on the proposed rezoning of property located at 177 43 and an adjacent portion of a larger parcel addressed as 1302 Virginia Avenue. The total area to be rezoned is 5.69 acres (1.64 acres owned by Cumberland Valley and 4.05 owned by UP Limited Partnership). Both parcels are currently zoned RU (Residential Urban) and the request is to rezone tho~e properties to BG (Business General). >, Discussion and comments: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding the proposed outdoor kennels in the BG zoning district. Ms. Baker stated that indoor kennels are permitted and the outdoor kennels would require a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals . A site plan will be required if the BZA approves the special exception request for outdoor kennels . Commissioner McKinley asked if the comment from Mr. Larry Michaels with regard to no permits being obtained for the existing outdoor kennels is a true statement. Ms . Baker stated that staff cannot confirm or deny this statement for several reasons: 1) this business has been in existence since the 1940's; 2) there was a fire at this location which damaged a significant portion of the building; and 3) the permitting records only go back to 1996. However, there are no violations for this property on file since that time. Mr. Reeder pointed out that in Mr . Michaels' letter, he states that he purchased his current property from Dr. Baker in 1978, who was part of the veterinary clinic at the time. There was a brief discussion regarding the noise and odor issues, which could be addressed during the special exception hearing and again at the site plan phase of the project. Mr. William Wantz, the applicant's attorney, stated that the applicant is purchasing a portion of the neighboring property, which is forested , from UP Limited Partnership to act as a buffer for the neighboring properties. Motion and Vote : Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley and Mr. Wiley abstaining from the vote . RZ-14-002 Rural Business Recommendation Mr. Goodrich noted that the purpose of this amendment is to make the zone function properly and to correct problems that have arisen since its adoption in 2005 . The Rural Business-Existing (RB -E) zoning was assigned to rural businesses in order to allow them to continue to operate, while still monitoring expansion. Under the current RB-E zoning , expansion is allowed; however, the expansion is ,reviewed based on a series of six criteria. If you triggered no more than two of the six criteria, only a site plan is required for the expansion. If three or more of the criteria are triggered, an applicant would need to go through the rezoning process w ith an abbreviated schedule . The current RB-E zone has no underlying zone ; therefore , if the business ceases to operate and the property is sold (not for a business), a rezoning would be necessary to assign the proper zone for a new use. The proposed Rural Business zoning would not have the six criteria associated with it for expansion. All properties that currently have the RB- E zoning will not change, with the exception of one specific individual request. These properties will all receive an underlying zone with the Rural Business floating zone. Ms. Baker explained how the Euclidean zone would go dormant and the Rural Business floating zone would be on the property until such time as the business ceases to exist. She reiterated that there will be no changes to existing land uses permitted, no changes to parking requirements , etc. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that people are confused and mistrusting. He believes a statement saying "there will be no changes " needs to be added to the text. Mr. Goodrich explained that if the amendment is adopted, the confusing text would be eliminated. There was a discussion regarding the 35%/45% expansion language that is proposed in the text amendment. Ms . Baker noted that currently non-conforming uses are limited to a 35% expansion. She noted there were several comments and questions during the public rezoning meeting held on April 21 si_ Staff responded to those comments with the following proposed solutions: 1. Instead of using the phrase "increase in the original area of the use", language could be added that creates a definitive point in time, such as "the effective date of the amendment", or add a specific date (if the amendment is approved). 2. Language could be added to clarify that new rural businesses will not be subject to the expansion clause during their initial establishment. 3. Add language to clarify that the expansion percentage is based on a per application basis . 4. To address the smaller rural businesses that could be disproportionally affected, language could be added to the 35% maximum, such as "Expansions would be limited per application to a 35% expansion or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater." Mr. Ecker expressed his opinion that a limitation on expansion is not needed and that the County already has too many regulations. Mr. Goodrich noted that people living in a rural area expect to have a rural area without a lot of businesses. Creating a percentage would allow the rural businesses to expand and would also give neighboring residents a say of what happens in their community by requiring a special exception or a rezoning . Commissioner McKinley believes that the term "rural" is very subjective and that business owners should be able to expand their businesses as much as they want. Ms . Baker noted that 25 • if a business wants to expand, it will need to go through the site plan process, which would give the Planning Commission flexibility to review the project and recommend changes. Mr. Goodrich pointed out that the RB zoned businesses could not expand outside of the RB zoning district without going through a rezoning, which would give the public the opportunity to comment or raise concerns. Ms. Baker also presented the two individual requests that have been received: • 14109 Greencastle Pike -Ms. Baker stated this is a residential property and has been for more than 30 years. The owner is requesting the RB-E zoning designation be removed . • 2403 Harpers Ferry Road -Ms. Baker stated this is the site of the former Mad Dog Saloon which recently sustained a fire. The business use existed at the time of the 2005 rezoning but was not zoned RB-E then. The owners have requestect that the Rural Business zoning be placed on their property. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text and map amendment as amended [remove the percentage limitation] and approval of the two individual requests as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. Planning Commission members requested that the actual text [in track changes] be forwarded via e-mail when it is amended. RZ-13-004 Limited Multiple Parcel Clustering Program Recommendation Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation a proposed text amendment to amend the Washington County Zoning Ordinance to add a new section titled Division XII -Limited Multiple Parcel Clustering Program. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote . RZ-13-004 Town Growth Area Recommendation Ms . Baker reminded Commission members that discussions were held during the workshop meeting on April 23rd regarding the Clear Spring Town Growth Area boundary. At the request of the Planning Commission, she presented a map showing the areas currently served by public water and sewer. Ms. Baker contacted the Maryland Department of Planning regarding priority funding areas. She was told that if the Growth Area is removed in its entirety, funding for the planned areas will be in jeopardy.· Existing service could possibly get funding, but it would likely take a special exception through MOE; however, new service on vacant properties would most likely not receive funding from the State. This would include funding for repairs or expansion of the existing lines. Mr. Goodrich presented a map showing the extent of urban zoning categories as they were in 1973, 1997 and what is currently being proposed. The extent of urban zoning designations has shrunk from the original boundary in 1973. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to recommend approval of the Town Growth Area rezoning as discussed during the workshop meeting held on April 23, 2014 to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m . 26 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 2, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen, David Kline, and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Associate Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrativ~ Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner ; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner; and Cody Shaw, Associate Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2014 Planning Commission rezoning public meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2014 Planning Commission workshop meeting as presented. The motion was second by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2014 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS William and Leona Sauser (SV-14-004) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request for William and Leona Sauser for property located along the west side of Harpers Ferry Road (Tax Map 83, Grid 10, Parcel 227). The property is currently zoned A(R) -Agricultural Rural. The owner is proposing to convey a single-lamily lot to an immediate family member; and, is requesting a modification from Section 405.2A of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance, which requires access spacing of 300 feet for properties along a major collector. The justification for the requested modification as presented in the application states, "Topographic conditions create a steep slope where the existing driveway is proposed and would be difficult to navigate a vehicle up to the proposed house location". The applicant is requesting a reduction from 300 feet to 50 feet for access spacing . Discussion and comments: Mr. Fred Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, explained that by locating the driveway as proposed it would limit the disturbance to the environment and the 100 year floodplain located on the property. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. f Letitride LLC (SV-14-006) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request for Letitride LLC for property located at 10903 Big Pool Road (Tax Map 45, Grid 2, Parcel 14). The property is currently zoned EC - Environmental Conservation . There is an existing single-family residence located on the 4.67 acre parcel. The proposed use would be a one acre lot around the existing house (Lot 1 ), a proposed one acre building lot (Lot 2) and 2.63 acres of remaining lands. The lot is to be conveyed to an immediate family member. The applicant is requesting a modification from Section 405 .2.A of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance, which requires access spacing of 300 feet. The justification for the requested modification as presented in the application states, "In an attempt to utilize the land in the most efficient manner and not create an oversized lot, the average lot width is 150 feet, thus 300 feet from an existing access would be difficult to achieve . The furthest away from an existing access that this access can be and still develop the land in an efficient manner is 180 feet from the existing access on an adjacent lot. A hardship would be created in that all 3 siblings that own this property would not be able to each have their own individual lot." Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. 27 -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION Mr. Lung presented for review a preliminary consultation for the Mt. Aetna Technology Park which contains approximately 115 acres of property located north of the Meritus Medical Center, west of the Hagerstown Community College , and east of Eastern Boulevard. The property is currently zoned ORI - Office, Research & Industry and is owned by the Hagerstown Washington County Industrial Foundation (CHIEF). The concept plan includes several buildings of various sizes that would house offices and educational facilities. Discussions during the consultation were very broad and general in nature because this is a long-range plan that most likely will change depending on the bus inesses that locate here. Some areas of discussion during the consultation included the need for coordination between the County and the developer with regard to the road network that i~ proposed, the need for frontage roads for each pod of development to minimize the number of access poir'Tts onto the major roads, and development of the site that minimizes the disturbance to the natural contours and environmental features of the property. Mr. Lung noted that the ORI zoning designation is a new zone that contains specific design standards that will need Planning Commission approval. This site may eventually be annexed into the City of Hagerstown and should be designed to meet City standards as well as County standards. Discussion and comments: Mr. Wiley recommended that the development be pedestrian and bicycle friendly . Mr. Kline recommended that the developer make sure there is adequate capacity for utilities, especially electricity in case a substation is needed. Mr . Bowen recommended limited access onto major roadways. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recognize the preliminary project as an on-going project over the next several years. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS Rockland Estates Event Center (SP-14-017) Ms . Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Rockland Estates Event Center located along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike on 25 acres. The property is currently zoned A(R) -Agricultural Rural. The property owner is proposing to hold special events in two tents (2,400 square feet each). The proposed tent locations are temporary. There will be no events in the barn or house. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception to establish a wedding reception and events venue in February of 2014. The site is served by individual well and septic. Restroom facilities will be in a temporary restroom trailer approved by the Health Department. Hours of operation will be by appointment only from 10 a.m . to 10 p.m. daily. Parking spaces required is 48 spaces and a total of 50 parking spaces will be provided . Parking will be located in a grassy area in front of the house, which was also approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals with the condition that if the grass parking area deteriorates to the point of soil erosion, the owner shall pave the parking area or cease operations until the grass is restored (a note to this effect is on the site plan). Lighting will be building mounted on existing sheds and temporary pole lights will be used for the parking area. There will also be lights in the tents. Solid waste disposal will be via trash cans. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there is no disturbance over 20,000 square feet. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and comments: There was a brief discussion regarding the two options for the tent locations and future plans for the business . There was a brief discussion regarding the entrance and road improvements required by the State Highway Administration. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the narrow driveway and parking in the grass. , Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. Triumph Development (SP-14-005) Ms . Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Triumph Development located along the east side of Robinwood Drive . The property is currently zoned BL -Business Local. The developer is proposing to construct a bank and commercial retail sales building on 3.7 acres. The proposed bank will be 2,900 square feet and the two story retail building will be 36,000 square feet. There will be three access points for the site [one which will be a 40 foot shared access easement with the Elks Club]. In June 2011, an access modification was presented to the Planning Commission and approved , which reduced the access spacing from 500 feet to 300 feet. As a condition of this approval, a replat was required to remove the access restriction note and to eliminate the septic reserve area since public sewer is to be used. The currently proposed access points from Robinwood Drive do not coincide with the modification of 2011. The current proposal of a right-in and right-out access suits the revised site design and pushes the right-out access to the northeast corner of the property as far away from the intersection as possible. The access spacing and locations were revised and reviewed by the Washington County Public Works and Engineering Department. Based on the traffic study analysis, it was determined that the access points as shown were better for traffic flow on Robinwood Drive and for the site. The site will be served by public water and sewer. Hours of operation for the bank will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m . to noon on Saturday and the hours of operation for the commercial retail use will be 8:00 a.m . to 11 :00 p.m ., 7 days per week . There will be daily deliveries . Parking spaces required are 155 spaces and 158 spaces will be provided. There will be directional pavement markings to 28 aid traffic circulation on the site. There will be building mounted and pole mounted lighting. Solid waste removal will be a screened dumpster. Signs will be building and pole mounted. A pylon sign will be located near the entrance. A six foot vinyl fence will be constructed next to the retaining wall to screen the site from the single-family residences to the east. Landscaping will be located throughout the site and will include maples, dogwoods, shrubbery and ornamental grasses. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were met in 2007 when the site was originally submitted as a preliminary/final plat for Brian Kenworthy. All agency approvals have been received with the exception of Washington County Addressing and the City of Hagerstown Sewer Department. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley asked if the off-site (overflow) parking agreement with the Elks Club is still needed. Ms. Kelly stated that the developer will meet all parking requirements on site. Mr. Reiber asked if there would be enough parking avail~ble if a restaurant were to be part of the commercial use on the site. Mr. Zoretich of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that the uses would need to conform to the site design and parking requirements. He also noted that the recorded plat will show the shared access for the Elks Club and this site. Mr. Zoretich explained the reasons for the right-in/right-out access locations. Mr. Wiley expressed his concern with regard to the location of dumpsters in close proximity to the residences as well as lighting issues. Mr. Zoretich stated there is a buffer area between the dumpsters and the houses as well as a retaining wall. It was the consensus of the Commission members that the dumpster location should be moved. Mr. Bowen, as well as the other members of the Commission, expressed their concern with regard to the right-in access from Robinwood Drive so close to the intersection especially when a second access is proposed from the shared drive with the Elks Club. Mr. Zoretich stated this is an important element for the developer's business plan and has been reviewed and approved by the County's engineers. There was a brief discussion regarding screening along the vinyl fence. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to table the site plan until the July meeting, The site plan should be revised to show the new location of the dumpsters and additional screening along the back of vinyl fence. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. Discussion following the vote: The Planning Commission members requested that staff provide, either in writing or in person during the July meeting, the justification for the location of the right-in only access from Robinwood Drive. Truck Enterprises, Inc. (SP-14-009) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for Truck Enterprises, Inc. located along the west side of Volvo Way (Tax Map 24, Grid 16, Parcel 698) on 8.5 acres. The functional description of the site is for truck sales and service. The property is currently zoned HI -Highway Interchange. T.he site is served by public water and public sewer. Parking spaces required is 101 spaces and 195 spaces will be provided. There will be 40 to 50 employees, with a maximum of 32 employees per shift. A photometric plan was submitted and approved meeting all County standards. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved an application for three free-standing signs in 2012. One sign is 502 square feet and is 73 feet tall, one sign is 348 square feet and is 73 feet tall, and the last sign is 160 square feet and is 20 feet tall. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement was met by a payment-in-lieu of planting. Storm water management will be addressed via micro bio-retention areas and ponds. All agency approvals have been received with the exception of final comments from the Maryland State Highway Administration. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon final approval from the State Highway Administration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS ' City of Hagerstown -Sidewalks on Street Frontages of Commercial Properties Mr. Reiber noted that a letter was received from the City of Hagerstown Planning Commission with regard to sidewalks on street frontages of commercial properties. It is the City's understanding that the former Sharrett property on the Dual Highway is being redeveloped and the City is strongly urging the developer and the County to ensure that sidewalks are built along the road frontage. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the recent pedestrian fatalities along Dual Highway are not associated with the lack of sidewalks and that the memorandum was unnecessary. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that anything that can be done to ensure public safety should be done. Mr. Lung explained that the developer will need to have a traffic study prepared prior to redevelopment of this site. Before a traffic study is prepared, a scoping document is required from the County and the State. The County's traffic engineer, Merle Saville, asked City staff to review the scoping for this project and this is the reason for the City's memorandum. Farm Winery Concerns Mr. Reiber stated that a letter was received from a citizen (Ms. Nicki Woodhams) in Rohrersville regarding farm wineries. He met with staff today to discuss this issue and reported that Staff has met with the 29 complainant and has verified that all procedures have been followed in the approvals that were needed for the current development of the site. Mr. Reiber allowed Ms. Woodhams three minutes to voice her concerns. Ms . Woodhams stated that she has spoken during the public comment portion of the County Commissioner's meetings twice. She believes that the text amendment was adopted without any public input from citizens in Rohrersville. Mr. Wiley stated that the public hearing was advertised as required by law. Ms. Woodhams believes that the text amendment should be repealed and that farm wineries should not be allowed to sell wine, have conference centers, banquet facilities, wine tastings, wine festivals, or entertainment under the guise of an agricultural use. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley stated ft,~ he stands behind the Planning Commission's previous decisions regarding farm wineries as an agricultural business, which is a leading economic generator in the County. He expressed his opinion that farm wineries are no different than any other agricultural use, such as a tree farm, milk production, pumpkin patches, etc. He expressed his opinion that the complainant does not want this business in close proximity to her property and has nothing to do with the text amendment as written. Mr. Reiber noted that all properties throughout the County were considered when the changes were made to the text amendment. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that this facility (Big Cork Winery) is no different than the South Mountain Creamery, which had to expand its facilities and construct additional buildings in order to make the farm productive again. He believes that vineyards are a good way to protect agricultural lands. It was noted that if the developer intends to hold special events on this site, a special exception use would need to be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals through a public hearing process. Mr. Goodrich stated that staff discussed options with Ms. Woodhams with regard to filing complaints or submitting a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in order to correct what she believes is wrong with the Ordinance. Mr. Irwin noted that if Ms . Woodhams would submit a text amendment that would ultimately be approved, it would not affect Big Cork Winery or its operation. Organizational Charts Mr. Goodrich presented several organizational charts for the Commission members review and use. He briefly explained the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Zoning and the Department of Plan Review and Permitting and the responsibilities of each. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m . The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and so ordered by the Chairman. RespJ~ ~~--- Terry Reiber, Chairman , r 30 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, July 7, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen, David Kline, Dennis Reeder, Sam Ecker, and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Dep~tment of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung , Chief Planner; and Lisa Ketty, Senior Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . MINUTES Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2014 Planning Commission regular meeting as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Triumph Development (SP-14-005) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Triumph Development located along the east side of Robinwood Drive. The property is currently zoned BL -Business Local. The developer is proposing to construct a bank and commercial retail sales building on 3.7 acres. Ms. Kelly reminded the Commission members that this site plan was tabled during the June 2, 2014 meeting because the members requested additional information from the County's Engineering Department and changes to the location of the dumpster and additional screening for the residential properties to the rear of the site. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley asked if there was any discussion with the neighboring properties regarding maintenance of the landscaping . Mr. Doty of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated there were no concerns expressed. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the concerns and questions with regard to engineering ~tandards for the right-in only access close to a major intersection from a minor arterial road have not been addressed as discussed during the June 2nd meeting . He believes that this area will continue to grow and be developed and that traffic issues will become worse . Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the right-in access off of Robinwood Drive will become a problem in the future. Mr. Kline concurred with Mr. Bowen's comments. He also believes there should not be a second entrance off of Robinwood Drive. Mr. Reiber noted that the original site plan [several years ago] for this property showed a shared entrance with the Elks Club; and there were traffic concerns at that time. Mr. Doty stated that the concerns from the June meeting of the Planning Commission were discussed with several representatives of the Division of Engineering and Construction Management. He noted that several coordination meetings have been held with regard to the curb to make the entrance work. The site has been designed to County standards for the acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mr. Doty stated that Mr. Rob Slocum, Director of the Division of Engineering & 'construction, has been involved with the design of this site since last year. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the letter that was submitted for the Planning Commission did not address the concerns and questions discussed during the June meeting. Mr. James Fagenhart of Triumph Development, the developer, stated a pre-consultation meeting was held last August showing the right-in/right-out access on Robinwood Drive. County representatives, at that time, recommended that the right-in/right-out access be separated. He believes that the current right-in access location brings people onto the site in a natural location, minimizes confusion and enhances traffic flow. There is a median in the middle of the road so that traffic exiting the site cannot turn left across traffic. Mr. Fagenhart stated that the leasee, Patriot Federal Credit Union, would like to open by January of 2015; therefore, site work needs to begin immediately. He respectfully requested that the Commission not postpone a decision for another 30 days. Mr. Kline stated that he is opposed to each individual business having a right-in/right-out access on busy roadways. He cited the Dual Highway close to the intersection with Edgewood Drive as an example where too many businesses have individual entrances and there is confusion during periods of heavy traffic. Ms. Kelly stated that a variance was granted by the Planning Commission in 2011 for this site to have a right-in/right-out access. She noted that the present design is different from the proposed entrance in 2011 which was a combined entrance/exit. All those involved in designing the site believe that the separated right-in/right-out access is a better design . Mr. Kline stated that he was not a member of the Planning Commission in 2011; however, because the modification was granted to allow an entrance off of Robinwood Drive, he believes the Planning 31 Commission should stand by that decision. He also noted that he would have opposed the modification at that time, but he believes that the developer and engineers have acted in good faith by designing the site in accordance with the modification. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan without the right-in entrance until such a time that the issues have been addressed satisfactorily with an explanation from the Division of Engineering and Construction Management citing specific engineering standards justifying the right-in access off of Robinwood Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley. Discussion: Mr. Wiley recommended that a meeting with Mr. Slocum be held as soon as possible to resolve these issues and move the project forward. ·'-Vote: The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Rollin E. Byers (SV-14-007) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification from Section 405.11.B.1 (a) and (b) of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance, which states "for all lots created for immediate family members that do not have public road frontage, the private road or right-of-way must be maintained solely within the boundaries of the original parcel and the private road must serve an existing residence on the same property". The site is located along Signal Drive in Downsville and is currently zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The property owner would like to create a 1 acre lot around an existing structure that is proposed to be converted to a single-family home. The remaining lands would consist of an existing home and approximately 2.2 acres . This site is the original Lot 34 of Byers Meadows and was created in 2002 without public road frontage. At the time that Lot 34 was created, a 30 foot access easement was created over the existing macadam drive which is on the remaining lands for access to Signal Drive. The owner of the land that the existing macadam lane goes over is willing to grant a written right-of-way to travel across his property for ingress and egress. The applicant is performing estate planning and would like to separate the proposed lot from his existing home and surrounding 2.2 acres. The existing house and acreage will be given to one of his children while the proposed lot would be given to the other. Discussion and Comment: Mr. Reiber asked if the remaining lands on the original tract of land is restricted from be ing developed . Ms . Kelly stated there is specific criteria that must be met if the property is for an immediate family member. Mr. Reiber asked if the existing lane is a deeded right-of-way. Ms. Kelly showed members which lane is currently being used . Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated there is an existing right-of-way on the subdivision plat for Lot 34. He noted that the property owner of the lane agreed to the creation of a second lot off of the lane . Mr. Schreiber stated that the existing lane is a deeded right-of-way for the existing lot [prior to the proposed subdivision]. A copy of the agreement between the four property owners was provided in the agenda packets. Mr. Schreiber stated that the right-of-way would be used by an immediate family member who is willing to sign a 10-year agreement. Mr. Bowen expressed his concern with regard to the easement for access to Signal Drive because at some point in the future the property may not be owned by a family member and disputes between property owners can arise. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the modification request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley. Amendment to the Motion: Mr. Reiber asked that the moti~n include the requirement for a deeded right-of-way and the access to be recorded. Mr. Reeder amended the motion to include this requirement. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley. Mr. Bowen asked that the motion also require that the 10 year statement for an immediate family member be signed by the property owner. Mr. Reeder amended the motion to include this requirement. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley. Amended Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon the deeded right-of-way and access being recorded and the 10 year statement for an immediate family member being signed by the property owner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. SITE PLANS Faith Christian Fellowship (SP-13-041) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed expansion of Faith Christian Fellowship located along the north side of Lappans Road east of Williamsport. The property is currently zoned A(R) -Agricultural Rural. The applicant is proposing to construct an 11,000 square foot addition with a height of H3 feet to the existing church , which is currently 16,820 square feet in size and is situated on a 14.68 acre parcel. An additional access onto Lappans Road is also proposed . Parking spaces required is 54 spaces and 109 parking spaces currently exist with an additional 56 spaces proposed. Additional landscaped screening will be placed along the western property line , which borders existing residential lots. The lot is served by individual well and septic. The number of employees is five with the hours of operation being 8 :00 a.m . to 5:00 p.m . Monday through Friday and Sunday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 32 • p.m. Lighting will be building and pole mounted. Signage is existing; no new signs are proposed. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $1,633.50 . All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved . ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker. So ordered. ~ UPCOMING MEETINGS ...... 1. Monday, August 4, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting , Washington county Administration Building , 100 West Washington Street, Room 255 , Hagerstown, Maryland TerrfRe iber, c.;na,rma n , 34 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday, September 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, David Kline, Dennis Reeder, Sam Ecker, and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry lrwin;'-Oeputy Director; and Washington County Division of Engineering & Construction Management -Robert Director. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. RZ-14-005-Jason Adkins -Staff Presentation REZONING PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Lindley presented a map amendment request for Jason Adkins, Adkins Automotive, located at 9920 Crystal Falls Drive, Hagerstown. The property is approximately 2 acres in size and is currently zoned RV -Rural Village. The applicant is requesting a zoning designation of RB-N -Rural Business New. Properties surrounding the subject site are currently zoned Rural Village and Environmental Conservation as well as one property zoned RB-E (Rural Business Existing), which is located approximately 1/3 mile from the subject site. There is currently an automotive business operating on the site. The site is served by public water provided by Washington County and an on-site septic system. The proposed use (an automotive repair facility) does not foresee an increase in septic usage . Emergency fire services are provided by the Mt. Aetna Fire company and emergency medical services are provided by the Smithsburg EMS. Schools serving this area are Greenbrier Elementary, Boonsboro Middle and Boonsboro High schools. The proposed commercial use will have no impact on the schools. Crystal Falls Drive is a county road with a road designation of "local street", which is meant to provide intra-community access for individual properties. The change or mistake rule for rezoning will not apply to this property because the RB-N zoning district is a floating zone. Storm water management was addressed when the garage was constructed on the site in 2012 . The required side yard setback, which is 100 feet from residentially zoned parcels, cannot be achieved because the parcel is only 131 feet wide at the front narrowing to 80 feet in the rear. Variances for the setbacks will be required from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Variances would also be required for parking and parking access aisles. Staff recommends that a buffer between the proposed parking area and the neighboring residential property should be required to mitigate negative effects of the reduced setback during the site plan process. -Applicant's Presentation Mr. Travis Poole of Poole & Kane, 29 West Franklin Street, Hagerstown, representing the applicant Mr. Jason Adkins, presented the following information. Mr. Poole explained that the garage was originally built for personal use, the site plan was previously approved, and the use is already in operation. As a condition of continued use, Mr. Adkins was requested to file thf application for a map amendment. Mr. Poole explained that a row of Leyland Cypress has been planted along the proposed parking area next to the existing residential property as a buffer. He noted that this neighboring property owner has no objection to this request. There is a vacant lot located on the north side of the subject site and this property owner has voiced no opposition to the request. Mr. Poole stated that the applicant is aware of the required variances that will be needed if the property is rezoned and the proposed use can continue. He reported that 170 customers have been served and 411 work orders have been completed to date this year . Mr. Poole believes that people living in a rural village needed services and this would be an important service to the community. He noted that Mr. Adkins also performs small engine repair work. Comments and Discussion: Mr. Kline noted that he travels through this area several times during the year and the business cannot be seen, except for the sign, from the road. He supports the applicant's request and the proposed use for the property. -Public Comment James Stewart, Jr., 21733 Mt. Aetna Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740 -Mr. Stewart stated that he and his family own several properties along Crystal Falls Drive which are located at 9932, 9938, 9942, 9950 and 9819 Crystal Falls Drive. He stated there are 9 signs and/or flags for the business between Mt. Aetna Road and Crystal Falls Drive and several signs on the garage itself, one being a fluorescent sign that can be seen from neighboring properties when the leaves are not on the trees. Mr. Stewart stated that he visited the property this afternoon and counted 12 vehicles parked on the property. He expressed his concern with regard to tractor trailer and delivery trucks on the road and the value of his family's properties. 35 James Stewart, Ill, 9814 Crystal Falls Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740 -Mr. Stewart expressed his concern for his property value and all of the signs located along the road . He also expressed concern with regard to noise issues. Pauline Johnson, 9907 Crystal Falls Drive, Hagerstown , MD 21740 -Ms. Johnson noted that less than ~ mile from the subject site are two schools that children walk to daily. She expressed her opinion that the road is not conducive to tractor trailers and large trucks due to children walking along this road , cyclists , hikers and wildlife . Ms. Johnson also stated that there is noise from the garage late into the evening hours . Delia Wright, 21911 White Oak Road, Hagerstown , MD 21740 -Ms. Wright noted there is a designated biking and hiking trail in this area and she expressed concern with regard to the increased traffic in the area including delivery trucks, tractor trailers and tow trucks . She noted there are biking events and marathons that are held on this road . -Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Poole stated that deliveries are made via a pick-up truck from Auto Zone . There are no tractor trailers making deliveries to the property; however, there may, on occasion, be a box truck delivery. Some of the vehicles that were seen earlier in the day by Mr. Stewart are Mr . Adkins ' personal vehicles. Mr. Poole stated that Mr. Adkins is permitted to have a garage and repair his own personal vehicles on his property and the proposed use is different only by the volume of vehicles to be serviced. He noted that Mr . Adkins does not have contracts with any towing companies; however, there are occasionally broken down vehicles that are delivered to the property by tow trucks . Mr. Adkins does not perform any type of collision repair on the property. Mr . Poole stated that signage would be addressed during the site plan review stage, but there are currently no fluorescent or neon signs on the property. Mr. Reiber stated that written comments were received prior to the public meeting from Amy Paradise at 12823 White Oak Road, Hagerstown, which will be submitted as part of the official record. Mr. Reiber asked if this rezoning would be considered "spot" zoning. Mr . Lindley stated it would not be spot zoning because the RB-N designation is a floating zone. RZ-14-003 Text Amendment Mr. Goodrich presented a text amendment to Section 21.3(c) of Article 21 -Airport District and Section 22.93 (a) 4, 5 and 6 and (b) 4, 5 and 6 of Article 22, Division IX (Animal Husbandry Facilities). The purpose of the text amendment is to correct typographical errors made in the zoning text between the time the affected sections of the Zoning Ordinance were adopted by the County Commissioners and the time those amendments were published in the Zoning Ordinance. The correction in Section 21.3(c) is to change the incorrect letter "P" (AP/P) in the title of the Airport Overlay District to the correct letter "O " (AP/0). Mr. Good r ich explained that substantial amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance were adopted in April 2012 as part of the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in Sections 22.93 (a) and (b) were erroneously switched, making section (a) more restrictive than section (b). The purpose of the amendment is to return the paragraphs to the intended location in the text. The Chairman closed the rezoning public meeting at 7:48 p.m. REGULAR MEETING , The Chairman announced that the Emerald Pointe PUD Development Plan was withdrawn at the request of the developer's attorney from this evening's agenda . Mr. Goodrich noted that a request to extend the 60 day deadline for the Planning Commission to act on the Preliminary Development Plan as well as the 30 day deadline to act on the Final Development Plan for the Emerald Pointe PUD will be presented. He also asked for an addition to the agenda to discuss the Transportation Project Summary as requested during the July meeting. NEW BUSINESS Emerald Pointe PUD (DP-14-001) Mr. Goodrich presented a request to extend the 60 day deadline for the Planning Commission to act on the Preliminary Development Plan as well as the 30 day deadline to act on the Final Development Plan for the Emerald Pointe PUD. Discussion and Comment: Mr. Reiber suggested that a 90 day extension be given in order to allow the developer to add ress all outstanding issues . Mr. Jason Divelbi.ss , the developer's attorney, stated that all agency approvals have been received with the exception of the three agencies reviewing the traffic study. He believes that the outstanding issues can be resolved within the 90 day time frame; however, the State Highway Administration may not give their approval by then and the developer would ask for a conditional approval. 36 Mr. Reiber asked if the developer is aware of the Planning Commission's past concerns with regard to traffic and road issues associated with this development. Mr. Divelbiss stated that they are aware of these concerns. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve a 90 day extens ion for the Emerald Pointe PUD . The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. MINUTES Mr . Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . ~ Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes ol' the July 10, 2014 special Planning Commission meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Transportation Project Summary Mr. Robert Slocum, Director of the Division of Engineering and Construction Management, gave a presentation regarding roads and bridges included in the FY 2015 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). There are approximately 42 bridge and 26 road projects currently in the CIP which does not include projects that are already fully funded or currently under construction. Mr. Slocum distributed a map showing 33 projects that have been fully funded or funded to the extent that work can begin on these projects in FY 2015. He discussed the Yale Drive project, which would connect the 90 degree bend in Yale Drive at Medical Campus Drive to the rear of the Hagerstown Community College. This project has gone to bid and will go before the County Commissioners tomorrow for "award of bid ". It is anticipated that this project will take approximately 600 days and should be completed in 2016 . Mr. Slocum stated that last year the Secretary of Transportation awarded the County $1 .12 million of funding for a new bridge over the Antietam Creek from Professional Court to Yale Drive . This funding moved the project forward in the CIP; however, the Eastern Boulevard Extended and Long Meadow projects were moved back in the CIP because funding was not available for all of these projects . The following major projects that are funded include: Robinwood Drive, Southern Boulevard, Eastern Boulevard (4 phases), Yale Drive, and Professional Boulevard. Mr. Slocum explained that the Emerald Pointe development cannot rely on the capital improvements for roads in the area to be in place by the time the development goes in because those road projects have been moved backed in the CIP. Therefore, road improvements will be incumbent upon the developer to provide if the development brings more traffic to the area . Mr . Slocum noted that the developer and staff are keenly aware of the concerns of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. They are working together to address these issues and develop a plan that will best serve the interests of the community, the developer and the County. Mr. Slocum reminded Commission members that the original development plan showed an access point on Marsh Pike. Staff is working with the State Highway Administration to keep traffic to a minimum and maintain the integrity of the residential neighborhood along this road . Commissioner McKinley left the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if the Yale Drive project would help alleviate some of the traffic issues associated with the Hagerstown Community College. Mr. Slocum stated that the Yale Drive project will help with traffic going in and out of the College . Mr . Reiber made an inquiry regarding accessibility in and out of the area around the Hagerstown Regional Airport. Mr. Slocum noted that an application is being prepared for a grant to extended Crayton Boulevard from Maugans Avenue to Showalter Road, which would be a significant improvement to t~e road network in this area. There was a brief discussion regarding public transit services in the County , the State of Maryland Department of Transportation 's pre-tour meeting in October, and the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mr. Wiley left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Annual Report Mr . Goodrich stated that the County is required by Maryland law to submit an annual report every year. He presented a brief summary of the report that summarizes development activities and their relationship to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Maryland's Priority Funding Areas (PFAs). The annual Report is divided into sections as follows : • Section 1 deals with growth related changes in development patterns • Section 2 is a map showing the changes • Section 3 deals with the consistency of development activity with the Comprehensive Plan and PFAs • Section 4 shows the progress on the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan (rural area rezoning, the Urban Growth Area rezoning, and the Town Growth Area rezoning) • Tables showing approved subdivisions, approved building permits (inside and outside of the PFAs) Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the Annual Report as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. 37 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and so ordered by the Chairman . UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, October 6, 2014, 7:00 p.m., regular Planning Commission meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 W. Washington Street, Hagerstown ~ ' , 38 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 6, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 6, 2014 at 7 :00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Vice-Chairman Clint Wiley, David Kline, Dennis Reeder, and Drew Bowen. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Jill Baker, Chief Planner and Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director and., Tim Lung, Chief Planner . ..... CALL TO ORDER The Vice-Chairman (in the absence of the chairman) called the meeting to order at 7 :05 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2014 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Jason Adkins (RZ-14-005) Mr. Wiley reminded Commission members that a public rezoning meeting was held on September 8 , 2014 for a proposed map amendment for property located at 9920 Crystal Falls Drive. The applicant is proposing a change in zoning from the current RV (Rural Village) to RB-N (Rural Business New) district. Ms. Baker noted that follow-up information incorrectly stated that all uses for the RB-N district would be allowed if the property were to be rezoned. However, if the rezoning is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, it would be contingent on the use which is currently proposed on the property (an automotive repair business). In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, if the business wants to expand or change its use, a site plan would be required. Mr. Lindley noted that additional comments have been received since the public rezoning meeting , all of which were provided to Commission members . Vote: The Vice Chairman called for a vote to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners . By unanimous vote of all members present, the Planning Commission recommended approval. RZ-14-003 Text Amendment Ms . Baker presented for recommendation the proposed text amendment to correct clerical errors in Article 21, Section 21.3(d) and Article 22, Sections 22.93 (a) and (b) of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed text amendments were heard during the Planning Commission's public rezoning meeting held on September 8, 2014 . No public comments were received during or after the public meeting . Vote: The Vice Chairman called for a vote to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners . By unanimous vote of all members present, the Planning Commission recommended approval. OTHER BUSINESS ' Ronald Leggett (5-08-020) Mr. Lung presented an extension request for the preliminary/final subdivision plat for Lots 4 and 5 of the Leggett subdivision located on the north side of Monroe Road. He noted that Section 310 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires a two year time frame for the review and approval of preliminary subdivision plats. If a plat is not approved within two years, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time. Mr. Lung briefly explained the circumstances leading up to the applicant's request for this extension. He noted that the plat has expired; however, the Planning Commission may re-activate the plat in order for the approval process to continue. Mr. Lung stated that since the expiration of the plat, new Forest Conservation Ordinance regulations went into effect which significantly increased the payment-in-lieu fee . The plat previously met all express procedure requirements in order to allow the payment-in-lieu option. If the plat is re-activated, the previously approved payment-in-lieu fee would be grandfathered in. Mr. Lung noted that a Forest Stand Delineation, which is in effect for a period of 5 years, was approved in March 2008. If the Planning Commission decides to re-activate the plat , he recommends that it be contingent upon the consultant providing a letter indicating that nothing has changed with regard to the Forest Stand Delineation . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, provided a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the expiration of the plat. l 39 • Mr. Bowen asked if the owner is prepared to move forward with the project at this time . Mr. Schreiber stated that the owner is ready to move forward. Mr. Bowen stated that if the owner does not move forward and the plat expires again, he would not be in favor of granting another extension request. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to grant a one year extension contingent upon an update of the Forest Stand Delineation in accordance with the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr . Reeder and unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETING 1. November 3, 2014, 7:00 p.m., regular Planning Commission meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland ..... ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m . The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline . So ordered by the acting Chairman . Respectfully submitted, ' 40 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION November 3, 2014 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, Drew Bowen and Ex-officio William McKinley. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning - Steve Goodrich, Director and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; and Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry lf14fin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner; Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw, Senior Planners. ' , CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m . MINUTES Mr. Goodrich explained that minutes for the October 6, 2014 must be re-affirmed because, while there were unanimous decisions for approval, there were no formal motions made for the two rezoning cases [RZ-14-005 and RZ-14-003] on last month's agenda. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to re-affirm the Planning Commission's recommended approval for RZ-14-005 (Jason Adkins). The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved by members present. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to re-affirm the Planning Commission's recommended approval for RZ-14-003 (Text Amendment). The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved by members present. NEW BUSINESS Trovinger Mill Cell Tower (SP-14-046) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed wireless cell tower and facility to be located at 20307 Trovinger Mill Road. The property is currently zoned A(R) -Agricultural Rural. The leased area will be approximately 4.6 acres. On May 28, 2014, the Board of Zoning Appeals wanted a request for a special exception to permit the construction of a wireless cellular communication facility. The maximum height of the tower will be 195 feet and it will be made of galvanized steel. The site will require no employees; therefore, the site does not have potable water or sanitary services. A 7 foot high chain link fence will surround the 70 x 80 foot,compound. Existing trees will provide screening and landscaping. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there is less than 20,000 square feet of disturbance. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if there is any environmental friendly appearance or camoflauge proposed for the tower. The consultant stated there would be no changes to the appearance of the tower. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved. ' Creek Solar (SP-14-046) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for Creek Solar located along the north side of Earth Care Road at the County Landfill. The site is approximately 11.5 acres in size and will be used for solar powered generation. The property is currently zoned EC -Environmental Conservation. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were previously addressed [SP-99-043]. Approvals are pending from the Department of Plan Review and Permitting, Washington County Soil Conservation District, and Washington County Engineering Department. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Fred Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, noted that this project will be constructed on property owned by Washington County at the current landfill location. He stated that all approvals should be received by the end of the week. Mr. Rob Babcock of EPG Solar stated that the project is designed to serve the County and will allow all energy credits to go back to the County. He briefly explained how the system will work and how the credits will be given to the County. Mr. Babcock stated that the County is making no investment in this project. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approvals from all outstanding agen.cies. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Seneca Ridge (SP-14-042) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification for parking requirements from Section 22.2.f.8v of the Zoning Ordinance. A site plan was previously approved in 2003 for five 24 unit apartment 41 buildings (120 units total). In 2007, the term 'apartment' was changed to 'condominium' and the change was approved via a letter from the Department of Planning and Community Development Director Michael Thompson on behalf of the Planning Commission . The project has been idle until recently and the developer has now requested a change from condominiums to apartments. The Department of Plan Review and Permitting informed the developer that a new site plan would be required, which was submitted in September. New landscaping requirements require landscaping islands every 15 [parking] spaces. Under the new regulations, the Planning Commission may modify these requirements if there are conflicts with storm water management needs on the site or if long linear strips of landscaped area are provided instead of small islands. A total of 282 parking spaces are required including six recreational vehicle spaces. To meet current parking and landscaping requirements, a total of 16 parking spaces would be lost if the islands are installed. The property is currently zoned RM (Residential Multi- family) and is approximately 12 acres. Dumpsters wlll b.e used for solid waste disposal. Public water and sewer will serve the site. A tot lot, pre-teen lot, and two adult recreation areas are proposed. Lighting will be pole mounted; no business signs are proposed. Ms. Kelly requested that the Planning Commission grant staff the authority to approve the site plan after all agency approvals have been received. Approvals are pending from the City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Departments and the Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Steve Cvijanovich of Renn Engineering, the consultant, stated that the parking area has been re-configured and designed with long , 20 foot wide landscape areas that will also be used as a water quality device to treat water quality prior to quantitative control within the storm water management area. He noted that the Soil Conservation District and Land Use Engineering had no objection to this proposal. Mr. Cvijanovich noted that the proposed linear strips more than double the landscape area required by the Zoning Ordinance. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the parking modification as requested and to grant staff the authority to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals. The motion was seconded by Mr . Reeder and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Liberty at Hunter's Green II (SP-14-037) Mr. Irwin presented a project on the Liberty at Hunter's Green site located along the east side of Newgate Boulevard and north of Halfway Boulevard. The site is currently zoned IG (Industrial General). In 2007, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for development of this entire site as a warehousing facility. Only a portion of the site was developed with a building. Earlier this year, Liberty Property Trust , who owns the property, approached the County with a plan to construct a manufacturing facili{y on the remaining portion of the site. The tenant that will occupy the proposed building wishes to remain anonymous at this time. The proposed building would be smaller than originally approved, but more parking would be required because the use is changing from warehousing to manufacturing. On June 191h, Liberty Property Trust requested a concurrent review of the revised site plan and the building permit application, which was granted. Both the site plan and the building permit were approved on August 6, 2014. It is anticipated that the building will be occupied and operational by March of 2015. Mr . Irwin stated that the proposed manufacturing use is a permitted use in the Industrial General zone. The previously approved storm water management ponds, which were built at the time the first building was constructed on the site, will be more than adequate to serve the proposed manufacturing use. According to a letter from Liberty Property Trust dated July 2nd , the facility will employ approximately 230 employees; 170 employees on the day shift and 60 employees on the 2nd shift. Discussion and comments: Mr. Fred Frederick of Frederick., Seibert & Associates, the consultant , stated that the Washington County Department of Business Development has been working with Liberty Property Trust and its tenant. He noted that the building that was approved in 2007 was much larger than needed for the currently proposed use. However, because this is a manufacturing use instead of a warehousing use, more parking was needed that can now be accommodated with the decrease in the size of the building. He also noted there would be less tractor trailer traffic associated with the proposed use. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the change in use from warehousing to manufacturing is a major change that could have a significant impact on the site. He also believes that the Commission was not given adequate information prior to this evening's meeting in order to review County policies and regulations that could pertain to this site and the proposed use. Mr. Bowen concurred with Mr. Reiber's comments and expressed concern that what was approved in 2007 may not meet the needs of what is currently being proposed. INITIAL ADVICE Emerald Pointe PUD Mr. Jason Divelbiss, attorney representing Emerald Pointe PUD, stated that a traffic impact study was submitted in July, revised in September and October, and is waiting for a final determination from the State Highway Administration and the Washington County Division of Engineering and Construction Management. Mr. Divelbiss distributed copies of design plans showing the location and configuration of a full movement access from the commercial section of the PUD onto Marsh Pike, the location and configuration of a full movement access onto Maryland Route 60, and a concept showing how the two 42 general access points fit into the overall design of the project. He noted that the full movement access onto Maryland Route 60 would most likely change based upon re-alignment of traffic associated with the Eastern Boulevard extension project. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber noted that concerns were previously expressed regarding traffic connectivity from the commercial portion to the residential portion of the development. He asked if any of those issues have been addressed. Mr. Divelbiss showed members on the overall design plan that a golf cart/pedestrian path is proposed that would connect these two areas. He stated that discussions were held with regard to connecting the residential and commercial areas; however, there is a floodplain and a Forest Conservation area that make it logistically difficult to achieve. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the connectivity issue still needs to be considered. -~ . Mr. Bowen expressed his concern that a signal is not prbposed at the intersection of Marsh Pike, Foxleigh Meadows entrance and the Emerald Pointe commercial entrance. Mr. Divelbiss stated that a signal is not currently warranted at this location. However, when it is warranted, which will be closer to full build out of the commercial area, a signal will be installed at the expense of the developer. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the County taxpayers should not be responsible for the cost of a signal at this location. He also believes that a signal should be installed now. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the developer agrees that a signal should be installed; however, at this time the criteria that warrants a signal has not been met. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, December 1, 2014, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland Res pe ctfully submitted, .,,-97 .,.. ----i ., / ~/ r ·"' ,' .. -P ""~--~-· -~ ..... . . . ~ --... __ _ Terry Rei ber, C hair man .. ' WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 1, 2014 43 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, December 1, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Drew Bowen and David Kline. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning - Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; and Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting - Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner; and Cody Shaw, Senior Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ex-Officio William McKinley was not present at the meeting; however the Chairman expressed the Commission's appreciation for Commissioner McKinley's dedication and service for the past 4 years. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2014 meeting minutes as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved . Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2014 meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS Rubble Site 1 (SP-14-047) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for Rubble Site 1 located along the west side of Kemps Mill Road. The leased area of the site is approximately 11 acres in size and the property is currently zoned EC -Environmental Conservation . Solar panels will be placed on the former rubble landfill site to be used for solar generation for the County. There will be no employees on-site; tt)erefore, no water or sewer services will be provided and there will be no parking requirements for the site. Storm water management will be addressed via an existing storm water management pond. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be addressed via an easement being placed on a 1.65 acre tract of forest that currently exists on the site. Discussion and Comments: Mr . Reiber asked if the proposed site is located near any recreational or park service areas or environmental areas that would be affected . Mr. Rob Babcock stated that the site will not be visible from the existing ball fields on Kemps Mill Road . He also stated there will be no change to surface water flow due to the installation of the solar panels. There will be no hazardous materials being introduced into the environment. Mr. Bowen asked how much power would be generated from this site . Mr. Babcock stated that approximately 3 million kilowatt hours will be produced in the first year of operation. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . OTHER BUSINESS Rural Business Rezoning (RZ-14-002) Ms. Baker reported that the Board of County Commissioners remanded this text amendment back to the Planning Commission following its public hearing based on testimony received . Specifically, comments were received during that hearing from Mr. Jason Divelbiss which challenged specific portions of the proposed text amendment. She summarized Mr. Divelbiss's comments and discussed the three primary issues he addressed. • Contention: Zoning is a legislative process and should not focus on the contemplated use of the property. Therefore, a site plan should not be required as part of the rezoning process because a site plan is an administrative process. o Response: It is staff's opinion that Mr. Divelbiss's comment is erroneous and moot. Staff believes that the proposed process for Rural Business rezoning requests would comply with Maryland state law requirements . Ms. Baker explained that Euclidean zoning is a legislative process whereby the elected officials determine and assign zoning. It is the responsibility of the County Commissioners to set regulatory measures for zoning districts . However, the proposed Rural Business zone would be a floating zone, not a Euclidean zone. Euclidean zones are rigid and static, have a defined purpose, and have set land uses available to 44 properties . Floating zones do not have a pre-defined boundary and they are legislatively established by the County Commissioners when they approve the overall Zoning Ordinance . By approving the floating zone district in the Ordinance, the County Commissioners have pre-determined that the uses that are allowed within the floating zone are deemed compatible within the areas where they may be applied, provided they can meet the specified criteria through a preliminary site plan . Floating zones are viewed comparatively to the special exception process. When the floating zone is applied, it is applied administratively. While not part of Mr. Divelbiss's comments, Ms. Baker stated that his contention of the type of action being taken sparked another idea that might be beneficial to the case. Because the application of a floating zone is an administrative process, it is possible that the Board of County Commissioners could delegate that authority to the Planning Commission. Ms. Baker outlined some potential benefits and consequences of such a delegation of authority . Discussion: There was a brief discussion among members regarding the administrative process, which could shorten the length of time for approval of the rezoning. Some concerns were expressed with regard to eliminating a portion of the public participation process. Ms. Baker stated that the process would be similar to the Board of Appeals process for a special exception. There would still be advertising and a public meeting at which time the public could make comment. Ms . Baker asked that members give consideration to the administrative process as something they want to be responsible for and if they do want this responsibility, would they be willing to request this authority from the County Commissioners. This will be discussed further at the January meeting . Mr. Reiber asked that staff include, in the next agenda packet, a copy of the current text of the Rural Business zoning district as well as prepare a draft of the proposed text giving the Planning Commission administrative authority to approve the rezoning requests for Rural Business . • Contention: The requirement for a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as part of the criteria to be evaluated during the rezoning process is a speculative risk that many property owners are not willing to undertake. o Response: While developing the Rural Business district, staff determined what type of information would be appropriate to have to make an informed decision. Ms. Baker stated that a TIS is not required for every application. The Zoning Ordinance states, 'The Planning Commission, as part of their evaluation process, shall review the application for safe, usable road access. As part of that evaluation, the Planning Commission may require a Traffic Impact Study to be completed when the proposed business, activity or facility generates 25 or more peak hour trips or where 40 percent of the estimated vehicle trips are anticipated to be commercial truck traffic." Mr. Goodrich noted that the Commission could also request only specific pieces of information instead of a full Traffic Impact Study . Ms . Baker noted that she will send the members the current criteria and asked them to review it prior to the January meeting . • Contention: The Rural Business floating zone should be applied to entire parcels of land and not just a portion of them because a survey would be required in order to depict exactly where the zoning boundary lies . o Response: Ms. Baker noted that in the case of the Rural Business floating zone, it is not always appropriate for the entire parcel to be rezoned. Members expressed their opinions that it may not be appropriate to rezone a large parcel of land if only a small portion will be used for the business . Members believe that there could be unintended consequences by doing so . Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker reported that Staff has begun working on the Comprehensive Plan Update, which is one of the primary responsibilities of the Planning Commission. The Plan develops strategies for dealing with long- term growth in the County over the next 20 years by evaluating factors that have an impact on land use, such as housing, transportation, education, etc. Maryland law requires the Comp Plan to be updated every 1 O years; the current Plan was adopted in 2002. Staff has been working on background information of the Plan for several months which are vital to the overall concept of the Plan including Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), land use land cover, and population projections . Mr. Goodrich noted that until recently, the County's Priority Funding Areas were challenged by the State of Maryland; however, the State has finally accepted the County's PFAs . There was a brief discussion regarding the importance of the Plan, how to get the public involved, and how to make individuals realize that the Plan cannot focus on the specific needs of one person but must focus on the needs of the community as a whole. Mr. Lindley gave a brief presentation on new ideas to engage public participation. He discussed plans to meet with stakeholders to gather information and data, do research, and to assist with public engagement. Mr. Lindley discussed kick-off meetings, activities that could be used to gather information and feedback, task force groups, open houses, on-going public involvement, and on-line surveys. There 45 was a brief discussion regarding the use of social media services such as Mind Mixer, Metro Quest, Facebook, and Twitter. Members and staff also discussed the involvement of the Towns during this process and an approximate time line for completion . OTHER BUSINESS Forest Banking Update (FC0-14-001) Mr. Goodrich reported that on November 18th the County Commissioners adopted the proposed amendments for forest banking . He distributed copies of the Forest Conservation Ordinance which includes the amendments and briefly reviewed the changes made by the County Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m . The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, January 5, 2015 , 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland Terry Reiber, Chairman