Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Minutes123 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 9,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 9,2012 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,Sassan Shaool and Ex- Officio Wiliiam McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,Senior Planner Jill Baker and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 5,2011 regular meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Kim Kirkland (SV-11-011) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.2.A which requires that all approved lots must meet the standards of the County's Highway Plan.The Plan requires a minimum of 300-feet between access points.The property is located along the northeast side of Clear Spring Road (MD Route 68)and is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.The proposed panhandle lot would be approximately 1.1 acres in size with the remaining lands of John and Rhonda Priest,which includes an existing house being 1.65-acres In size.Clear Spring Road is classified in the County's Highway Plan as a Major Collector road with a minimum spacing requirement of 300-feet between existing and proposed access points.The proposed access from the first neighboring property is 95-feet and from the next neighboring property is 180-feet.Ms.Kelly stated that the plan has been reviewed by both the State Highway Administration and the County Engineering Review section.No objections were cited by either agency. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS Fountain Head One (SP-11-022) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Fountain Head One located along the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue.The developer is proposing a 55,200-square foot,three-story office bUilding at the site of the former Martin's supermarket [currently being demoiished]in the Fountain Head Plaza Shopping Center.The total parcel area is approximately 10 acres in size and is currently zoned BG -Business General.The proposed building will be on a smaller footprint than the original building and is being designed for LEED certification.Storm water management requirements will be met by an upgrade of the existing storm water management pond to handle water quantity and water quality will be addressed by using micro bio-retention practices.Extensive landscaping will be provided in the parking areas and around the sides and front of the building.A traffic evaluation has indicated that the proposed use will generate less traffic volume than the previous use;therefore,no traffic study or off-site improvements will be required by the State Highway Administration.A total of 505 parking spaces will be required for the entire Plaza site.There are 429 existing parking spaces including handicapped spaces. An additional 81 parking spaces will be provided for a total of 510 spaces.The new parking lot is being designed in accordance with the new parking standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance,which requires a higher level of landscaping and bicycle storage.In Zoning Ordinance Section 22.1285,it is required that after 15 parking spaces in a row a landscaping break must be provided.However,the Planning Commission may modify this requirement if a better parking lot design is provided.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant is requesting a modification from this parking design standard and gave a brief description of the parking design submitted by the applicant.Proposed iighting will be fully shielded.A photometric plan has been submitted and indicates zero light trespass on adjoining properties.No additional water or sewer allocation will be required.Because this is being considered as a redevelopment of the site,the site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Approvals from the State Highway Administration (SHA)and Soil Conservation District (SCD)are pending.All other agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung explained the revisions and information requested by SHA and SCD prior to their approvals and stated that the consultant has provided all requested documentation to these agencies. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan including the appiicant's request to modify the parking space/landscaping design as presented,contingent upon approval by the State Highway Administration and the Soil Conservation District.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. 124 OTHER BUSINESS Genesis Fellowship Church (shared parking facilities) Mr.Lung explained that new parking standards were adopted by the County approximately 2 years ago, which allows for the use of shared parking facilities.The Genesis Fellowship Church is proposing to locate its church at 13617B Pennsylvania Avenue in an existing bUilding currently being used for the 151 Inner City Flea Market.The church is proposing 166 seats.The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space per 5 seats,which means a total of 34 parking spaces is required.The existing parcel has 18 parking spaces dedicated to the Flea Market and 4 spaces dedicated to an office for Quality Homes, which Is located in the rear of the building for a total of 22 existing parking spaces.The Church is proposing to share parking with the existing Martin's Farm Market,which currently has 13 parking spaces and Act II,which currently has 54 parking spaces.Currently,a detailed accessibility analysis has not been performed.Mr.Lung noted that the Act II parking facility is not directly accessible from the church and peopie attending the church wouid need to walk for a short distance along the shoulder of Pennsylvania Avenue,which raises safety concerns.It was noted that there Is an existing gravel drive that goes behind the Quality Homes offices and would connect to the access road between Quality Homes and the Act II parking lot.Mr.Lung stated that additional research is needed to see who owns the gravel drive,which may be a viable option to keep people from walking along Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr.Lung explained that currently the property is zoned EiG -Business General,which does not permit churches.However,proposed changes to the text of the BG zoning district,which are currently under consideration by the County Commissioners as part of the Urban Growth Area Comprehensive rezoning, would allow churches as a special exception use in the BG district.When the proposed changes are adopted,the Church would be required to file a special appeal application with the Board of Zoning Appeals.If that request is approved,a change of use site plan would be reqUired.As part of the review of the site plan,the parking spaces and handicapped spaces would be required to meet all applicable regulations.A formal agreement between the Church and the other property owners sharing parking .spaces would also be required.Mrs.Smith stated that a recorded perpetual easement for shared parking must be recorded as a replat prior to site plan approval. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Wiley expressed his concern with regard to the other businesses changing ownership or uses and would no longer want to share parking facilities and questioned if a contingency plan has been considered. Commissioner McKinley asked if parking requirements could be met using only the existing parking at Martin's Farm Market and at the property in question.Mr.Lung stated there wouid be one additional space available using only these two existing properties'parking spaces.Ms.Smith stated it would meet the requirements assuming all existing spaces meet the parking standards.Commissioner McKinley asked if the Church has considered sharing parking with the sporting goods store located next to Martin's Farm Market.Mr.Wayne Lehman,the church representative and owner of the property at 13617B Pennsylvania Avenue,stated he has not approached the owners of the sporting goods store about sharing parking spaces. Mr.Shaool expressed his concern for safety with parking at the Act II lot and people walking along Pennsylvania Avenue as well as the gravel lane to the rear of the building.He noted that the cost of a sidewalk,if required by the State Highway Administration,from the Act II parking iot to the Church may not be economically viable.Mr.Lehman pointed out that there would be additional parking space available behind the Quality Homes office that is currently paved,but is not marked for parking. Mr.Reeder questioned what the procedure would be if the church would decide to open a daycare in the future at this location and would operate during the same hours as the businesses that they are sharing parking with.Mr.Lung explained that the hours of operation for the church must be listed specifically on the site plan.If the church would decide to open a daycare in the future,an updated site plan would be required and the parking issue would be reviewed again at that time. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the shared parking concept contingent upon the recordation of a perpetual easement for parking between all property owners involved.Second by Commissioner McKinley.Unanimously approved. Land Preservation,Parks and Recreation Plan Ms.Baker presented for review a draft of the Land Preservation,Parks and Recreation Plan update, which is required by the State of Maryland every 6 years.The Plan consists of both State and County goals,definitions of parks,a brief history and background data.Ms.Baker gave a brief summation of Chapter 3 dealing with the supply and demand analysis for both parkland and recreational facilities in the County.The State requires that counties have a minimum of 30 acres of parkland per 1,000 members of population.Half of the 30-acres required by the State must be owned by County and municipal governments.Washington County and its municipalities currently own 15.32-acres of parkland per 1,000 members of its population.Ms.Baker noted that County staff,the Parks Board and the Parks Department have been discussing options to utilize land currently owned by the County,such as land around the Hagerstown Regional Airport,closed landfills,etc.in order to meet future parkland needs. She briefly discussed other options that have been considered,including the donation of land by developers or a tax or fee imposed on developers that would be used to purchase additional open space land.Mr.Shaool suggested that incentives be offered to developers who donate land rather than imposing an additional fee or tax.If the County drops below the State minimum of 15-acres of parkland per 1,000 members of its population threshold,Project Open Space (POS)funding could be affected. 125 Ms.Baker explained that a minimum of 50%of the County's POS funds would then need to be used for the purchase of land and the remaining funds could be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing parkland. Ms.Baker discussed the recreational needs of the County and the supply and demands projections outlined in the Plan.She acknowledged that nationally recognized methods of calculating and estimating what is actually needed were used in this Plan.As part of this Plan,the State requires that a minimum of four specific recreational activities be analyzed,which include baseball/softball,field sports (football, soccer),basketball courts and tennis courts.A comparison chart was prepared identifying various recreationai activities and the excess or deficit of facilities in the County designated to these activities. Ms.Baker briefly described recommendations proposed in the Plan,which includes a survey of the residents of Washington County to determine what types of facilities are wanted in the County.It was noted that the new elementary schools recently constructed in the County contain oversized gymnasiums, which provide additional space for recreational activities. Ms.Baker provided a brief overview of the agriculturally preserved land.She also gave a brief summary of the naturai resource conservation programs within the County.Ms.Baker then explained the review and approvai process associated with the adoption of the Plan. Consensus:The Planning Commission,by consensus,approved the submittal of the Plan,with the suggested changes as discussed,to the State of Maryland for review. Member Appointments/Reappointments Mr.Goodrich noted that Mr.Reiber's appointment to the Planning Commission will expire at the end of February.He explained the process used by the County Commissioners for the appointment or reappointment of members to Commissions.Mr.Reiber is eligible for reappointment and is interested in continuing to serve on the Commission. Mr.Reiber recused himself from discussions and asked Mr.Wiley to conduct this portion of the meeting. Members briefly discussed the qualifications of the appiicants and made their recommendation.Staff will forward this recommendation to the County Commissioners. PlanMaryland Mr.Goodrich announced that the Governor has accepted the Plan Maryland document and signed the executive order. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,February 6,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Chairman Reiber adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. ,er,Chairman 126 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION March 5,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 5,2012 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,Sassan Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;Deputy Director of Pian Review & Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planner Lisa Kelly;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 9,2012 regular meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Stonington Bridge Business Park (SV-12-001) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification for Stonington Bridge Business Park,Lot 4 located along the northwest side of Leitersburg Pike.The property is currently zoned RS -Residential Suburban.The owners,Ten Cay LLC,are proposing to subdivide a 2.94-acre lot from the total 18.69- acre parcel with the intent to construct a dental office.The remaining lands would be 15.75-acres. Private well and septic would serve the site.The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the septic reserve area must be located on the subject parcel;however,the applicant is proposing the 10,000 square foot septic reserve area be placed on the remaining lands [and not on Lot 4 proposed for development].The storm water management area pond and sedinjent area,containing 1.66-acres,is proposed on Lot 4. Ms.Keily noted that a Justification Statement was submitted with the modification application and provided to Planning Commission members in their agenda packets. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Roger Schlossberg,attorney for the applicant,noted that the property is proposed to be rezoned for a commercial use in the Comprehensive Urban Grow1h Area rezoning.He explained that the developer of the residential subdivision on the adjacent property is responsible for providing public water and sewer services for that subdivision;however,due to economic conditions,the subdivision has not proceeded as planned.Mr.Schlossberg noted that the proposed private well and septic will be temporary and the owners plan to hook on to public water and sewer when it is available. Mr.Shaool asked if the owners would proceed with laying the water and sewer lines in the roadway now for future hook-up.Mr.Schlossberg stated they would not lay the lines now. Mr.Bowen expressed his concern that the owners may not be able to further develop the additional lots because of all the new State regulations dealing with septic areas and that further subdivision may not be permitted without public water and sewer.He recommended that the owners carefully consider these issues before proceeding.Mr.Bowen stressed his concern that the owners could be faced,in the future, with the need to seek a special exception to further develop the property because pUblic sewer and water are still unavailable.Mr.Schlossberg stated that the owners are well aware of the risk they are taking developing the property without public water and sewer.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that laying the lines under the roadway now would save the developer time and money in the future. Mr.Reiber asked if the temporary septic reserve area would be recorded in the deed for the remaining lands.Mr.Schlossberg stated that the easement showing the off-site septic reserve area would be shown on the recorded plat. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley. Comment:Mr.Reiber recommended that the motion be amended to state that the proposed septic reserve area be clearly identified and marked on the recorded piat. Amended Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen amended the motion as recommended by Mr.Reiber.The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. Peter Flynn (SV-12.003) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a modification from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11 B, which requires that all lots must have public road frontage.The property is located north of Falling Waters Road east of Beagle Club Lane.Mr.Lung explained that all lots involved currently exist and were created by subdivisions approved in 2001 and 2003 resulting in the creation of two lots and remaining lands containing 36.27-acres.Lot 1 has direct access to Falling Waters Road via a panhandle and Lot 2 was created as an immediate family member lot without public road frontage.Access to Lot 2 Is via a right-of-way across Lot 1.The remaining lands have access to Falling Waters Road via a panhandle, 127 which contains a private road called Beagle Club Lane.In 2010,a modification was approved to remove the immediate family restriction on Lot 2,which was then sold to Peter Flynn.In order to settle a right-of- way dispute,the parties involved wish to transfer the panhandle associated with the McCauley parcel (the remaining lands)to the Flynn parcel (Lot 2).As a result,Lot 2 (Flynn)would then have public road frontage and the remaining lands (McCauley)would become land locked with access to be provided across a right-of-way through Lot 1. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Wiley expressed his concern with regard to parcels that are being created without public road frontage and asked what the effects would be for this parcel in the future if the owners of the remaining lands and Lot 1 cannot get along.Mr.Nairn,the attorney for Mr.Flynn, explained that the right-of-way for Lot 1 would be set forth in the recorded plat as well as Mr.McCauiey's deed and Mr.Miner's (Lot 1)deed.Mr.Wiley asked how members of the Beagle Club would access their property.Mr.Nairn stated that a right-of-way was previously recorded for the Club,which would remain in effect. Mr.Bowen and Mr.Reiber concurred with Mr.Wiley's concerns regarding lots being created without public road frontage. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. -SUBDIVISIONS Potomac Overlook (PP-06-003) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a request for an extension of the preliminary pi at for Potomac Overlook,a proposed 6 lot subdivision located south of Keep Tryst Road.Mr.Lung explained that Section 309 of the Subdivision Ordinance gives the Planning Commission sixty (60)days to approve or deny a preliminary plat.In 2009,the Subdivision Ordinance was amended and Section 310 states,"Upon written request from the developer,the Planning Commission,or its designee,the Planning Director,may extend the time for approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed two years.The granting of any subsequent extensions shall be at the soie discretion of the Planning Commission."The developer,Buckeye Development,was granted an administrative waiver per the Storm Water Management regulations,which requires final approval of this subdivision prior to May 4,2013.The deveioper is requesting an extension to the preliminary plat up to May 4,2013. Discussion and Comments:Ms.Mitzi Boswell,Buckeye Development representative,stated that the nation's economic recession caused the developer to put the project on hoid. Mr.Lung noted that there are outstanding comments from the Engineering section of the Division of Plan Review and Permitting that must be addressed to get the plan moving again. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the extension for the preliminary piat for Potomac Overlook to May 4,2013.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Town of Boonsboro Annexation -McKinney property Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation an annexation request for property owned by Walter McKinney located along US Alternate Route 40 west.The parcel is 14.97-acres in size,has Washington County's Agricultural zoning classification and is improved with a single family dwelling. Upon annexation,the Town of Boonsboro is proposing to zone the property TR (Town Residential).The proposed use of the parcel is for an assisted living/nursing home facility.Mr.Goodrich explained that both the County and Town's zoning classifications allow residential development and the development of nursing homes and assisted living facilities.However,the County's zoning allows semi-detached units developed on 20,000-square foot lots with water and sewer [a density of 2.18 dwelling units/acre].The Town's zoning allows semi-detached units developed on 9,000-square foot lots with water and sewer [a density of 4.84 dwelling units/acre].Therefore,the density in the Town's zoning is 120%greater than the County's zoning,which is a significant difference between the existing and proposed zoning.This significant change would require "express approval"from the Board of County Commissioners in order for the development to proceed under the town zoning after annexation.If "express approval"is not granted, the annexation may still occur but the parcel could not be developed using the Town zoning guidelines for a period of five (5)years. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool asked if the parcel is large enough for two points of ingress and egress.Ms.Smith stated the two points of access is a County requirement and the County has no jurisdiction in the Town of Boonsboro.There was a brief discussion regarding the access to the development. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend that the County Commissioners grant "express approval".The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKiniey abstaining from the vote. 128 FY 2013 Capital Improvements Plan Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation the proposed FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Plan.He briefly reviewed the information provided to Commission members and highlighted a few of the proposed capital improvement projects. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to recommend that the proposed Capital Improvements Plan is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. Announcements Mr.Goodrich distributed a copy of the iegal ad that wiil be in the newspaper regarding the upcoming public input meetings for the Land,Preservation,Parks and Recreation Plan.All members are welcome to attend. Mr.Goodrich announced that the Division of Plan Review and Permitting,Engineering and Construction and the Planning Department wiil be participating in the upcoming Home Show to be held at the Hagerstown Community College's ARCC building. Mr.Goodrich announced that Mr.Reiber has been re-appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to another five (5)year term on the Planning Commission. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission public rezoning meeting and regular meeting, Monday,April 2,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Respectfuily submitt~ ~~/' 129 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION April 2,2012 ThlJ Washington County Planning Commission hlJld a pUblic rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday,April 2,2012 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members prlJslJnt were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis RelJdlJr,San Ecker,Sassan Shaool, and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Jill Baker,SlJnior Planner;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planner Cody Shaw;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman ReiblJr called the public rezoning meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. REZONING PUBLIC MEETING -Cornerstone Community Church of Hagerstown (RZ-12-001) Ms.BaklJr presented for rlJvilJw and commlJnt a map amendment rlJquest from the Cornerstone Community Church of HaglJrstown for property iocated at 20519 BeavlJr Creek Road.The applicant is proposing to rlJzone a 3.28-acre parclJl that is currently split by zoning with 1.82 acres being zonlJd RB-E (Rural BusinlJss Existing)and 1.37-acres being zonlJd RV (Rural Village).The applicant is proposing to rezone thlJ 1.82-acres currEJntly zoned RB-E to RV.Ms.Baker briefly rlJviewed pertinent information provided in thlJ Staff Report and Analysis associated with this request.She notlJd that the property is currently served by an on-sitlJ well and septic system.This proplJrty is iocated within a defined rural villaglJ and priority funding arlJa.No public facilitilJs are anticipated for this area in thlJ near future.The rezoning rlJquest was distributlJd to the Health DlJpartment and thlJ Washington County Department of Water Quality.NeithlJr of these aglJncies had any commlJnts.Emergency serviclJs are provided by the Mt.AlJtna Volunteer FirlJ DlJpartment and Community Rescue SlJrvices.Copies of thlJ appiication werlJ distributed to thlJse agencies and no comments were reclJivlJd.The proplJrty is served by GrEJlJnbrier Elementary,Boonsboro Middle and Boonsboro High schools.Ms.Baker lJxplained how this rlJquest would havlJ a minimal impact on school capacitilJs.The property has frontage and aCClJSS on Beaver Creek Road,which is a County road,and has frontage on US RoutlJ 40.There has not been any indication that thlJ applicant intends to change the current aCClJSs.The rezoning rlJquest was distributed to the Division of Plan RlJvilJW and Permitting with no objection to the rlJquest.There are no public transportation slJrviclJS to the area. Ms.BaklJr noted that thlJ proplJrty is located within the Doub's Mill Historic District,which is listed on thlJ National RlJgister of Historic Places.There arlJ 13 historic sites listlJd on the Washington County Historic Sites InvlJntory within a Y,mile radius of the proplJrty.A list of historic sites was providlJd in the Staff Report and Analysis.ThlJ Historic District Commission did not take exclJplion to thlJ rlJqulJst.The subject site is designated as being in the Rural Policy ArlJa and the Rural Village Sub-policy ArlJa.Rural VillaglJs were establishlJd in the late 1990's in response to thlJ Maryland Smart Growth Act of 1997. Ms.Baker notlJd that when a rezoning is not part of a comprehensivlJ rezoning by thlJ governing body, individual map amendments (also known as piecemeal rezonings),Maryland law dictates that the applicant must prove that a change in the charactlJr of the nlJighborhood or a mistake in the original zoning of the parcel has occurred.Maryland Annotated CodlJ Article 66B and the Washington County Zoning Ordinance requirlJs findings of fact on at least six difflJrlJnt criteria,which include:1)population changlJ;2)the availability of public facilitilJs;3)present and futurlJ transportation patterns;4)compatibility with existing and proposed devlJiopment for the arlJa;5)the recommlJndation of the planning commission; and 6)the relationship of the proposed amendment to the locai jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Ms.Baker revilJwlJd the applicant's justification statemlJnt relative to the rezoning request.The applicant believes thlJrEJ has been a mistake in the zoning of this property.ThlJ Staff Report includes statements of previous case law relativlJ to the applicant's responsibility to prove a mistaklJ in zoning.It is Staff's point of vilJW that the rezoning of this property from RB-E to RV is consistent with thlJ ComprehensivlJ Pian,it is compatible with the lJxisting developmlJnt within thlJ nlJighborhood [givlJn the intent of the applicant to conVlJrt the current business use to a church],and it is consistent with thlJ purpose statlJment of the RV zoning district.While Staff blJlilJvlJS that the rlJzoning request is logical and appropriate,it is thlJ Staff's opinion that the applicant has not presented enough evidence to support the claim that the County erred in its application of thlJ RB-E zoning district to this parcel. Applicant's Presentation Mr.Fred FrlJdlJrick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,thlJ applicant's consultant,prlJsented a map showing the subject parcel and the surrounding nlJighborhood.HlJ stated that the RB-E and RV zoning districts werlJ created by the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural ArlJa in 2002,which went into lJffect in 2005 follOWing adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County.At that time, the prlJvious owner,Mr.Parkin,rlJqulJstlJd the RB-E zoning district on this parcel.Mr.FrlJderick statlJd that "spot zoning"is dlJfined as follows:"a provision in a general plan which blJnefits a singllJ parcel of land by creating a zone for USlJ just for that parcel and difflJrent from thlJ surrounding properties in thlJ area".HlJ believes that "spot zoning"applies to this parcel of land.Mr.Frederick noted that thlJ County's adoptlJd 2002 ComprehensivlJ Plan called for the creation of the Rural Business Existing zonlJ as a floating zonlJ that could blJ located anywhere in thlJ rural agricultural area.On page 254 of the Comp Plan it states,"A nlJW zoning classification called Rural Business is rlJcommended to address business 130 development in the rural policy area.This classification is recommended as an overlay district and not a Euclidean zone."When the Rural Area rezoning was adopted in 2005,the Rural Business Existing zone was established as a Euclidean zone and not a floating zone as recommended.Therefore,the applicant believes that a mistake was made because the RB-E zoning classification is not a floating zone. It was noted that the Rural Business New zone is a floating zone;however,any changes made in land use or deveiopment expansions shall be handled through the procedures for an RB-E zone.In summation,Mr. Frederick believes that the change that has occurred is that the property has been left vacant for a number of years because a new business has not relocated to this property and it is falling in disrepair. The mistake in zoning is that the RB-E zone is a Euclidean zone and not a fioating zone as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Frederick then cited the Industrial Mineral (1M)floating zone as an example of how a floating zone is administered. Mr.Harold Bjerga,pastor of the Cornerstone Community Church,stated that he has spoken to several neighboring property owners on Beaver Creek Road and there has been no objection to the Church locating on this property. Citizen Comment Ms.Paula Worthington,9775 Beaver Creek Road,Hagerstown -Ms.Worthington stated that she has no objection to the Church locating in this area;however,she expressed concern that the Church may demoiish the older structures on the property.She also expressed concern with regard to the floating zone and traffic issues on Beaver Creek Road. Mr.Kurt Nigh,101 Daniel's Court,Smithsburg -Mr.Nigh stated that it is the Church's intention to rehabilitate the barn with a design that would be compatible with other structures within the Rural Village. He noted that traffic would be controlled with a one-way in,one-way out access. Discussion and Comments Mr.Shaool asked if approving the RB-E zoning application in 2005 was a mistake because it allowed "spot zoning".He questioned the analysis behind this decision.Ms.Baker stated that the analysis behind the overall goa is of the Com p Plan in the rural area were to reduce commercial uses;however, the County acknowledged that businesses are needed in the rural areas,where appropriate.Properties requesting the Rural Business zoning were reviewed for specific criteria.The parcel in question met the following criteria because it had good access to road frontage,good access to an existing County road,it was within a Priority Funding area,and there was an established business on the property.Ms.Baker explained that every business that requested the Rural Business zoning in 2005 was not granted the request because in some cases it was not appropriate for the area where the business was located.She further explained that Maryland law does not permit the County to establish overlay districts as part of a comprehensive rezoning.Staff gave a brief explanation regarding the development of the Rural Business zone in the rural area. Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification from Staff on the recommendation of denial of this request. Ms.Baker explained that the applicant must prove a "change in the neighborhood or a mistake in the original zoning"of the property.She referred the Commission to page 8 of the Staff Report and Analysis where case law from the State of Maryland was cited. Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff made its recommendation based on the minimum amount of information that was prOVided in the application.The Planning Commission should base its decision on information provided at the public rezoning meeting and the Board of County Commissioners will base its decision on all information previously provided in addition to information received during its public hearing. The public meeting was closed at 7:50 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the regular monthly meeting to order at 7:53 p.m. MINUTES Commissioner McKinley made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 5,2012 regular meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS Griffith Farms Lots 5-44 (PP-OS-001) Mr.Lung presented,on behalf of Ms.Kelly,a request for an extension of the preliminary plat for Griffith Farms,Lots 5-44 located along the west side of Monroe Road.Mr.Lung explained that the Subdivision Ordinance was amended in 2009 and Section 310 states,"Upon written request from the developer,the Planning Commission,or its designee,the Planning Director,may extend the time for approval or disapprovai of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed two years.The granting of any subsequent extensions shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Commission."He noted that approximately one year ago,the Health Department reviewed the pi at and submitted comments to the developer with regard to providing public water and sewer services to this subdivision.The County's Engineering Department also reviewed the plat and submitted comments requesting that a flood plain study be compieted.They 131 also advised that road adequacy issues as they relate to Monroe Road and how it ties in with a new road [Warrior Boulevard]proposed by the Town of Boonsboro would need to be addressed.An administrative waiver per the Storm Water Management regulations,which requires final approval of this subdivision prior to May 4,2013,was granted.The developer is requesting an extension to the preliminary plat up to May 4,2013. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant for the developer,stated that the plat was submitted in 2008 by the previous owner.The new developer has been in contact with the Health Department with regard to their comments. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to grant the request for a one year extension for Griffith Farms,Lots 5-44.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley. Amended Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder amended his motion to grant the extension until May 4,2013. The amended motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved .. -SITE PLANS Freightliner of Hagerstown (SP-12-004) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed truck/commercial vehicle repair shop to be located along the southwest side of Halfway Boulevard on approximately 9.13-acres.The property is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1).This is a pad ready stimulus program site.The proposed repair shop would include 26 service bays.Site accessory uses inciude a warehouse for parts and sales for parts and vehicles.Forest Conservation easement requirements for the site were previousiy addressed during the subdivision process.There are 119 parking spaces required with 131 parking spaces provided.Revisions have been submitted to all agencies. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approvals from all .outstanding agencies.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Goodrich explained that with the upcoming adoption of the Urban Growth Area comprehensive rezoning,the Planning Commission will have new responsibilities in reviewing and approving projects. He prOVided a iist to Commission members via e-mail prior to the meeting.Commission members briefly reviewed the list of responsibilities with Mr.Goodrich highlighting major changes in the text and design guidelines. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,May 7,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.So ordered. ReS~"Ubmitt ..-/ # Ter.Reiber,Chairman 132 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION May?,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held Its reguiar meeting on Monday,May 7,2012 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,Sam Ecker,Andrew Bowen,Sassan Shaool, and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Jill Baker,Senior Planner;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 2,2012 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-12-001 -Cornerstone Community Church of Hagerstown A public rezoning meeting was held on April 2,2012 to present the map amendment application for RZ- 12-001 for the Cornerstone Community Church of Hagerstown.The applicant is requesting a change in zoning for a 1.82-acre parcel located at 20519 Beaver Creek Road from RB-E (Rural Business Existing) to RV (Rural Village). Mr.Goodrich began with a brief overview of the rezoning public meeting process and noted that Staff, -under the process adopted a few years ago,no longer gives the Planning Commission a written recommendation for approval or denial of the applicant's request.Ms.Baker further explained that the Staff Report and Analysis provided to the Commission is based on limited information provided by the applicant in their Initial application prior to any public meetings.She noted that a written Addendum following the public meeting was provided for this particular rezoning application due to some confusion at the end of the public meeting in April.This Addendum is intended to clarify information presented during the public meeting and questions regarding the establishment of the RB-E zoning district.Ms.Baker explained that the Staff's recommendation is based on legal precedent. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the rezoning request based on a change in character of the neighborhood as presented by the applicant's representative at the April 2,2012 public rezoning meeting.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS - MODIFICATIONS Mark and Kay Hillard (SV-12-005) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request for Mark and Kay Hillard for property located along the south side of Military Road (TM 28,G 3,P 61).The property Is currently zoned RV - Rural Village.The applicant is requesting a modification from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires a minimum panhandle width of 25-feet.The applicant is proposing a panhandle width of 18.15-feet to a proposed 0.6-acre lot for an immediate family member.The justification statement provided by the applicant states that the total existing lot frontage on Military Road is 18.15- feet.The Washington County Land Development Engineering Department takes exception to the request and states,"This project must comply with the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance.Providing storm water management for a proposed driveway in a standard 25-foot wide panhandle can be difficult on flat terrain.Reducing the width by this magnitude will prove difficult if not Impossible on steep slopes." The State Highway Administration requests that the variance be denied because "SHA's required use in common entrance width is 20'with a 20'radius at the road connection.Should Washington County approve this variance,a SHA Residential Entrance Permit will be required to be issued prior to the issuance of a bUilding permit".The Washington County Division of Emergency Services had no issues or questions relative to the request.However,Mr.Shaw noted that standard comments from Emergency Services usually state that any access road [due to travel distances]should be of a 20-foot unobstructed width and a 13.5-foot vertical clearance.The Smithsburg Fire Department was given the opportunity to review this request and did not submit any comments. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Conner of Conner Land Surveying,the applicant's consultant,stated that the existing panhandle was created In 1938 and is an existing driveway currently used by the owner of the adjoining property.Mr.Bowen asked how many lots could be subdivided from the remaining lands. He expressed his concern that this access point would be the access for additional lots in the future.Mr. Lung explained that staff does not believe that the applicant has proven a hardship to warrant this request since there is road frontage off of Royer Road for this lot.Mr.Wiley asked how storm water management Issues would be addressed per the Land Development Engineering Department's comments.Mr.Conner stated that the driveway currently exists and there is no runoff from the fields onto the driveway.Mr. Shaw and Mr.Lung explained that the applicant would be required to submit a subdivision plat to create 133 the proposed lot,which would be reviewed by the same agencies and the same issues may be raised again. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request to reduce the width of the panhandle from 25-feet to 18.15-feet.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. Barn @The View (SV.12·007) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a modification request for Barn @ The View located north of Hagerstown along the east side of Route 11 south of the Hagerstown Regional Airport.This site is the only commercial site designated within the Fountainview PUD.In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is given the authority to modify parking requirements.The applicant is proposing the deveiopment of an event center with minimum parking requirements based on one space per 50-square feet of gross floor area per the Zoning Ordinance.The proposed event center would contain approximately 2,120 square feet of gross floor area requiring a minimum of 43 parking spaces. The proposed guest room would require a minimum of 2 parking spaces for a total of a minimum of 45 parking spaces including 2 handicapped spaces.The applicant states that due to the constraints of the site,only 39 spaces can be obtained on site.The proposed configuration of the spaces does not meet the requirement for a minimum 10-foot setback from a road right-of-way or the requirement for landscaping islands between every 15 spaces.There are also parking spaces proposed in a buffer yard between the site and an adjoining property occupied by a dwelling.The adjoining property is owned by the applicant and is zoned BL (Business Local).The dwelling is considered a non-conforming use and is currently being rented.Staff has no objection to the request for parking within the buffer yard.The applicant is requesting that the additional 6 parking spaces that are needed be located on the adjoining property. Staff has no objection to the request for off-site parking;however,it is recommended that an easement be recorded that provides for the two parcels to share parking.Staff has no objection to the parking facility setback contingent upon addressing the comment proVided by the Public Works Engineer,"The driveway to the site off Diller Drive is in poor condition and needs to be reconstructed in accordance with County .Standards and proper fillet radii".Current parking regulations in the Zoning Ordinance require a landscaped island between every 15 spaces.Staff has no objection to the request contingent upon the applicant providing an equivalent amount of landscaping somewhere else on the site. Discussion and comments:Mr.Bowen expressed his concern with regard to possible sight distance issues at the intersection of Diller Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue as a result of vehicles using the facility parking along the shoulder of Diller Drive.He suggested that "no parking"areas close to the intersection should be "designated to avoid sight distance issues.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates, consultant for the applicant,noted that in the future additional parking will be provided to alleviate overflow parking. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modifications with all contingencies as recommended by Staff.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. Joseph and Joanna Mullendore (SV-12·008) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request to create a panhandle 830-feet long to serve as road frontage for a lot being created for an immediate family member.The property is located along the north side of Gruber Road (TM 46,G 17,P 70).The parcel is 8.29-acres in size and is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.The applicant is requesting a modification from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.G.5,which states that the maximum panhandle length shall not be more than 400-feet and a waiver from Section 302 which requires a Preliminary Consultation for subdivisions of more than five lots.The applicant's Statement of Justification states,"Being that this is for an immediate family member and will front on an eXisting lane,the applicant could utilize section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance and create the lot without road frontage.The applicant has chosen to go the more appropriate route and request that the panhandle be made a part of the lot (fee simple)from the road frontage to the main body of the lot.This will insure full ingress and egress to the home for now and in the future."The applicant also states that they have no future plans for future development and are thereby requesting a waiver of the preliminary consultation requirement.The Division of Plan Review and Permitting reviewed this plan and submitted the following comment:"We take no exception to this request provided the following:Prior to the approval of the subdivision plat,the owner must verify that the existing farm lane,that is to be used as a private driveway,meets the minimum stopping sight distance criteria outlined in the County's Highway Adequacy Policy.Any required offsite sight distance easements that may be needed must be shown on the subdivision plat.Approval of this modification does not guarantee the approval of an entrance permit."The Division of Emergency Services reviewed this plat and submitted its standard comments,which were included in the Commission's agenda packets.The Clear Spring Fire Department also reviewed this plat and submitted the following comment:"After review of the Application for Modification,we find no safety or operational issues that concern us." Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding the required maximum 400-foot panhandle length.It was noted that this was instituted due to the terrain in some areas being difficult to traverse and the length of hose carried by fire trucks;both being an issue of public safety and concern.It is recommended that any road in excess of 300-feet in length shall be provided with turnouts and turnarounds (a minimum 50-foot radius).Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the remaining acreage and access if additional lots would be subdivided.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert & Associates,the applicant's consultant,noted that the entire property has road frontage on Dam #4 Road. He also stated that there is no intention to further subdivide this property. 134 Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the modification request The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS Valley World Lot 5 (SP-11-020) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Valley World Lot 5 located along the south side of Halfway Boulevard.The developer is proposing to construct a 5300-square foot restaurant on a 1.12-acre lot The property is currentiy zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.There will be one combined access onto Valley Road (a private road).The proposed building height will be 26-feet The proposed hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 11 :00 p.m.,seven days per week.The proposed number of employees will be a total of 50,with a maximum of 15 employees per shift.Parking spaces required is 72 spaces and 72 spaces will be provided,with 3 handicapped spaces.Proposed deliveries will be one box truck per day.Solid waste will be deposited in a enclosed dumpster.Water service will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer service will be provided by the County's Division of Environmental Management.Lighting will be pole mounted throughout the parking lot and also building mounted. Signage will be provided on 35-foot high double-sided pole mounted sign,which will be no more than 300-square feet of the combined front and back.Landscaping will be provided along the front of the building and throughout the parking lot.Storm water management wiil be provided by a bio-retention area located along the front of the property.Sidewalks will be located along the front and left side of the restaurant.A cross walk and sidewalk will also be constructed leading to the adjacent hotels.Forest conservation requirements will be met by a payment-in-Iieu in the amount of $740.52.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 Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. 16503 Hunters Green,LLC (SP-12-009) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for New England Motor Freight for property located along the west side of Hunters Green Parkway.The property is currently zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.Ms.Kelly noted that this site will utilize the benefits of the Pad Ready policy previously adopted by the County Commissioners.The developer is proposing to construct a 40,000-square foot truck terminal and warehouse on 11.6-acres.The proposed building will be approximately 20-feet in height.There will be a fuel station located to the rear of the terminal.There will be one access point which will c6nnect to the end of the cul-de-sac.Water service will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer service will be provided by the County's Division of Environmental Management.The proposed hours of operation will be 24 hours per day,7 days per week.There will be approximately 70 employees,divided over two shifts.There will be 71 car parking spaces provided,which includes three handicapped spaces.There will be 72 dock spaces,40 tractor spaces and 85 trailer spaces provided.A second phase is proposed in the future,which is also included in this site plan.Building mounted and pole mounted lighting will be provided.Signage will include a 4-foot by 8-foot building mounted sign and a 30-foot high,7-foot by 12-foot doubie-sided sign next to the parking lot.A dumpster will be located along the south side of the bUilding.Landscaping will be provided in the front of the bUilding,throughout the employee parking lot and along the southern property line.Landscaping will also be planted in the bio-retention ponds.Forest Conservation requirements were previously met when the site was originally subdivided in 2001.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Commissioner McKinley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS "Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012" Mr.Goodrich presented information regarding the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012.The Bill will become effective July 1,2012.The purpose of the Bill is to protect water quality in the Chesapeake Bay by limiting private septic systems in residential subdivisions.Mr.Goodrich noted that many Maryland counties and MACa (Maryland Association of Counties)have worked diligently to defeat this Bill,which is seen as an intrusion on local land use authority.The Bill has been modified since its original introduction into the Senate.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed and discussed the four land use tiers introduced in the Bill.He explained that within each tier there will be limitations on subdivision approvals based on the size of the subdivision (number of lots)and the type of sewerage treatment that will be used (public sewer or private septic systems).These limitations apply only to residential,not commercial,uses.Mr.Goodrich explained that the difference between a major and minor subdivision is based on the number of iots.In Washington County,a major subdivision is six or more lots and a minor subdivision is five lots or less.It was noted that the definition of a major and minor subdivision could be amended in the County's Subdivision Ordinance;however,it must be adopted prior to the end of 2012. The definition could be changed to allow a minor subdivision of no more than seven lots.FollOWing a review of each tier,Mr.Goodrich discussed the implementation of the tier process.He noted that the County may adopt the tiers administratively,but they must be incorporated in the County's next Comprehensive Plan update.By incorporating the tiers into the Comprehensive Plan,it will make the Comprehensive Plan a regulatory document.If the tiers are not adopted,the County will not be able to approve major subdivisions on septic systems In the rural area.Mr.Goodrich noted that the Bill also affects the re-subdivision or further subdivision of property. 135 Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber suggested that the Commission should hold a Workshop to further discuss the issues associated with this Bill.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that an amendment should be made to the Subdivision Ordinance to change the definition of a minor subdivision from five to seven lots.Commissioner McKinley suggested that Staff make a similar presentation to the Board of County Commissioners in the near future.Mr.Goodrich confirmed that is planned. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,July 2,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.Seconded by Commissioner McKinley.So ordered. Respe~~~~~~,~ ~//s:;;.," ._.>"':1...........r::. ,ber,Chairman 136 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 4,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 4,2012 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Andrew Bowen,Dennis Reeder and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Fred Nugent,Parks and Environmental Planner,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planner Cody Shaw;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7,2012 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Proposed Text Amendment Mr.Goodrich presented a proposal to amend the definition of minor subdivisions.During the May Planning Commission meeting,information was presented relative to the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 [also known as the "Septic Bill"],which was passed by the General Assembly and signed into law on May 2,2012.Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that the· Bill introduced a four tier land use program that will limit the number of lots and type of sewerage treatment that will be allowed in residential subdivisions.Currently,Washington County's Subdivision 'Ordinance defines a minor subdivision as being five lots or less.The Bill allows local governments to use their current definition of minor subdivisions or to change the definition to a maximum of seven lots or less.During the May meeting,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to amend the definition of a minor subdivision from five to a maximum of seven lots or less.Mr.Goodrich explained that the term "minor subdivision"is defined in the Subdivision Ordinance;however,the term is not used anywhere else in the Subdivision Ordinance.It is impiied as being applicable during the Preliminary Consultation process where a subdivision of six or more lots must have a Preliminary Consultation prior to a preliminary plat submittal.Planning Commission Policy #19 uses the five lot threshold as the number of lots that can be approved by staff,but does not use the term "minor subdivision".The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance defines a "minor subdivision"exactly as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance and does use the term in other sections of the APFO.The Forest Conservation Ordinance does use five lots as the threshold where the Express Procedure is permitted to be used (developer's choice to pay the "fee in lieu of planting"without Planning Commission approval),but does not use the term "minor subdivision". Mr.Goodrich stated that a "minor subdivision"defined as five lots or less could have the effect of limiting the number of lots some rural property owners could develop to less than what their zoning would allow. Changing the definition of "minor subdivision"to seven lots will allow a property owner to more fully utilize (but not exceed)the density permitted by locally assigned zoning.Mr.Goodrich noted that the law states that a local jurisdiction must use the local definition of a "minor subdivision",but it aiso allows the jurisdictions to modify their local definition to no more than seven lots before December 31,2012. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion that the definition should be changed in all documents where it is currently referenced. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the definition of a "minor subdivision"be changed from a maximum of five lots to a maximum of seven lots in all applicable Ordinances and Policies.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Matthew Eby (SV-12-009) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request for property located at 12507 Cove Road,Clear Spring [Tax Map 45,Grid 5,Parcel 200]currently zoned EC -Environmental Conservation. The property currently contains a single-family dwelling and a hunting cabin.The applicant wishes to have the single-family dwelling and the hunt"lng cabin on separate lots.A modification is requested from Subdivision Ordinance Sections 405.11.G.(1),(4)and (5)and Article 2.The applicant is requesting that the panhandle serving the existing hunting cabin be approximately 800-feet long and reduced from 25- feet to 18.75-feet in width.The applicant is also requesting a third tier lot and a waiver from the preliminary consultation requirement (this is the 6th lot to be created from the original tract of land).Mr. Shaw reviewed the justification statement provided by the applicant for this modification request.The request has been reviewed by the Division of Plan Review and Permitting's Engineering Department and the following comment was provided,"This project must comply with the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance.Providing storm water management for a proposed driveway in a standard 25' wide panhandle can be difficult on flat terrain.Reducing the width by this magnitude will prove difficult if not impossible on steep slopes."The request was also reviewed by the Division of Emergency Services 137 with standard CDmments provided as fDIIDws:"Any access road due tD travel distances shDuld be Df 20' unDbstructed width and 13.5'vertical clearance;Any suppDrting driveways Df Dver 150'shDuld be Df 12' unDbstructed width and 13.5 vertical clearance;RDads shall be designed,cDnstructed and maintained tD aCCDmmDdate the IDad and turning radius of the largest apparatus typically used to respDnd to that iDcatiDn;and Any rDad in excess Df 300'in length shall be prDvided with turnDuts and turnarounds as approved based upDn the AHJ.Turnarounds shDuld maintain a minimum Df 50'radius."The Clear Spring Volunteer Fire CDmpany reviewed the request and stated the fDIlDwing:"We are Dpposed tD the modification of the panhandle width from 25'.A fire incident at any location other than directly along the rDadway will require that supply line be laid from the roadway tD the IDcatiDn Df the fire.A 25'width is hard enough tD get additional apparatus in when a supply line has been laid.A reductiDn in this will make it nearly impossible."Mr.Shaw nDted that based upDn the CDmments received from the approving agencies,Staff cannDt support the approval of the mDdificatiDn request. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Ed Schreiber Df Frederick,Seibert &AssDciates,the applicant's consultant,noted that the hunting cabin existed priDr tD the dwelling being constructed on the property. He briefly expiained the current use Df the existing lane,rights-of-way access for the various properties alDng the lane,the propDsed modificatiDns and the justificatiDn fDr the request. Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding ingress and egress fDr emergency service apparatus tD access the properties.Mr.Schreiber expressed his opinion that the property is being reduced and not the width of the driveway,which he believes is approximately 20'wide now with a hard shale surface.He also stated that the area is open and is not obstructed with trees so emergency service vehicles could pass one another.Mr.Bowen asked how many houses are currently served by the driveway.Mr. Schreiber stated there are currently three houses being serviced by the driveway as well as the hunting cabin.Mr.Bowen asked if there are plans to construct a permanent dwelling where the cabin is now located.Mr.Eby,the applicant,stated that there are no plans for a permanent dweliing.Mr.Bowen asked the applicant if he understands the consequences if emergency personnel cannot reach the property due to the modifications being requested and Mr.Eby acknowledged his responsibility . .Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motiDn to approve the modification request as presented.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Walmart Arnett Farms (PSP-10-001) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a request for an extension of the preliminary plat/site plan for Walmart Arnett Farms,located along Maryland Route 65.The primary purpose of the development is for a Walmart,which will be subdivided onto its own parcel,as well as the subdivision of several additional lots for development.Mr.Lung explained that the Subdivision Ordinance gives the developer two years to obtain all necessary approvals with Staff granting extensions every 60 to gO days.After the two year period,Staff can no longer grant the extension requests;however,the Planning Commission has the authority to grant an extension.Mr.Lung explained that this is a very complex project with considerable off-site improvements being required by the State Highway Administration and other agencies.Staff has no objection to the granting of an extension. Discussion and Comments:A representative from Bohler Engineering,the consultant,stated that an extension of one year is requested in order to address all comments and concerns,particularly with the State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.Bohler is anticipating that all issues should be addressed and approvals received from SHA and the FHA by November 2012. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve a one year extension for the preliminary platlsite plan for Walmart Arnett Farms with Staff continuing to monitor the approvals from the State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. Annual Report Mr.Nugent presented for review and approval the Annual Report on Growth Related Changes to be submitted to the Maryland Department of Planning.He noted that more development activity has taken place in the rural areas and that there are more additions to homes being constructed. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the Annual Report on Growth Related Changes as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved. Election of Officers As required by the Washington County Planning Commission By-laws,the election of officers shall be held at the regular meeting of the Commission in June of each year,with those elected taking office at the regular meeting in July. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to nominate Mr.Terry Reiber as the Chairman for the coming year.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to nDminate Mr.Clint Wiiey as the Vice-Chairman for the coming year.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. 138 UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,August 6,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reeder.So ordered. Respectfully submitted, r7,/~/~~£~,:> ~-'" "eiber,Chairman 139 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 2,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 2,2012 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Andrew Bowen,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sam Ecker, Sassan Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich:Fred Nugent,Parks and Environmental Planner,Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES There was a brief discussion regarding a modification request that was granted during the June 4th meeting relative to the decreased width and increased length of a driveway.Members questioned what would have happened if the modification had been denied and what recourse the owner could have taken.Members discussed safety concerns,property owner's rights and adherence to County regulations. Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 4,2012 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved with Mr.Wiley and Mr.Shaool abstaining from the vote. OTHER BUSINESS .Land Preservation,Parks and Recreation Plan Mr.Nugent presented for review and recommendation the Land Preservation,Parks and Recreation Plan (LPPRP).The purpose of the Plan is to evaluate current open space opportunities,analyze future impacts from growth,and develop a coordinated plan to address future open space needs.Mr.Nugent noted that the Maryland Program Open Space laws and the Federal Land &Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 require that all counties in the State of Maryland produce and maintain an Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan.Goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan related to land preservation,parks and open space were reviewed and are discussed in more detail In the LPPRP. Mr.Nugent stated that the State of Maryland has a goal of 30 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. Washington County's goal is to have a program that consists of a balance of neighborhood,community and regional parks.Neighborhood parks would consist of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people,community parks consist of 7.5 acres per 1,000 people and regional parks consist of 5 acres per 1,000 people.Mr.Nugent briefly reviewed other goals for the County and how these goals could be met.He noted that a parkland needs analysis was prepared,which was based on a State survey prepared in 2003.The Guidelines for State and Local Land Preservation.Parks and Recreation Planning,October 2010 states,"If needed,up to 15 acres per 1,000 persons of State and federal lands present in the County,in excess of 60 acres per 1,000 persons,can be used to meet the default recommended acreage goal."Currently,there is approximately 76 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons in the County.Mr.Nugent noted that one recommendation in the Plan is that the County should acquire approximately 560 acres of additional parkland over the next 20 years.He briefly discussed several other recommendations and strategies presented in the Plan.Staff believes that a survey is needed of the County's citizens to determine what the residents want in terms of recreational facilities.Mr.Nugent continued a brief overview of the Plan citing countywide and area specific priorities and recommendations. Comments:Mr.Shaool and Mr.Reiber expressed their opinions that additional language should be included that encourages developers and government to work together.Mr.Shaool also believes that incentives for developers should be included.There was a brief discussion regarding the formula used to determine the number of acres per person ratio for each county in the State.Commissioner McKinley pointed out that Washington County has several federal and state parks that count toward the County's parkland requirement.There was a brief discussion regarding ways in which the County disseminates information on available parks,hiking/bicycling trails,etc. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Land Preservation,Parks and Recreation Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. Meeting Schedule Discussion Commissioner McKinley presented a proposal to Planning Commission members with regard to holding two meetings per month in order to expedite the plan approval process and to better serve the citizens of Washington County.Mr.Reiber noted that a brief history of the Planning Commission's meeting activities was provided in the agenda packets for the past two years.He pointed out that in the Commission's By- laws and Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland,the Planning Commission shall meet once a month.Mr.Goodrich explained that he has contacted the County Attorney's Office with regard to this language and he [the County Attorney]believes that if there is no business to conduct,a meeting may be canceled.There was a brief discussion with regard to the Chairman calling "special meetings",if needed. 140 Comments:Mr.Reiber stated that he is not opposed to meeting more than once a month;however,if there is no business to conduct he does not believe that meeting more than once a month would be productive and is not a good use of time management. Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that there may be a deeper problem in the County in getting projects moved through or there may be a public relations issue that needs to be corrected.He stated he does not have an issue with having two meetings per month provided that it truiy solves the problem of getting development to move faster in the County. Mr.Ecker stated that he is willing to meet twice a month if it moves projects faster.However,he also believes there is a deeper problem and cited examples of probiems that he has encountered gelling permits for projects,which do not involve Planning Commission approval. Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that developers and property owners feei frustrated with the process.If a deadline is missed for a Planning Commission meeting,developers are not given the option to have their project brought before the Planning Commission in a special meeting.Another frustration for developers arises when a decision for approval is tabled for a month because additional information is requested by the Commission.Mr.Shaool believes that developers have the perception that it is very difficult to get projects approved in this county. Mr.Reiber suggested that the Commission consider a second "special"monthiy meeting if needed.The decision for a second meeting should be determined by Staff and the Chairman of the Planning Commission.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that a second meeting every month at this point in time is not warranted. Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that there needs to be improvements in the development review process not only with County staff but also with consultants and developers.He believes that staff should have the ability to review a project submittai and if it does not meet specific criteria,the project could be .rejected. Mr.Reeder expressed his opinion that some consultants may submit projects that are lacking information and the staff shouid be able to reject these submittals. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that serious consideration should be given to a second meeting a month on the Planning Commission's schedule,but that the first meeting of the month would be the primary meeting. Discussion continued regarding the types of projects that would be placed on each agenda,timelines that would need to be met,procedures to call a "special"meeting,public notification of "special"meetings,etc. Mr.Reiber requested that this item be placed on the agenda in August,that Commission members seriously consider the discussions held this evening,and that Staff research the legai requirements for notification and cancellation of public meetings. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,August 6,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Shaool.So ordered. ResP'7!f:I~submitted, ///.~",A----'--"')~~~:~---~~ 141 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 6,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 6,2012 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baitimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sassan Shaool,and Ex- Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Goodrich asked Commission members to add one additionai discussion item to the evening's agenda under Other Business.By consensus,members agreed to add the additional item. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 2,2012 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Meeting Schedule Discussion Continued Mr.Reiber began by acknowledging the various schedules and information included in the Commission's agenda packets with regard to this topic,which is continued from the July meeting.During the July meeting,several issues relative to legal requirements for a second meeting per month were discussed. Mr.Goodrich stated that he has contacted the County Attorney's office and received clarification on these issues.If the Commission decides to schedule a second regular monthly meeting,the meeting must be publicized in an efficient manner utilizing the same techniques currently used for Planning Commission meetings.However,if the second meetings are going to be used on an "as-needed basis",then notification must be given in a timely manner to let the general public know when the meetings are not going to occur.This practice could cause frustration and dissatisfaction for the general public that may want to attend the meeting.The County Attorney's office believes that a second regularly scheduled meeting would be better than calling a second meeting on an "as-needed basis"due to publicizing the public meetings.The Planning Commission's By-laws allow for special meetings to be called by the Chairman with a majority consensus of the Commission or a majority of the Commission may request the Chairman to call a special meeting.A three day minimum notice is required. Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the schedules and information included in the agenda packets.He explained the necessary steps involved in preparing each agenda and the time involved in each step.Mr. Goodrich noted that even though there is a schedule in place,there is the option of adding items to the agenda at the last minute,if needed [and which has been done on numerous occasions]. Comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that there is a system in place that accommodates more meetings,if needed.He believes that flexibility in scheduling projects on the agenda as well as being able to add or delete items from the agenda are key components in moving projects more efficiently through the development review process in the County. Mr.Ed Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates was present at the meeting and concurred with Mr. Shaool's comments.He noted that there are other outside agencies that review projects and getting their approvals in order to meet agenda deadlines can be difficult sometimes.He does not believe that another meeting each month is warranted,but flexibility in the agenda schedule would be helpful to consultants and customers. Mr.Reeder expressed his opinion that time schedules are very important and that the current schedule should be maintained. Commissioner McKinley explained that he has received phone calls from two business people that are trying to start up a business in the County and were very upset because [according to them]they missed the deadline for the Planning Commission agenda by one day.He believes that flexibility in the agenda schedule could be the answer.Without knowing the details of the incidents cited by Commissioner McKinley,Staff believes that there were underlying circumstances that were not disclosed to the Commissioner.Staff noted that there are many times when projects are put on the agenda without all agency approvals or when the agency approvals are received within a few days after the deadline.It is not Staff's practice to withhold projects if the agenda schedule has been missed by one day. Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that there is a perception that the Planning Commission and planning staff,in general,are not customer friendly.However,management changes have occurred that are making a positive impact and slOWly reversing this perception.He believes that the Planning Commission needs to act as quickiy as possible so that Washington County can become more competitive with neighboring counties and states.Mr.Wiley does not believe that two meetings a month is warranted at this time and noted there are some State mandates that the County cannot work around.However,if the 142 need arises that a meeting is needed to move a project forward,then the Planning Commission should accommodate that need. Mr.Shaool stated that Staff,in his experience,has always been very accommodating in scheduling projects on the agenda and moving projects through the process.He believes that there is an issue of getting projects approved by the Planning Commission when more information is needed or questions are asked that staff cannot answer at the meeting then the approval is delayed for a month.Mr.Shaool suggested that in these instances,the Planning Commission should consider scheduling a special meeting within one to two weeks in order to get the information from staff and give final approval of the project. Mr.Reiber requested this item to be on the agenda for September at which time the Commission will make its finai decision.Any members who will not be present at the meeting should forward their comments and their vote either to Mr.Reiber or Mr.Wiley. There was a brief discussion regarding ways the staff can better assess projects to determine when they should go before the Planning Commission for approval. OTHER BUSINESS Griffith Farms -Lot 7 (S-10-001) Mr.Lung,on behalf of Ms.Kelly,presented for review and approval an extension request for the Preliminary/Final plat of Lot 7,Griffith Farms per Section 310 of the Subdivision Ordinance.The property is located on Monroe Road near Boonsboro.In 2009,the Subdivision Ordinance was amended and states,"Upon written request from the developer,the Planning Commission,or its designee,the Planning Director,may extend the time for approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed two years.The granting of any subsequent extensions shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Commission."Mr.Lung noted that the Washington County Soil Conservation District submitted comments following their review [April 2010]that have not yet been addressed.All other agency approvals have been received.The developer is requesting an extension due to pending action on the new septic bill regulations and economic conditions. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve a one year extension for Griffith Farms,Lot 7 as requested.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. Septic Bill Tiers Map Mr.Goodrich presented a DRAFT of the proposed tiers map that is a result of the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act [SB 236]approved by the State and signed by the Governor in the spring of 2012.The Bill requires counties in the State of Maryland to identify,on a map,four tiers according to specific criteria and plans for providing public sewer service.It aiso limits the number of lots allowed on septic systems according to the tier in which the lots are located.Staff is waiting for direction from the Board of County Commissioners to decide if they are going to participate in the tiers program as directed in SB 236.However,due to the lengthy process involved in getting the program adopted before the end of this year,staff has begun preliminary work in anticipation of the BOCC's participation.Mr. Goodrich reminded the Commission that another key to the iegisiation is the difference between a major subdivision and a minor subdivision.Currentiy,the County's definition of a minor subdivision is five lots or less.Staff is proposing to change the definition of a minor subdivision from five lots or less to seven lots or iess,which will be one of the text amendments presented to the Planning Commission in October. Mr.Goodrich reviewed each of the tiers and the methodology used for determining the tier locations.All new subdivisions located in a Tier 1 area [shown in pink on the map]in the County must be served by public sewer and be located in a locally designated growth area.There are a few areas outside the growth area boundary that are quasi-public systems under a management agreement with the County or the Maryland Department of the Environment [such as the Maryland Correctional Institute,St.James School,etc.).Existing developments in Tier 1 areas may be served by septic systems,but no new residential development can occur on septic systems.Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that this Bill only applies to residential development,not commercial development. Tier 2 [shown in yellow on the map]are areas planned for public service,not currently existing,and within a designated growth area.In Tier 2,all new subdivisions should be on public sewer systems;however, minor subdivisions may be on septic systems with the acknowledgement that the septic system is a temporary arrangement.All dwellings would be hooked up to public sewer when it becomes available. Tiers 3 and 4 deal with areas planned for preservation and areas planned for large lot development.In Washington County,all rural areas (with the exception of Rural Villages)are zoned Agriculture, Environmental Conservation or Preservation.All three of these districts,as noted in their purpose statements,indicate that they are for the purpose of preserving agricultural land,open space,and sensitive natural environments.All three of these districts also allow for large lot development. Tier 4 [shown in green on the map]areas are not planned for public sewer service.Tier 4 areas are zoned for protection dominated by agriculture or forest land,rural legacy areas,priority preservation areas,under other protective easements,and government owned properties (State and Federal lands). Only minor subdivisions would be permitted in Tier 4 areas.Major subdivisions would not be permitted on septic or public sewer systems. Tier 3 [shown in blue on the map]are areas not planned for sewerage service and not planned for preservation,such as priority preservation areas,Rural Villages,other areas of existing residential development. TerfY Rei.l?er,Cli'aii-man 143 Comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that this information is very important and the public needs to be made aware of these kinds of issues sooner rather than later.He believes that the public needs to be informed of changes in legislation that could eventually effect the development of their property.Other members concurred with Mr.Shaool's comments.Mr.Goodrich noted that the information he presented is only in DRAFT form and it has not yet been adopted.He noted that the staff preparation has been discussed openly in pubiic forums,but staff has been cautious because the County Commissioners have not yet directed them to proceed. Consensus:All Planning Commission members present gave their approval to forward the DRAFT map to the State for preliminary review. Stonington (PSP-11-001j Mr.Lung requested approval to schedule the preliminary plaUsite plan for Stonington on the September meeting agenda.Currently,there are two agency approvals outstanding,the Health Department and the State Highway Administration.Mr.Lung explained that the Health Department is requiring a test well on this property because there is a concern that there would be groundwater under the influence of surface water.In order to proceed with the test well,there is specific criteria that must be met and due to current weather conditions,it is uncertain when this can be performed.In all iikeiihood,approval will not be received from the Health Department prior to the September meeting and staff may be requesting Planning Commission approval of the site plan contingent upon approvai of the final subdivision plat.As dictated by State law,the Health Department must approve and sign off on final plats. Consensus:All Planning Commission members present gave their approval to allow staff to present the site plan for Stonington at the September meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,September 10,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Washington County Planning Commission Public Rezoning Meeting,Monday,October 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reeder.So ordered. 144 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 10,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September 10,2012 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryiand. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sassan Shaool,and Ex- Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Jill Baker, Chief Planner;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;Deputy Director of Plan Review & Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planner Lisa Kelly;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6,2012 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Meeting Schedule Discussion -Final Decision Mr.Reiber noted that a potential change to the meeting schedule has been discussed during the last two monthly Planning Commission meetings.Commissioner McKinley stated that he initiated this potential change in order to insure that the County is giving the best possible service to its citizens.He expressed his opinion that if this goal can be accomplished by special meetings as needed,he is not opposed.He _believes that the County needs to make an effort to inform the public that this option is availabie.It was noted that if a special meeting is scheduled,a notice will be posted on the County's internet website. Comments and Discussion:Mr.Bowen was not present at the meeting;however,he provided his comments which Mr.Reiber noted for the record.Mr.Bowen stated he is not opposed to special meetings,as needed;and,he does not believe that a second regularly scheduled monthly meeting is needed. Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that comments made by staff [during the August 6th meeting]regarding additional agenda items being added when needed were very supportive and this policy should continue. No formal action was required.However,it was determined by consensus that a second regular monthly meeting was not necessary at this time as long as the option of special meetings as needed and agenda additions are available. Septic Bill Tiers Map Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that a proposed septic bill tiers map was presented during the August 6th meeting,which is a result of the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act (SB 236)approved by the State and signed by the Governor in the spring of 2012.He noted that he will be discussing the proposed tiers map at the County Commissioner's meeting on September 11 th and believes that the Commissioners will make their final decision about participating in the tiers program. Ms.Baker distributed copies of three draft maps,which are not for public distribution.She noted that the draft map has been presented to the Maryland Department of Planning for informal comments.Ms. Baker briefly reviewed each of the maps and highlighted comments made by the State during recent meetings with them.She noted that under the law participation in developing a tiers map is voluntary; however,if the County does not participate,it may not approve any major residential subdivisions in the rural areas.Ms.Baker also noted that the law clearly states that the County has the authority to determine the areas where each tier designation is placed.She informed the Commission that County staff is coordinating with each of the municipalities and offering mapping services. Discussion and Comment:Commissioner McKinley believes that if the County does not participate in the tiers program,the consequences will be tougher than participating. All Commission members present supported the tiers map as presented by staff and believe that it is in the best interest of the County.Members recommended that this map be presented to the County Commissioners at the September 11 th meeting . •NEW BUSINESS Stonington Bridge Business Park (PSP-11-001) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Lot 1,Stonington Bridge Business Park located along the north side of Leitersburg Pike.The property is currently zoned BL -Business Local. The developer is proposing to subdivide a 2.94 acre lot out of the 18.6-acre tract in order to construct a 9,500 square foot dental office.Access to the site will be via a new public street called Wisdom Way. There will be no direct access to the site from Leitersburg Pike.Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.An individual well and septic system is proposed for the site.Two bio-retention areas are located on the site.There are 48 parking spaces required and 48 parking spaces will be provided.Solid waste will be collected in a screened dumpster.Two deliveries are proposed each 145 week.Pole and building mounted lighting is proposed on the site and signage will be provided at the entrance to the site as well as small building mounted signs.A special exception for the construction of the proposed dental office was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in July 2010,which was required because the site was zoned RS -Residential Suburban at that time.During the Urban Growth Area comprehensive rezoning,the subject site was reclassified to BL -Business Local zoning.In March 2012, the Planning Commission granted approval for a 10,000 square foot off-site septic reserve area.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by retaining 3.04 acres of forest on the remaining lands.Landscaping will be provided throughout the site.Health Department approval is pending;all other agency approvals have been received.The Health Department is requiring a test well to be drilled and approved prior to approval.A final plat for this site is currently being reviewed by the Division of Plan Review &Permitting.Staff is requesting the Planning Commission's authority to approve the final plat when it is ready. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber verified that the 10,000 square foot off-site septic reserve area will be disclosed to future developers of the lot where it is located.Mr.Battern of Fox &Associates,Inc. (the conSUltant)stated that an easement has been placed around the septic reserve area and is shown on the final subdivision plat.Mr.Reiber asked for the status of the test well being required by the Health Department.Mr.Battern stated that the test well was drilled and final water test results are pending. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon final approval by the Health Department and to give staff the authority to approve the final subdivision plat when it is ready. The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. Beaver Creek Quarry (SP-11-025) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for expansion of the LaFarge Beaver Creek Quarry.The subject site is located along the east side of Route 66 (Mapleville Road)just north of its intersection with 1-70.The property is zoned EC (EnVironmental Conservation)with an Industrial Mineral overlay.The acreage of the northern expansion is 80.33 acres and the functional description is a stone quarry operation with aggregate stone,concrete and asphalt production.The 80.33 acre site was part of a rezoning case (RZ-04-008)filed with the Washington County Planning Commission in September 2004 to extend the 1M overlay onto this section,and was approved in July 2005 by the Board of County Commissioners.Access to the site will be via the existing entrance off of Mapleville Road.The hours of operation are Monday through Friday,6:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,and 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.on Saturday. There are 18 employees and there will be no increase in truck traffic due to the expansion.There is an average of 100 trucks per day,with a slightly higher or lower volume of truck traffic depending upon the season of the year.A setback of 25-feet will be maintained between the property line in the area where surface mining activity is permitted.An 8-foot high mesh wire fence will be installed around the perimeter of the northern expansion.No extraction operations shall be conducted within 1DO-feet of the property line on the east side of the subject property and no extraction shall be conducted within 400-feet of Mt. Aetna Road.No blasting shall be conducted within 500-feet of the nearest residential structure.These conditions were approved as part of the rezoning application in July 2005.All conditions for the rezoning approval have been noted on the site plan.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements due to the fact that it is a non-coal surface mining operation.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reeder asked who monitors the water that goes to the fish hatchery nearby.Mr.Carl Boyer of LaFarge was present at the meeting and stated that the water is monitored daily by the quarry. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan for the Beaver Creek Quarry as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics (SP-12-029) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics.The property is located along the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue adjacent to Nick's Airport Inn.The developer is proposing to construct a flight trade school in an 18,000 square foot bUilding on lands of the Hagerstown Regional Airport.Access will be provided by an existing entrance off Pennsylvania Avenue. The site will be served with water from the City of Hagerstown and sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality.The number of employees will be 7 with a projected enrollment of 80 students.The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.with an occasional Saturday.Required parking is 90 spaces and 98 parking spaces will be provided with 4 of those spaces for handicapped parking.Solid waste will be collected in a screened dumpster.Lighting will be pole mounted throughout the parking lot.Signs will be bUilding mounted.Landscaping will be provided throughout the parking lot.A plat to remove the existing property lines is currently being prepared by the County's Engineering Department,which will be recorded prior to final approval of the site plan.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by the overall Airport forest conservation plan. All agency approvals are pending;however,revisions have been forwarded to all approving agencies. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked if FAA is one of the approving agencies.Ms.Kelly stated they are not.Mr.Lung stated there is an imaginary surfaces map,which establishes the height of buildings within the approaches to the Airport.County staff at the Airport can determine if these guidelines are being met. Mr.Gordon Poffenberger of Fox &Associates,Inc.was present at the meeting and noted that the title shown on the site plan is incorrect.It will be corrected to read "Pittsburg Institute of Aeronautics"prior to 146 final approval.It was also noted that anytime a building is constructed on the Airport property,approval from the FAA must be received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.The motion was seconded by Mr.Shaool and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Goodrich and Ms.Baker gave Commission members a brief overview of several map and text amendments that will be presented during the Planning Commission's public rezoning meeting on October 15'0. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,October 1,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Washington County Planning Commission Public Rezoning Meeting,Monday,October 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.So ordered. --~-- ResPnsub=i~te/1"1 ~:~;;q7~~~-"LL_-_~ /T~;ry 147 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 1,2012 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 1,2012 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sassan Shaool,Andrew Bowen and Ex-Officio Wiiiiam McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;Deputy Director of Plan Review & Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw;and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 10,2012 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Septic Bill Tiers Map Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that a discussion was held during the September 10th meeting regarding the County's proposed septic tiers map,which is a result of the Sustainabie Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act (SB 236)approved by the State and signed by the Governor in the .spring of 2012.The draft map was presented to the Maryland Department of Planning (MOP)for informal comments.Mr.Goodrich noted that MOP provided comments regarding the proposed tiers.He also noted that there were a few differences in opinion between staff and MOP.The County Commissioners were informed of these differences;however,they took formal action providing staff with the direction needed to proceed with steps to implement the iocai requirements of the law.Staff is moving ahead with the map and is preparing a proposed text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to change the definition of a minor subdivision.This text amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission during a public rezoning meeting scheduled for October 15th •County staff members have offered mapping services to all Washington County municipalities.Several of the municipalities have responded and will have their tier designations denoted on the County's septic tiers map. Comments:Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates expressed his appreciation to the Commission and staff with regard to the proposed change in the definition of a minor subdivision.He questioned the grandfathering provisions of Senate Bill 236.Mr.Frederick stated that the Bill allows developers that have lots that were perc tested prior to July 1,2012,eighteen (18)months to submit a preliminary plat for approval.He also questioned the provisions for tracking of these lots.Mr.Goodrich believes that the Bill's grandfathering provision has a deadline of October 1,2012 for submitting a preliminary plat that would not be subject to the tier restrictions.He noted that this section of the Bill is not clear and staff has contacted the Maryland Department of Planning (MOP)and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MOE)for clarification of these provisions.The County Attorney's office will also be contacted for clarification. Mr.Reiber stated [for the record]that the Planning Commission must have clarification of the provisions outlined in Senate 8iii 236 from the Maryland Department of Planning,Maryland Department of the Environment,and the County Attorney.Follow-up on the issue is requested. Mr.Frederick stated [for the record]that his firm is currently working on a project that had perc tests completed prior to July 1,2012 and a preliminary plat is being prepared.The project is a 16-lot subdivision located along Little Antietam Road [currently known as Keuper Estates].The developer is Dr. George Manger. -NEW BUSINESS SUBDIVISIONS -Rosewood Estates PUD (DP-12-001) Mr.Shaoolleft the room prior to the presentation. Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the revised final development plan for Rosewood Estates PUD located along Robinwood Drive.He reminded Commission members that modifications have been approved to the plan,which includes an increase in the percentage of commercial area allowed in the PUD.In 2010 and again in 2011,the developer submitted rezoning applications to convert a portion of the PUD from the previously approved residential development to commercial development.This revised final development plan reflects these changes.Mr.Lung provided a brief overview of all modifications that have been approved during the past several years,which include the following: •Change from residential townhouse lots to commercial/office development in the vicinity of Capitol Lane as approved in RZ-10-004 148 •Convert Capitol Lane from a public road to a private access •Change from residential townhouse lots to commercial/office development in the vicinity of O'Neal's Place (north)and on Lot 18 as approved in RZ-11-004 •Convert O'Neal's Place (north)from a public road to a private access •Update land use and density calculations to address the decrease in residential development and increase in commercial development as approved by previous Planning Commission action and in RZ-10-004 and RZ-11-004 •Revise the layout for proposed commercial lot 17 •Revise the proposed 24-unit assisted living building on lot 16 to a 24-unit garden apartment building (age restricted) •Replace 20 residential townhouse units along Huntington Court with a 20-unit apartment building on lot 20 (not age restricted) •Modify phasing lines and phasing schedule •Minor revisions to Forest Conservation areas •Provide a revised general landscaping plan •Provide a separate sheet showing "existing conditions"as of the time of submittal of this plan Mr.Lung noted that prior to any development,a site plan and subdivision plat must be approved by the Planning Commission;and,that according to the developer,the 20-unit apartment building on Lot 20 wili no longer be age-restricted units.Therefore,before a final subdivision plat or site plan for development can be approved,the developer must enter into a developer's agreement with the Board of County Commissioners in cooperation with the Board of Education to address school adequacy per the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Ali agency approvals have been received with the exception of the Division of Public Works.The Division of Public Works has reviewed a revised traffic study that addresses the change from residential to commercial development and the impact to Varsity Lane.DPW is reviewing a revised striping plan that has been submitted for the reconfiguration of Varsity Lane. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber shared a newspaper article with Commission members that cited 1200 trips per day with the proposed commercial development compared to the 380 trips per day with the residential development that was previously proposed. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the revised final development plan as presented contingent upon ali agency approvals.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. Following the vote,Mr.Shaool re-entered the meeting. SITE PLANS -2009 Virginia Avenue LLC (PSP-12-001) Ms.Keliy presented for review and approval a preliminary plat/site plan for 2009 Virginia Avenue,LLC for property located along the north side of Virginia Avenue adjacent to its intersection with Massey Boulevard.The property is currentiy zoned BL -Business Local.The developer is proposing to construct six additional mini-warehouse storage bUildings containing 187 storage units on a 5.5 acre parcel.There are currently four mini-warehouse units containing 105 storage units on the site [known as Halfway Self Storage]in addition to a 3,200-square foot retail building that currently houses an antique shop.Access to this site is off of Massey Boulevard.The maximum building height wili be 20-feet as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance.The storage units wili be accessible 24 hours per day,7 days per week.A total of 25 parking spaces are required and 25 parking spaces will be provided.The retail building is currently served with water from the City of Hagerstown and sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality.No water and sewer services will be used for the storage units. Lighting for the storage units wili be wali pack lights.There will be no solid waste.There is an existing sign in the southwest corner of the property and one building mounted sign on an existing storage unit;no new signs are proposed.The entrance will be paved.There wili be no fencing around the site. Landscaping will include Leyland Cypress along the eastern boundary as weli as plantings in the bio- retention ponds.The existing trees will be retained to provide a buffer along the property line.Forest Conservation requirements will be met using the express procedure in the form of a payment in lieu in the amount of $5924.16.Ali agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat/site pian as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. -Linwood,LLC (SP-12-020) Mr.Shaw provided for review and approval a site plan for Linwood LLC for property located at 17821 Virginia Avenue [Tax Map 49,Parcel 849,Lot 89].The developer is proposing to construct a warehouse for the storage of rental equipment on approximately .51 acre of land.The property is currently zoned BG -Business General.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because there wili be less than 40,000 square feet of disturbed area.On September 5,2012,the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a waiver from the major building setback line of 35-feet to 19-feet.There are six parking spaces required and 8 parking spaces will be provided including one handicapped space.Approvals have not been received from the Division of Pian Review &Permitting,the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Division of Public Works;ali other approvals have been received.The City of Hagerstown Water 149 Department is requiring a 20-loot easement for a waterline.The Division of Public Works is requesting a white stop bar at the intersection of Linwood Drive and Virginia Avenue. Motion and Vote;Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon all agency approvals.The motion was seconded by Mr.Shaool and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Offset Regulations Mr.Goodrich explained that the State of Maryland is implementing another initiative to improve water quality to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay called "Accounting for Growth",also known as offsets.The State is Instituting new reguiations,which propose that all changes in land use (or new development)that disturbs one acre or more will be required to offset the production of nitrogen by providing a practice that will reduce an equal amount of nitrogen that is produced.The authority to manage the offset is through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).All states that have watersheds that drain into the Bay (Pennsylvania,Maryland,Virginia,West Virginia,New York and Delaware)will be required to introduce initiatives to clean up the Bay;however,this initiative applies oniy in the State of Maryland.Mr. Goodrich explained that there will be a few exceptions for the need to offset,such as development that will send its sewage effluent to a wastewater treatment plant rather than a septic system,and certain types of development. Mr.Shaool asked when developers would need to start calculating nitrogen levels.Ms.Smith stated that there are no proposed grandfathering provisions.There was a brief discussion regarding the provisions currently proposed by MDE for reviewing projects.Mr.Goodrich stated there are numerous questions that cannot be answered at this time.Staff has reviewed the regulations and submitted comments to MDE. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that this is a political issue and that the Board of County Commissioners should discuss this issue with elected officials from other counties.Mr.Goodrich stated ~hat a presentation was made to the County Commissioners,who directed Staff to adjust current processes.Commissioner McKinley noted that there is a county coalition monitoring this issue.Mr. Bowen asked if the Pianning Commission could be informed of any public meetings held across the State regarding these types of issues. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission Public Rezoning Meeting,Monday,October 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. 2.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,November 5,2012,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.So ordered. Respe~tYJ~~~:d'=~_J :::~::... 'ierryR'eimrr:-Cnafrman