HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 MinutesWASHIl:'Gl'ClN COUNTY P.Ll'iNNIN3 CQ!IMISSION
REGU.LAR MEE:!'Im -JANUARY 9,1991
The Washington County Planning Ccmni.ssion held its :regular meeting on
wednesday,Janua:t:y 9,1991 in Court Roan No.1 of the Court House.
Members present we:re:Chainnani Donald E.Zanhro,Carol Jclmson,l3ernaJ:d
Moser and Donald Spickler.Staff:Directori James P.Brittain,Senior
Plarmeri Stephen T.Gcxxirich,lIssociate Plarmersi Tim::>thy A.Lung,Lisa
Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber,lIssistant Plarmeri John Gudrrnmdson and
secretary,Janet L.Walkley.Absent we:re Ex-Qfficio,Ronald L.Bowers and
Steven west.
CALL 'IO ORDER:
The meeting was called to omer by the Chainnan at 7:05 P.M.
MINIJl'ES:
Mr.Moser made a IlDtion to adopt the minutes of the December 6,1990 regular
meeting as written.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So omered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent cement COrPOration:
Mr.Brittain infonoacl the Ccmni.ssion that the staff needs CClllIlEIlts fran the
Depart:mant of Natural Resources regaIrling their requirements on the proposed
ICC expansion.No action was taken by the Ccmni.ssion.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Russell Snyder:
Mr.Gudrrnmdson presented the variance request for Russell Snyder.The
subject site is located along the ~st side of CJ:ystal Falls Drive just
north of Black Rock Road.The owner is proposing to create two residential
lots to be conveyed to family nanbers to be served by a 50 foot right-of-way
which was created after the original acquisition of the property.The
variance is being requested fran section 405.ll.B.l which states that all
family nanber lots nnlSt front on a private right-of-way which was existing
at the time of the original parcel's acquisition.The proposed two lots
will have the required 10-year family nanber restriction.Mr.Spickler made
a IlDtion to grant the variance based on a haIrlship imposed by the latest
revision to the family nanber statement in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So omered.
Mr.and Mrs.Thcrnas weil:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Mr.and Mrs.Thanas weil.
The subject site is located along the ~st side of Alternate Route 40
iIlInedi.ately north of Newcomer Road.A variance was previously granted in
June 1990 which pennitted the creation of two residential lots whose
remaining lands did not have usable public road frontage.The owner is now
proposing to create two lots to be served by a panhandle with widths of less
than 25 feet.The variance is being requested fran Section 405.ll.G.1.
which states that panhandle lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet in width
fran the public :road to the main body of the lot.The existing hcxre
infringes on the proposed panhandle for lot #2.The panhandle will be
reduced to 16 feet in omer to maintain the required 15 foot side yaIrl
setback for the existing house on the remaining lands.Mr.Spickler
suggested maintaining the required panhandle width and reducing the front
yaIrl setback.Mrs.Pietro stated that a variance would be required fran the
BoaIrl of Zoning Appeals in omer to reduce the setback requirement.
1
Mr.Russell Townsely,consultant with Fox and Associates,stated that the
existing house encroaches across the parcel line.It is Mr.Townsley's
opinion that it would be better to naintain the side yam requiJ::aIents since
a driveway will be c:reated and to :reduce the panhandle width.
Mrs.Jolmson made a IlOtion to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Zombro.
So orde:red.
Andrew T.Luther,Jr.:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the variance :request for Andrew T.Luther.The
site is located along the north side of Tl:ovinger Mill Road.The applicant
is proposing to create 1 residential lot to be conveyed to an i.Imed.iate
family nanber with access via a 50 foot wide private right-of-way which was
c:reated after the original parcel's acquisition.A total of 23 acres will
:renain.The lO-year family nanber restriction will be applied to this
plat.Mr.Moser made a IlOtion to grant the variance.Seconded by Mrs.
Jolmson.So orde:red.
Subdivisions:
Geo:me W.McKenna:
Mr.GucImundson presented the prel:imina:t:y and final sul:xiivision plat for
Geo:z:ge McKenna,lots 2 and 3 and lots 4 through 7.The subject site is
located along the north side of Kaetzell Road.Zoning is Conservation.All
proposed lots will be served by private wells and septic systans.Lot sizes
will range fran 3.2 to 9.8 acres.A total of 7.7 acres will:renain.The
1l00,±long panhandles serving the :renaining lands are per Board of Zoning
Appeals case AP-2385 which over turns the Planning cemnission's denial of a
variance :request for longer than permitted panhandles.Dual accesses are
proposed for lots 2 and 3,4 and 5 and 6 and 7.One driveway will probably
be constructed to serve lots 4 th=ugh 7,however,there is an approved
entrance for lots 6 &7.There are wetlands on the property but Water
Resources Administration approval is not :requi:red in order for the driveways
to cross the wetland area.However,the U.S.AI:my Co:rp of Engineers and the
Maryland Deparbllent of Envirornnent approval is :requi:red,and they have
issued a permit to cross the wetland area.All other written agency
approvals have been received.
Mrs.Donna Neilands,concerned resident of the area,stated that she has no
problems with the proposed developtalt since the number of driveways has
been reduced.
Mr.Spickler made a IlOtion to grant preliminary and final plat approval f=
the McKenna sul:xiivision,lots 4 through 7.Seconded by Mr.Zambro.Mrs •
Johnson and Mr.Moser voted no.The IlOtion failed.Due to the fact that
there was a tied vote,the cemnission tabled any further acti~on this
sul:xiivision until Canmission nanber Bertrand Iseminger was present.
Clear Spring FaJ:IlIS:
Mrs.Pietro presented the prel:imina:t:y and final sul:xiivision plat for Clear
Spring FaJ:IlIS,lots 8 th=ugh 13.The subject site is located along the
south side of Barnhart Road.The owner is proposing to c:reate 6 lots on
approximately 6 acres.Proposed lot sizes will be .94 acres each.A total
of 179 acres will:renain.The proposed lots will be served by individual
wells and septic systans.Access to all lots will be via Barnhart Road.
All written agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a IlOtion to
grant preliminary and final approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So orde:red
Mr.Bertrand Iseminger arrived at 7:35 P.M.
2
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Elner Stone,Jr.-AD-90-53,AD-90-54 and AD-90-55:
The first Elner Stone fa:r:m is located along the west side of Maryland Route
67,1/2 mile south of Boonsboro.This fa:r:m consists of 104.78 acres and has
89.56%qualifying soils.The second Stone fa:r:m is located 1 mile south of
Boonsboro along the west side of Maryland Route 67.This fa:r:m Consists of
116.15 acres and has 82.41%qualifying soils.The third Stone fa:r:m is
located 2.5 miles southeast of Keedysville on both sides of Rohrersville
Road.This fa:r:m consists of 137.88 acres and has 99.33%qualifying soils.
Charles D.IDhman -AD-90-60:
The IDhman fa:r:m is located along the east and west sides of Maryland Route
57 and south of Broadfording Road approxina.tely 2 miles northeast of Clear
Spring.The fa:r:m consists of 270.91 acres and has 88.21%qualifying soils.
Larry IDudenslager,Evelyn Kretzer and Paul IDudenslager -AD-90-62:
The IDudenslager/Kretzer fa:r:m is located 1.25 miles north of Boonsboro on
both sides of U.S.Alternate Route 40.The fa:r:m consists of 145.04 acres
and has 94.36%qualifying soils.
Marvin R.Martin and Mary E.Martin -AD-90-63:
The Martin fa:r:m is located 1 mile north of Leitersbw:g west side of Route
60.The fa:r:m consists of 100.61 acres and has 79.72%qualifying soils.
Mr.Spickler nade a IOCltion to recan:nend to the County Ccmni.ssioners that all
six previously mentioned Agricultural Land Preservation District
applications be included in the Program since they are all consistent with
the policies of the Cc1llprehensive Plan for Washington County.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Donald E.Beard:
The written s\llllllarY of the prel:i:mi.naJ:y consultation for Donald Beard was
presented to the Ccmni.ssion with nothing being added by the staff.No
action was taken by the Ccmni.ssion.
Paul N.Crampton:
The written s\llllllarY of the prel:i:mi.naJ:y consultation for Paul Crampton was
presented to the Ccmni.ssion with nothing being added by the staff.Mr.
Brittain noted that if the design concept is altered to inter-connect a new
and an existing street,the Ccmni.ssion nay have to hold a public hearing
:r:eganting this proposal as part of their approval process.No action was
taken by the Ccmni.ssion.
Meadow Rock Estates:
The written s\llllllarY of the prel:i:mi.naJ:y consultation for Meadow Rock Estates
was presented to the Ccmni.ssion with nothing be added by the staff.No
action was taken by the Ccmni.ssion.
3
George W.McKenna:
Since Mr.Iseminger a=ived,the Cc:mnission brought this proposed
sul:xtivision back into discussion.
Mr.Gudmundson presented the sul:xtivision plat for Mr.Iseminger's benefit.
After a brief discussion,Mr.Spickler made a IlOtion to grant prel.i:mi.naJ:y
and final plat approval for the McKenna sul:xtivision,lots 4 through 7.
Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.Mrs.Johnson and Mr.Moser voted no.Mr •
Zambro,Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Spickler voted yes.Motion passed.
Mr.Spickler made a IlOtion to grant prel.i:mi.naJ:y and final sul:xtivision
approval for the McKenna sul:xtivision,lots 2 and 3.seconded by Mr.
Iseminger.Mrs.Jolmson voted no.Motion passed.
Site Plans:
Victor Cushwa and Sons:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Victor Cushwa and Son.The subject
site is located along the southwest side of Maryland Route 68,near
Williamsport.Mrs.Pietro :reni.nded the Cc:mnission that this was the site of
a previous rezoning application which classified 298 acres f=Agricultural
to Industrial Mineral.The site plan indicates the proposed expansion of
the existing quarry with pennit areas 6 through #10.Permit areas #1
through *5 are presently being mined.Areas *6 through #10 consist of 15.5
acres with the total site encanpassing 31.6 acres.Access to the site will
be via an existing hauling road to Route 68 which is maintained by Cushwa
and Sons.The type of mining that will 00=on-site will be surface
mining.This type of mining consists of rerroving the top soil and stock
piling it in the pennit area that is =rently being mined.The shale that
is not used for brick manufacturing is placed on the floor of the quarry.
Mining direction will be in a northeasterly direction with no IlOre than 15
acres will be disturbed at once.In the past,Cushwa and Sons have not
needed to blast for mining purposes.Cushwa and Sons is requesting the
right to blast depending on the situation.A note has been added to the
plan indicating that if blasting is requested within the area designated by
the State pennit,an additional site plan will be required for Planning
Cc:mnission review.During this review,the Planning Cc:mnission can
detennine if additional setbacks are required.
Mr.Brittain added that the State requires that the applicant contact them
for approval to blast.He stated that the Cc:mnission will be advised if
blasting is requested and further review of the site plan is necessa:r:y.
A 100 foot buffer is provided around the perineter of the site except
adjacent to the Mitchell property and the area bordering pennit areas *9 andnowhichindicatesa200footbuffer.This was proposed during the
rezoning hearing by the applicant.
Landscaping is provided along the front of the site and along the Mitchell
and Zello properties.The Zoning Ordinance states that all trees must be
planted at a minimum height of 6 feet.The applicant is requesting that the
white pines around pennit areas *8 and #10 be planted at 2 feet in height.
This request is due since mining will not 00=in these areas for
approximately 30 years,and the pines that are planted now will be fully
grown by that tine.
Mr.Moser stated that during the rezoning hearing,residents had concems
with dust on the access road.Mr.Miller stated that Cushwa and Sons have
been maintaining the road with additives to control the dust.
Mrs.Pietro info:rmad the Cc:mnission that the State Fire Marshal's Office was
contacted'regarding canplaints f=residents on blasting and there have
been none reported.
Mr.Iseminger made a IlOtion to grant site plan approval with the condition
that prior to mining in pennit areas *8,*9 and #10,trees must be a height
of at least 6 feet.seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
4
Rezoning Cases:
RZ-449,RZ-450 and RZ-451 -Davis,Rerm and Associates:
Due to the nature of these :rezoning cases,Mr.Spickler made a IlDtion to
table any action on these cases lllltil a workshop neeting.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.So ordered.
The Ccmni.ssion will hold a Workshop Meeting on Thursday,January 17,1991 to
discuss the :rezoning cases,the 2020 Program and the Eastern Boulevard
Co=idor Study Area.
lIDJOURNMENl':
The:re being no further business,the neeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
,
":-/?<...d)r'",-"~)LV "-..~AM~.-..,Ztmb=,
5
WAS1lIN3TClN COUNI'Y PLANN:IJ:iG COl1MISSION
SPOCIAL MEF:l'IN3 -JANUARY 17,1991
The Washington County Planning COllIllission held a Special Meeting on
'I'hursday,January 17,1991 in the Planning COllIllission's conference :r:ocm
on the third floor of the County 1\dministration Building.
Manbers present '\\ere:Chafunan,Donald E.Zanb:ro;Vice-chaiI:man,
Bertrand L.Iseminger;Bernard Moser,Donald SPickler and steve west.
staff:Director,James P.Brittain;Senior Plannl3r,Stephen T.Goodrich,
and Associate Planners Tim:>thy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Piet;:r;o.Absent
'\\ere Ex-officio,Ronald L.l30IIlers and carol JOhnson.
CALL 'IO ORDER:
'I'he meeting was called to o:rder by the Chafunan at 9:00 A.M.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Rezoning cases:
RZ-449 -Davis,Renn and Associates:
Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff reports
and testim:>ny of the November 19,1990 public hearing,Mr.spickler made
a IlOtion to adopt the staff's finding of fact as the COllIllission's finding
of fact and that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence to prove
that a "change in the character of the neighborhood"had occurred.
However,the applicant did not deIOC>nStrate that a "mistake"in the
original zoning had occurred and that the requested zoning
classifications '\\ere not appropriate and logical because the
classifications were based upon the concept plan for Hunters Green for
wuch the developer cannot be legally bound.'I'herefore,a recorrrnendation
should be made to the County COllIllissioners to deny the rezoning.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Upon call for the question for denial,Mr.
Spickler,Mr.Moser,and Mr.west voted yes,and Mr.Zombro no.'I'he
IlOtiOn carried.Mr.Iseminger abstained.
RZ-450 -Davis,Renn and Associates:
Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff reports
and testinony of the November 19,1990 public hearing,Mr.spickler made
a IlOtion to adopt the staff's finding of fact as the COllIllission's finding
of fact and that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence to prove
that a "change in the character of the neighborhood"had occurred.
However,the applicant did not deIOC>nStrate that a "mistake"in the
original zoning had occurred and that the requested zoning classification
was not appropriate and logical because the classification was based upon
the concept plan for Hunters Green for which the developer cannot be
legally bound.'I'herefore,a recorrrnendation should be made to the County
COllIllissioners to deny the rezoning.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Upon call
for the question for denial,Mr.Spickler,Mr.Moser,and Mr.west voted
yes,and Mr.zombro no.'I'he IlOtion carried.Mr.Iseminger abstained.
RZ-45l -Davis,Renn and Associates:
Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff reports
and testiIlOny of the November 19,1990 public hearing,Mr.spickler made
a IlOtion to adopt the staff's finding of fact as the COllIllission's finding
of fact and that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence to prove
that a "change in the character of the neighborhood"had occurred.
However,the applicant did not denonstrate that a "mistake"in the
original zoning had occurred and that the requested zoning
classifications '\\ere not appropriate and logical because the
classifications '\\ere based upon the concept plan for Hunters Green for
which the developer cannot be legally bound.'I'herefore,a reccmnendation
should be made to the County COllIllissioners to deny the rezoning.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Upon call for the question for denial,Mr.
spickler,Mr.Moser,and Mr.west voted yes,and Mr.Zc:mbro no.'I'he
IlOtion carried.Mr.Iseminger abstained.
6
(0
"¢,....
coz
~
2020 Carnnission Update:
Mr.Brittain distributed the latest draft of the proposed "Maryland
Growth and Chesapeake Bay Protection Act of 1991",amendrlents :recently
adopted but not yet incorporated into the draft,and a copy of the Board
of County Carnnissioners'letter of December 11,1990 to the Governor's
Canmission.Mr.Iseminger info:rmed the Carnnission that he had presented
the Board's position paper at the 2020's Carnnission public hearing on
December 15,1990 along with other MACa :representatives.Mr.Spickler,a
nanber of the 2020 Carnnission :representing the Agricultural sector,
b=ught the Planning Carnnission up to date stating that the proposed
legislation and :report will soon be forwarded to the Governor.He stated
that the "package"will probably be forwarded with a :recarmendation to
phase-in the legislation.
Mr.Brittain info:rmed the Carnnission that the general consensus is that
very little support for the proposed legislation is being offered at the
County and/or municipal levels.Mr.Brittain also info:rmed the
Canmission that the staff will be attending a MACa Planners affiliate
IlEeting on January 22,1991 to discuss the legislation and alternatives
to the proposal.
The Planning Carnnission's consensus is that they support the 2020 visions
but not the proposed legislation as it currently stands.It is the
Carnnission's opinion that any legislation will have to involve in greater
detail individual Counties environs and unique aspects.These unique
aspects should be incorporated into a Master Plan for the State versus
t:he unilateral approach currently taken by this legislation.
NE.W BUSINESS:
Eastern Boulevard Corridor Study:
Mrs.Pietro p:resented to the Carnnission a draft copy of the Eastern
Boulevard Study.She outlined the general scope of the study which
includes mapping of parcels and their associated zoning,land use and
wdter and sewerage classifications;detenni.nation of the current status
of the neighborhood's infrastructu:re and physical environs;and
concluding with findings of fact for the Corridor Study.Mrs.Pietro
.i1l1:0:rmed the Carnnission that the u:::A Carnnittee will be meeting befo:re the
Carnnission's :regular February IlEeting to finalize the report and
reccmrendations.If the u:::A Carnnittee Report is finalized,it will be
p:resented to the Planning Carnnission for its fornal adoption at the
February IlEeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
'l11eI:e being no further business,the IlEeting was adjourned at 11:10 A.M.
7
8
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 4,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on
Wednesday,January 9,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the County
Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger,Ex-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers;Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser and Steve West.Staff:Director;James P.Brittain,
Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,
Lisa Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber,and Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.
Absent was Donald L.Spickler.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser made a motion to adopt the minutes of the January 9,1991
Regular Meeting as written.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to adopt the minutes of the January 17,1991
Special Meeting as written.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
John Kline Variance:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that due to a staff oversight,the
variance request for John Kline was omitted from the agenda,therefore,
the staff is requesting that this item be added to the agenda.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to add the John Kline variance request to the
agenda.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the staff needs comments from
the Department of Natural Resources regarding their requirements on the
proposed ICC expansion.No action was needed by the Commission.
Mr.Bowers asked where in the process is this matter.Mr.Brittain
stated that ICC and DNR have met to discuss the permitting requirements
for this expansion.He added that DNR may hold a meeting to discuss
these requirements with ICC,the citizens of the area,and the Planning
Commission.Mr.Bowers asked what type of requirements does the Planning
Commission have to meet.Mr.Brittain stated the Zoning Ordinance
requires 100 foot setback from all adjoining property lines and 100 feet
from any then existing principal building on an adjoining property
provided that the Commission finds that approaching within such distance
will not damage the adjoining property or principal building.Mr.Lung
added that an Air Quality Permit is required as well as Water
Appropriation Permit and an NPDES Permit for water flowing out of the
quarry into the creek.He added that these are State issued permits.
Continental Investment Corporation -Water &Sewerage Plan Amendment:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that they have received a copy of
the written petition and oral presentation from William Young,the County
Attorney's legal opinion,and the staff report which was submitted to the
County Attorney for review.Mr.France's opinion stated that in regard
to sewer service,it was his opinion that the petitioner was not entitled
to an administrative amendment from S-7 to S-5 because the petitioner's
case did not fall within the categories of an Administrative Amendment as
required by the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan.In regard to
c.o
~....-
COz
:2:
water service,Mr.France indicated that water service was being provided
by 10 and 12 inch lines to the MCI complex across Maryland Route 65 from
the property.He added that the Planning Commission would have the
inherent discretionary power to make an Administrative Amendment to the
Water and Sewerage Plan designating the lands of the petitioner to W-5.
Mr.France added that W-7 would be inappropriate since there is an
adequate water supply adjacent to the land to be served.He added that
this is discretionary and not mandatory and the Planning Commission has
the authority to require a public hearing.
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that a letter was received on
February 4,1991 from William Young,attorney for Continental Investment
Corporation,regarding the legal opinion made by Ralph France.Mr.
Goodrich read this letter into the record.
Mr.Brittain stated that Mr.France's opinion included a reference to an
amendment to the original request which will remove the Beckley parcel
from the request.Mr.Adrian Carpenter,with Continental Investment
Corporation,submitted a copy of the revised amendment request to the
Planning Commission during the meeting to remove the Beckley parcel from
the request.
Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the request for an Administrative
Amendment to the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan based on all
material received.It is Mr.Moser's opinion that this request should be
taken to public hearing.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
After the motion,Mr.Bowers stated that he had been informed by the
Sanitary District that Sanitary Subdistrict #16 had been created in the
early 1980's which was some indication of an intention to provide service
to the area.This indicated to him that the current S-7/W-7
classification may not be appropriate.Mr.Bowers stated the
Comprehensive Plan and 201 Facilities Plan also indicate that these
classifications may not be appropriate.
After a discussion and call for the question,Mrs.Johnson,Mr.Moser and
Mr.West voted to deny the request for an Administrative Amendment to the
Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan.Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Bowers
abstained and Mr.Zombro did not vote.The motion passed.So ordered.
NJ!!W BUSINESS:
Variances:
William Beckley:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for William Beckley.The
subject site is located northwest of College Road near St.James.In
1989,Mr.Beckley subdivided two,20 acre parcels and conveyed them to
immediate family members.Mr.Beckley retained 6.5 acres for himself.
At this point,Mr.Beckley is now proposing to convey 1.47 acres of his
remaining lands to his son for Agricultural purposes only.The variance
is being requested from Section 318 of the Subdivision Ordinance which
requires the acquisition of 3 acres or more for Agricultural purposes
through the simplified plat process.A 30 foot wide private right-of-way
bisects lot 2 and the remaining lands of Mr.Beckley.Access to all
three lots will be via this right-of-way.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
grant the variance based on hardship due to the lay of the land.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Kern Subdivision:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Jeff Kern.The subject
site is located along the west side of Graystone Hills subdivision at the
end of Winner Lane in Boonsboro.Zoning is Residential Rural.The
variance is being requested from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision
Ordinance which states that every lot shall abut a minimum of 25 feet and
shall have access to a road or street that has been dedicated to pUblic
use and accepted for public maintenance.The applicant is proposing to
9
10
create a .23 acre lot with access being via a 20 foot easement rather
than fee simple road frontage with access to Winner Lane.The purpose
for the creation of this lot is to house a chlorine and turbidity
treatment plant for a well which serves the water main for the Town of
Boonsboro.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the variance.Seconded by
Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
June Marble:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for June Marble.The
subject site is located at the intersection of Mt.Briar and Chestnut
Grove Roads.20ning is Conservation.The variance is being requested
from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that
every lot shall have a minimum of 25 feet and shall have access to a road
or street that has been dedicated to public use and accepted for public
maintenance.Once lot #2 is created,the remaining lands will be left
without any usable road frontage to Mt.Briar Road due to an existing
B &0 Railroad right-of-way.Although the remaining lands do have 365
feet of frontage along Mt.Briar Road.the land is split by an existing
B &0 Railroad right-of-way owned in fee simple.The house on the
remaining lands currently uses an existing driveway through and shared by
proposed lot #2 for access to Mt.Briar Road.However,a possible access
location has been determined should the need arise for the remaining
lands to have its own point of access in the future.Mr.Iseminger made
a motion to grant the variance request with the condition that no
additional subdivision of the remaining lands occur without direct access
to Mt.Briar Road.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
John Kline:
Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for John Kline.The subject
site is located at the end of a private lane off of Old Forge Road.The
variance is being requested from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision
Ordinance which requires that all lots have a minimum of 25 feet of
public road frontage.Mr.Kline is proposing to create a lot without
public road frontage and convey said lot to his son.Access to the lot
will be from Old Forge Road by way of an existing right-of-way.The
right-of-way is across lands owned by Independent Cement Corporation.
The staff originally thought that this proposal would fall within the
guidelines for a conveyance to an immediate family members without public
road frontage.However,the Subdivision Ordinance has been modified to
require that family member conveyances be located on rights-of-way which
were existing at the time of the original time of purchase.This
existing right-of-way must be extended since it does not go to the
property line of the new lot.Mr.Kline is aware of the proposed
expansion of Independent Cement Corporation.Mr.Kline is also aware
that if the expansion does occur,the existing right-of-way will be
relocated and has no problem.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the
variance request with the condition that the 10-year family member
statement be added to the plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Potomac Crest:
Mr.Brittain presented the replat for Potomac Crest Section A.He
informed the Commission that a letter was received from Emmett Abbot.the
original subdivider of Potomac Crest.In Mr.Abbott's letter it is noted
that the current plat indicates a 12 foot pUblic alley running along the
boundary of lots 118, 119,120, 121,122,123 and 135 and also an
additional 12 foot right-of-way also along these properties.Mr.Abbott
stated that the additional 12 feet shown as the right-of-way is a mistake
due to the confusion when interpreting a footnote describing the 12 foot
wide alley.Mr.Abbott is requesting that this 12 foot right-of-way be
removed from the plat.Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that a
letter was received from Kenneth Mackley,attorney representing Lester
Mason,an adjacent property owner.In Mr.Mackley's letter it is stated
that there is imminent litigation about the alleyway because two property
owners in Potomac Crest subdivision have been blocking Mr.Mason from
<.0..q,.....
CO
Z
~
using the long established alleyway as shown on an old plat.It is Mr.
Mackley's opinion that the 12 foot right-of-way which Mr.Abbott wants
deleted from the plat is actually where the bed of the old 12 foot right-
of-way exists.Mr.Mackley states that he is requesting on behalf of Mr.
Mason that the Planning Commission not take any action on Mr.Abbott's
request until this matter is settled in Court.In Mr.France's opinion,
it is stated that there is no reason why the corrected plat cannot be
recorded and accepted by the Planning Commission.If neighbors acquired
a right-of-way by adverse possession or proscription over a portion of
the property reflected on the plat,the recording or not recording of the
plat and its acceptance or non-acceptance by the Planning Commission
would not affect their rights which would be established in Court.After
a discussion regarding the 12 foot right-of-way,Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to grant the replat of subdivision for Potomac Crest,Section A
which will remove the 12 foot right-of-way.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
Fountainhead Meadows:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Fountainhead Meadows,Section IlIA.The subject site is located along
the south side of Longmeadow Road.The owner is proposing to create 10
residential lots for semi-detached dwellings on 2.3 acres.Zoning is
Residential Urban.It was noted that this is the final section of
Fountainhead Meadows which consists of 91 lots total.Roads and
utilities were approved and constructed in previous sections of this
development.The proposed 10 lots were not previously approved because
they were located in a mapped floodplain.The consultant submitted a
request to have the F.E.M.A.floodplain maps corrected.F.E.M.A.has
issued a letter of conditional map revision with the condition being that
the maps will be revised once all work has been completed and the County
certifies that the work was done according to the F.E.M.A.requirements.
All other agency approvals have been received.Mr.West made a motion to
grant preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.Mr.
Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
CharI tons Grant:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Charltons
Grant,lots 2 through 23.The subject site is located along the east
side of Dam No.5 Road and the south side of Maryland Route 68.Zoning
is Agriculture.A preliminary consultation was held in 1990 for the
entire site.The owner is proposing to create 22 residential lots with
sizes ranging from 1 to 1.5 acres.Total area of the site is 27.2 acres.
There will be no remaining lands.The lots will be served by individual
wells and septic systems.The lots will be served by an interior street
to be called Charltons Court.Lots 2,3,6,7,8,and 9 will have access
onto Dam No.5 Road,lots 4 and 5 will have access onto the interior
street only and lots 14 through 17 will have access off Maryland Route
56.All agency approvals have been received.
An adjacent resident informed the Commission that him and his neighbors
are concerned with the development on Agricultural lands.He added it is
his opinion that all this development is sending a negative attitude to
the young people of the community.Mr.Bowers suggested that Eric
Seifarth be notified of this concern so the property owners can have an
opportunity to place their farms in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program.
Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval.Seconded by
Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Interstate Battery System:
11
Mr.Lung presented the site
is located between Route 40
1-70/Route 40 interchange.
plan for Interstate Battery System.The site
and Beaver Creek Road just east of the
Zoning is Highway Interchange.The owner is
12
proposing to construct a 35'x 60'building for the storage of trucks
associated with the existing business,Landscaping is proposed around
the front of the building.A dwelling is located on an adjacent property
to the south of the site and a 75 foot buffer is required.The Planning
Commission has the authority to establish additional buffers if deemed
necessary.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Bowers made a
motion to grant approval to the site plan as submitted.Seconded by Mr.
Iseminger.So ordered.
Oak Ridge Terrace -Insurance Office,
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Oak Ridge Terrace.The site is
located in the southeast corner of the intersection of East Oak Ridge
Drive and Maryland Route 65.Zoning is Highway Interchange.The owner
is proposing to construct a 1300 square foot building for the Allstate
Insurance Office with a drive-thru facility.Total area of the site is
1.49 acres.A dual access is proposed off Oak Ridge Drive to serve this
site as well as the existing Hagerstown Trust automatic teller machine
(ATM).The existing entrance to the ATM will be removed.A total of
five parking spaces are proposed for the new bUilding.Public water and
sewer will serve the site.A sign will be installed on the front of the
building,and exterior lighting will be building mounted and also
installed underneath the front canopy.Landscaping is proposed along the
side and rear of the bUilding and along the property lines adjacent to
the residential dwellings.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a
variance in August 1990 allowing for the reduction in building setback
lines.The front yard setback is now 40 feet instead of the required 50
feet,and side and rear yard setbacks is 25 feet instead of the required
75 feet.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variance based on the
following two conditions:1)the uses of the site shall be limited to the
principle permitted uses allowed in the Business Local zoning district
only and 2)the developer cannot impair the adjacent neighbors from using
the existing alley to the rear of the site.All agency approvals have
been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Martin Marietta -Pines burg Quarry,
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Martin Marietta -Pinesburg Quarry.
The site is located along the west side of Bottom Road approximately 3
miles west of Williamsport.The owner is proposing to expand its
existing mining operation which produces limestone aggregates.Total
area of the site is 406.6 acres and zoning is Industrial Mineral.The
acreage of the existing quarry operation is 82.4 acres and the proposed
area for expansion is 62.4 acres.The site is located within the
Rural/Agricultural Area.The closest Urban Growth Area Boundary is the
boundary associated with the Town of Williamsport.Adjacent property
around this site is zoned Agriculture.The C &0 Canal National
Historical Park is adjacent to the property to the south and has a
Historic Preservation Overlay classification.Approximately 30 adjacent
properties occupied by dwellings are located along Bottom Road and
Maryland Route 68.Along with the site plan application,the applicant
submitted a revised Mining and Reclamation Plan to the Department of
Natural Resources -Water Resources Administration for approval.The
Mining and Reclamation Plan does not require Planning Commission
approval.The Plan outlines the details of the mining operation and the
procedures for reclamation once mining ends.The Department of Natural
Resources has issued a letter to the Department of Permits and
Inspections indicating their approval of the Mining and Reclamation Plan
for this facility.
The subject site plan calls for the expansion of the existing pit.The
applicant is proposing a minimum 200 foot setback from the limit of
extraction to the property line.Within the 200 foot setback an earthern
berm,vegetative fence and wire fence will be constructed.This
application only involves the expansion of the existing pit with no
changes to the processing facility,the amount of truck traffic
generated,or hours of operation.As noted earlier,the applicant is
proposing a 200 foot setback from the limit of extraction to the property
(0
~,..-
IJJ
Z
:2:
line.The Washington County Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum
setback of 100 feet provided that coming within such distance will not
damage adjacent property or principle buildings.The Department of
Natural Resources has approved the 200 foot setback.As a part of the
approval of the Mining and Reclamation Plan,the Department of Natural
Resources has established a 500 foot blasting setback which is to be
measured from occupied dwellings that were in existence when the permit
was applied for (July 26,1990).This 500 foot setback was approved by
the Department of Natural Resources with the condition that when blasting
activity proceeds within 1000 feet of those occupied dwellings that were
in existence as of July 26,1990,the permittee (Martin Marietta)would
conduct a pre-blast survey.In addition to the blasting setback,there
are assurances of protection to adjacent properties regardless of
distance covered by DNR regulations that state that the permittee shall
conduct blasting so as not to cause injury to persons and/or damage to
public or private property.The blasting procedures are outlined in the
Mining and Reclamation Plan.There is no secondary blasting proposed for
this facility.
All staff comments have been addressed at this time.Due to the close
proximity of the C &0 Canal,there were concerns from the Historic
District Commission on the impact of the Canal from the expansion of the
Quarry.During a site visit,it was determined that the quarry is not
visible from the Canal due to an existing natural rock bluff along the
canal.
Mr.Lung noted that the State Attorney General's Office is currently
reviewing the State regulations concerning the setbacks for mining
activity and existing occupied dwellings.He added that the Planning
Commission may want to consider reserving the right to re-review this
plan if the Attorney General's ruling has any effect on this plan.
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the State Fire Marshal's Office was
contacted regarding blasting.The Fire Marshal's Office did not indicate
any history of complaints.Mr.Richard McEvoy,a concerned citizen,
stated that the residents of the area may not know who to contact with
complaints.
After a discussion between the Commission members and representatives
from Martin Marietta regarding the mining operation and depth of the pit,
Mr.Bowers made a motion to table this subject to a workshop session for
additional discussion.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Iseminger voted no.
So ordered.
Mr.Bowers and Mr.Moser left the meeting at 9:15 P.M.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Carl Hendershot -AD-90-37:
The Hendershot farm is located along the south side of Broadfording Road
near its intersection with Rockdale Road approximately 4 miles northeast
of the Town of Clear Spring.The farm consists of 117 acres and has 64%
qualifying soils.
Leon and Doris Bowers -AD-90-64 and AD-90-65:
The first Bowers farm is located 6 miles south of Sharpsburg along the
west side of Hoffmaster Road.This farm consists of 118.90 acres and has
57%qualifying soils.The second Bowers farm is located 1/2 mile south
of Rohrersville along the east side of Rohrersville Road.This farm
consists of 141.31 acres and has 92.38%qualifying soils.
J.Keith Meyers -AD-90-68.
The Meyers farm is located 1.5 miles south of Sharpsburg along the east
side of Harpers Ferry Road.The farm consists of 325 acres and has 67.2%
qualifying soils.
13
14
Earl B.Grove -AD-90-69:
The Grove farm is located 1 mile south of Hagerstown along the south side
of Poffenberger Road.The farm consists of 187.47 acres and has 78.74%
qualifying soils.The Grove farm lies just inside the adopted Urban
Growth Area for Hagerstown.While water and sewer services are not
scheduled for the farm,the house has public water.Also,about 600 feet
of road frontage along Maryland Route 65 is within the 201 Facilities
Plan proposed for the St.James service area.This would indicate a
stronger possibility for pUblic service.The Agricultural Advisory Board
has approved of this District.The staff is of the opinion that the
application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and if the
Planning Commission determines the same,the application can still be
presented during public hearing since the Advisory Board approved the
application.
G.Philip Nowak -AD-90-70 and AD-90-71:
The first Nowak farm is located 1.5 miles southwest of Sharpsburg along
the south side of Millers Sawmill Road.The farm consists of 135 acres
and has 80.1%qualifying soils.The second Nowak farm is located 2 miles
southwest of the Town of Sharpsburg along the west side of Millers
Sawmill Road.This farm consists of 206 acres and has 64.08%qualifying
soils.
Vera Ernst Schultz and Betty Ernst Bauer:
The Ernst/Schultz/Bauer farm is located 2 miles northeast of the Town of
Clear Spring along the north side of Broadfording Road.This farm
consists of 189.55 acres and has 66.36%qualifying soils.
Mr.West made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the
Hendershot,Bowers,Meyers,Nowak and Schultz/Bauer farms be included in
the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since they are all consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
After a discussion regarding the Urban Growth Area Boundary,Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the
Grove farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program even
though it's on the fringe of the adopted Urban Growth Area Boundary for
Hagerstown and since the Advisory Board approved the application.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultation:
Kenneth Bousely:
The written summary of the preliminary consultation for Kenneth Bousely
was presented to the Commission with nothing additional being added by
the staff.No action was taken by the Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS,
Eastern Boulevard Corridor Study Report:
Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that a copy of the Eastern Boulevard
Corridor Study Report is included in the agenda packet.She briefly
summarized the report for the Commission members.Mrs.Pietro stated
that the Committee recommended against a comprehensive rezoning for the
study area,however,they reserved the right to rezone an individual
parcel based on its own merits.She informed the Commission that traffic
counts will be conducted along Eastern Boulevard for the sections that
are within the City of Hagerstown.
Mr.Iseminger congratulated Mrs.Pietro and Mr.Goodrich on a job well
done.After a discussion regarding the report,by consensus,the
Commission tabled any action on this matter until further discussion can
be made during a workshop session.
15
Boonsboro Comprehensive Plan:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the Maryland State Clearinghouse
requested that the County review the proposed Boonsboro Comprehensive
Plan as it relates to current County Plans and Ordinances.He added that
the Planning staff is currently reviewing this proposed Plan and will be
drafting a letter to the Maryland State Clearinghouse with the County's
comments.After a discussion,no action was taken by the Commission.
2020 Commission -Senate Bill 227:
It was determined that this subject would be discussed during a workshop
session.
WORKSHOP SESSION:
Donald E.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
~-.~
The Planning Comnlission will hold a workshop session on Thursday,
February 14,1991 to discuss the Martin Marietta -Pines burg Quarry site
plan,the Eastern Boulevard Corridor Study and the 2020 Commission Senate
Bill #227.The meeting will be held in the County Administration
Building conference room #331 at 8:30 A.M.c.o
~,.-
CD
Z
~
16
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -FEBRUARY 14,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held a Special Meeting on
Thursday,February 14,1991 in the third floor conference room #331 of
the County Administration Building.
Members present were,Chairman,Donald E.Zombro;Vice-Chairman,
Bertrand L.Iseminger;Ex-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers;Carol Johnson and
Donald L.Spickler.Staff,Director,James P.Brittain;Senior Planner,
Stephen T.Goodrich;and Associate Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa
Kelly Pietro.Absent were Bernard Moser and Steve West.
CALL TO ORDER,
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 9,15 A.M.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS,
Site Plans,
Martin Marietta -Pinesburg Quarry,
Mr.Lung gave a brief summary of the staff's report for the site plan
application.He clarified the limits of the new permit area being
requested on this site plan.The new permit area involves 62.4 acres
located in the northern most and southwestern portion of the Martin
Marietta property.The new permit area is only a portion of the area
which is indicated on the site plan as "limit of future pit".The
remaining area was previously permitted.
In response to a question by Mr.Iseminger regarding the time table for
installation of berms and fencing,Mr.Lung informed the Commission that
this is a function of the D.N.R.review of the Mining and Reclamation
Plan,and that D.N.R.had responded to this question in a letter to Paul
Prodonovich dated December 17,1990 stating that •.•"when reviewing
Martin Marietta's request for permit modification,the existing site
conditions were considered.The installation schedule is acceptable to
the Department because the majority of the property is fenced with a
barbwire fence.The company is in the process of improving sections of
the fence to the type depicted on the plans,on an on-going basis."Mr.
Lung also informed the Commission that the Department of Permits and
Inspections had received approvals from all the Site Plan review
agencies,including County Engineer,State Highway Administration,Soil
Conservation Service and the Department of Natural Resources.
The Commission had a general discussion involving the responsibilities in
the site plan approval process,resource management,current County needs
of addressing criteria of expansion and protection of roads utilized in
the hauling process.Mr.Bowers felt that Washington County was too
liberal in regards to the ease of obtaining expansion permits and that
the County roadways were not adequately protected.
The Mayor of Williamsport spoke to the Commission about the concerns the
Council had regarding damage to State routes through the Town.Mr.
Sellers and Mr.Gale of Martin Marietta addressed a general willingness
to participate with the County in a road improvement program.They
stated until exact details of what the County's program would entail,
they could obviously not obligate the company at this time.
The Commission and Martin Marietta officials discussed the mining and
planning process currently underway at the Pinesburg site.Mr.Gale
outlined the company's position for seeking the mining permit and
associated permitted areas.In regard to the volumes available and
extracted under the current permit,Mr.Gale respectively stated such
data was proprietary information and the company wished to keep it
confidential for business reasons.
CD..q-
y-eoz
::?:
In concluding,the staff outlined the current status of the site plan and
what action the Commission needs to take.The staff also reiterated
D.N.R.'s current review of its administrative procedures relating to
setbacks for mining activity and existing occupied dwellings.This
review is being conducted by D.N.R.'s attorneys from the State Attorney
General's Office.The staff recommends approval of the site plan with
the Planning Commission reserving the right to re-review setbacks if the
D.N.R.'s attorney's ruling has an effect on this site plan.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table the matter until the staff has an
opportunity to determine the time table for a ruling on D.N.R.'s
administration of setback regulations.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So
ordered.
Eastern Boulevard Corridor Study Report:
Mrs.Pietro outlined the Report presented to the Commission at their
February meeting.In summarizing the Urban Growth Area Committee's
findings,methodologies and recommendations,it'was the Committee's
opinion that a comprehensive rezoning for the corridor was not
warranted.However,the Study also recommended the right to rezone an
individual parcel based on its own merits.
Mr.Spickler spoke of his concerns that if the Study's findings and
recommendations were adopted as presented,it could hinder the ability of
the Commission to rezone individual parcels.After a discussion of the
issue,the Commission,by consensus,felt that enough latitude was
present to rezone on a case by case basis based on the merits of each
individual case.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion that the Commission adopt the Urban Growth
Area Committee's Eastern Boulevard Study and forward a copy of the Study
to the Board of County Commissioners for their information and use.
Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Mr.Brittain stated that he would inform the Hagerstown Planning
Commission and staff of the Commission's actions.
2020 Commission -Senate Bill 227:
Mr.Brittain outlined the Senate Bill 227 "Maryland Growth and Chesapeake
Bay Protection Act"that was forwarded in the Commission's agenda
packet.As currently written,this Bill would require the County to
develop and implement an "Interim Growth and Resource Management
Program".It would be a significant departure from the current adopted
Urban Growth Area.The Interim Program would only include areas
currently having a S-3 sewer classification.All areas outside of the
"Interim Growth Area"and "Sensitive Areas"would be zoned at a 1
dwelling unit per 20 acre density."Sensitive Areas",ie.lOO-year
floodplains,intermittent and perennial streams and their buffers,
critical habitats of endangered species and steep slopes would have
extremely limited ability to be developed upon.
The staff outlined briefly an alternative being developed by MACa's
Planning Affiliate.Although the MACa alternative is a significant
improvement,it retains most of the "sensitive area"legislation.The
staff has significant reservations about this legislation especially in
the area of implementation and the ability to administer.
The staff informed the Commission that the Senate's Bill hearing date is
February 26,1991.The Commission strongly urged that the County be
represented to express the concerns of the Commission and Board of County
Commissioners.Mr.Brittain stated he would contact Mr.Teach regarding
the County's participation at the hearing.
ADJOURNMENT:
17
There being no further business,/the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 A.M.(\
/~.,
Done.id
18
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 4,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,March 4,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;
James P.Brittain,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate
Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber;Assistant Planner,
John E.Gudmundson and Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the minutes of the Regular
Meeting of February 4,1991 as presented.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the minutes of the Special
Meeting of February 14,1991 as presented.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.
So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the Department of Natural
Resources will be conducting an informational meeting to discuss the
Independent Cement proposed expansion.The meeting is tentatively
scheduled for April 4,1991 at 7:00 P.M.at Hagerstown Junior College
Mr.Brittain also stated that enclosed in the agenda packet are copiel
of two letters from D.N.R.to concerned citizens regarding the ICC
site plan.No action was taken by the Commission.
Martin Marietta -pinesburg Ouarry:
Mr.Brittain reminded the Commission that action was tabled on this
request until the staff had an opportunity to discuss with the
Department of Natural Resources its time table for a ruling on
D.N.R.'s administration of setback regulations.Mr.Larrimore with
the Department of Natural Resources recently informed Mr.Brittain
that D.N.R.'s attorneys,upon reviewing their regulations'procedures,
stated that the Minerals,Oil and Gas Division is correctly
administering the regulations at this time.Department of Natural
Resources setback requirements,as approved when the Martin Marietta
site plan was reviewed,stand and that revisions are not anticipated.
Those setbacks include 500 feet from the nearest resident as of the
date when the permit application was applied for mining expansion.
Mr.Brittain briefly reviewed the discussions held during the previous
two meetings and the zoning Ordinance's requirements for Site Plan
approval.
After discussing existing and possible future development around the
mining area and required setbacks,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
grant site plan approval with the 200 foot setback as indicated on the
plan and the provision that the developer comply with all the
requirements of the mining permit.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
(0
""",....
coz:a:
19
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Vincent Smith:
Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for Vincent Smith.The
site is located along the north side of U.S.Route 40 approximately 1
mile west of Huyetts Crossroads.The variance is being requested from
Section 202.20 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that an
immediate family member shall mean father,mother,step-father,step-
mother,son,daughter,brother,sister,step-son,step-daughter and
grandchild.Dr.Smith is proposing to convey six 1 acre lots to his
children.The property is currently owned by Dr.Smith's sister and
the request is to add nieces and nephews to the family member
definition in this case.In February 1989,the Planning Commission
granted a request to subdivide six lots to be conveyed to immediate
family members for Dr.Smith.This concept was granted with the
condition that the proposed 50 foot right-of-way be constructed as a
public road.In May 1989,Dr.Smith proposed~o use the cluster
concept for the subdivision.The Planning Commission approved the use
of the cluster provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with the condition
that the access be built to public road standards.The Commission
also presented the option of a private right-of-way for access but
would withdraw the cluster concept approval.Dr.Smith chose not to
construct the public road and requested a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals for reduction in lot sizes.This appeal was granted in
July 1989.Until submission of the subdivision plat for the first
lot,the staff was not aware that the property was actually owned by
Dr.Smith's sister,not him and could not meet the definition of an
immediate family transfer.The staff suggested that Dr.Smith take
title to the land first or request that the Planning Commission expand
the definition of immediate family (to neices/nephews)in this case.
Dr.Smith chose the latter.Mr.West made a motion to deny the
variance.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.The Commission stated that if
the property were owned by Dr.Smith,the conveyance could occur.So
ordered.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant staff authority to approve the
conveyance of lots to immediate family members once the property is
owned by Dr.Smith.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Andy and Cindy Taylor:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Andy and Cindy
Taylor.The subject site is located along the west side of Neck Road.
Zoning is Conservation.The variance is being requested from the
Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.G.5 which states the length of a
panhandle shall not exceed 400 feet.Mr.Taylor is proposing to
create a 60 acre lot with access via an 1800 foot long panhandle.
Topographic conditions along the proposed panhandle could be described
as relatively flat with an open field on one side and woods on the
other.The proposed lot is currently part of a 320 acre farm,
however,the 60 acre lot has never been farmed due to dense trees and
rock outcroppings.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance
request.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Karl Morrison:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Karl Morrison.The
site is located along the south side of Cool Hollow Road,
approximately 1 mile south of U.S.Route 40.The variance is being
requested from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance which
states that all new lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet of public
road frontage.Mr.Morrison is proposing to create a 1 acre lot
without the required 25 feet of frontage.The lot is being created
around an existing farmhouse that is accessed by an existing lane on
the Morrison's property.The purchaser of the lot is the farm tenant
who has lived in the house for approximately 12 years.The existing
farm lane is 12 feet in width.Mr.Spickler suggested that an
additional 13 feet be acquired to obtain a 25 foot right-of-way for
access to the lot.After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
20
table this request until the consultant could discuss the 25 foot
panhandle issue with his client.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Subdivisions:
Colonial Park East:
Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Colonial
Park East,Section B, C,D and E.The site is located east of
Colonial Drive,Cornell Avenue extended.The proposal calls for the
construction of 150 residential lots with Section B consisting of 46
lots,Section C consisting of 26 lots,Section D consisting of 36 lot
and Section E consisting of 42 lots.Zoning is Residential Suburban.
Section A was previously approved with 44 residential lots.Minimum
lot size for this development will be 10,000 square feet.Access to
these lots will be via four new County maintained roads to be called
Stanford Road (extension),Dartmouth Drive,Bradford Court and
Montclair Court.Mr.Brittain noted 'Bradford Court'needs to be
reviewed for road name duplication.The lots will be served by public
water and sewer.
The property involved in this subdivision was the subject of a
rezoning case (RZ-16l)which was approved in October 1977.This
rezoning was approved conditions upon traffic from a portion of the
lots from this site using the planned street as outlined in the
current Washington County Highway Plan as ingress and egress from the
development and that no access be provided through this development
from any other site to Colonial Park.In order to address this
condition,the Planning staff recommends that at the time of Final
plat submittal for Section E,Stanford Road will be extended to the
southern property line in order to connect with a possible new County
road to be constructed off Mt.Aetna Road in the vicinity of the Board
of Education property.This will require the developer to reconfigure
lots that are currently plotted around the cul-de-sac.If only the
right-of-way has been established (roadway not constructed),Stanford
Road would terminate with a temporary T-turnaround.
The staff suggested a pedestrian access from Montclair Court to the
Board of Education property should be provided for on the Final plat
for Section E.In addition,lots within Sections D and E effected by
the 100-year floodplain (approximate method)need to be addressed
prior to Final Plat submittal.All agency approvals have been
received.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat
approval and that the staff's concerns/recommendations be addressed
prior to Final Plat submittals.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Kretzer Farms:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Kretzer Farms,lots 1 through 5.The subject site is located along
the south side of Broadfording Road.Zoning is Agricultural.The
developer is proposing to create 5 residential lots with sizes ranging
from 1 to 12 acres.Total area of the site is 17.8 acres.The
proposed lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems.
Access to the lots will be via Broadfording Road.All agency
approvals have been received.
Mr.Spickler stated that it is his opinion that a note should be adde~
to the plan indicating that the H.B.Mellot Quarry is adjacent to
this development and that the County will not be responsible for noiSI
or property damage complaints.Mrs.Pietro added that a note has beel
added to the plan informing property owners of the quarry.Mr.
Spickler suggested that the developer incorporate additional setbacks
from the quarry for his development.Mr.Robert Holmes,consultant,
and Mr.Ted Kretzer,developer,stated that an additional 400 feet
will be established for setbacks along the property lines adjacent to
the quarry.Mr.Spickler made a motion to grant preliminary and final
plat approval conditional on the developer's 400 foot setback adjacent
to the quarry operation.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
(0
"""...-coz
~
21
Northbrook Estates:
Mr.Goodrich presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Northbrook
Estates.The subject site is located along the east side of Maryland
Route 60 east of the Marsh Pike.This property was the site of a
rezoning request to change its classification of Agricultural to
Residential Suburban.The developer is proposing to create 113
residential lots on 48 acres.One proposed entrance will be located
off Maryland Route 60 to five new public streets throughout the
development.The lots will be served by public water and sewer.
Proposed lot sizes will range from 1/4 to 3.1 acres each.There are
wetlands located on the property and State and Federal approvals are
needed prior to construction.The Planning staff is recommending
preliminary approval of this development with final approval pending
State and Federal approval of the wetland permits.The Commission
expressed concern about the short length of the access road to
Maryland Route 60 and questioned whether there was sufficient
"stacking distance".Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant preliminary
plat approval with the condition that the final plat comes back to the
Commission for approval due to the floodplain,wetlands and road
intersection concerns.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Prospect Hill:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat
for Prospect Hill,Section II,Lots 2 through,10.The site is located
along the east side of the intersection of Valley Road and U.S.Route
340.The developer is proposing to create 9 lots on 33.8 acres.Lots
will range in size between 3 and 5.2 acres.Zoning is Conservation.
All agency approvals have been received except for wetlands approvals
and the County Engineer.The County Engineer has issued preliminary
approval with final plat and construction plan approvals pending until
all necessary permits/approvals from the appropriate regulatory
agencies having jurisdiction over the affected wetlands have been
obtained by the owner/developer.Water Resources Administration has
stated that this development will not require a Waterway Construction
Permit.The County Engineer has stated that access to lot #10 onto
Valley Road will only be approved if the applicable regulatory
agencies prohibit the construction of the proposed driveway from this
lot onto Overlook Court.This subdivision joins U.S.Route 340,
however no access is permitted onto Route 340 due to denied access by
the Maryland state Highway Administration.The staff is recommending
preliminary approval with the staff being granted the authority to
issue Final Plat approval once the wetlands issue is approved.After
a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary
approval with the condition that the final plat be brought back to the
Planning Commission to discuss possible additional screening from
Maryland Route 340 along lots 6 and 7,the wetland permits being
approved,and access being established to lot 2 only from Overlook
Court being studied.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Arthur and George Maharay:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat
for Arthur and George Maharay.The site is located at the corner of
Dogstreet and Redhill Roads just south of Keedysville.The owner is
proposing to create 4 residential lots on 6 acres.The proposed lots
will range in size from 1 to 1.7 acres.Zoning is Agricultural.Lots
1 and 2 will share an existing entrance and lot 4 will be served by a
174 foot long panhandle.The lots will be served by individual wells
and septic systems.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.
Moser made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
22
Site Plans:
Gary Wright:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Gary Wright.The subject site
is located along the east side of the Sharpsburg Pike (Maryland Route
65).The owner is proposing to renovate an existing abandoned
structure for an insurance office on .75 acres.The site will be
served by public water and sewer which is existing.A total of 10
parking spaces are proposed.An existing dual access via Maryland
Route 65 will serve the site.The proposed sign and lighting will be
building mounted.The staff is requesting additional pole mounted
lights to the rear of the parking lot for safety purposes.The staff
is also requesting that screening be provided along the south side of
the parking area to shield the parking area from Interstate 70.
Mr.Fred Frederick,consultant,stated that the proposed building
mounted lights consists of 1000 watt quartz and will provide adequate
lighting for the parking area.He added that lighting will be mounted
under the gables on the roof.Mr.Moser suggested a low density pole
light for the parking area opposed to higher density pole lighting.
After a discussion,the Commission granted use of appropriate building
mounted lights.Mr.Frederick said that additional screening along
1-70 is not needed because Mr.Wright wants the visibility from the
interstate for security purposes.Mr.Iseminger suggested that
screening should be provided along the south side of the parking area
to shield headlights from this site to 1-70.Mr.Frederick suggested
installing a 4 foot high hedge along 1-70 which will shield headlights
but still provide visibility from the interstate.
After a brief discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site
plan approval conditional on the applicant meeting the lighting and
screening requirements.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Russell E.and Rosie D.snyder AD-90-77:
The Snyder farm is located 1/2 mile north of Bagtown along the west
side of Mt.Lena Road.The farm consists of 100 acres and is
classified as having 95.43%Class I,II,and III soils.
Marshall C.and Vera V.Kretzer AD-90-78:
The Kretzer farm is located 3 miles southeast of Clear Spring along
the north side of Maryland Route 68.The farm consists of 171.60
acres and is classified as having 88.48%Class I,II and III soils.
Dale R.and verda K.Winders AD-90-79:
The Winders farm borders Mapleville and Crystal Falls Roads and lies 3
miles east of Hagerstown.The farm consists of 225 acres and is
classified as having 74%Class I,II and III soils.
John M.and Orpha G.Eshelman AD-90-80 and AD-90-81:
The first Eshelman farm is located along the north side of Eden Road
and the west side of Paradise Church Road approximately 2 miles north
of Hagerstown.This farm consists of 135 acres and is classified as
having 88.84%Class I,II and III soils.The second Eshelman farm is
located along the south side of Reid Road 2 1/4 miles north of
Hagerstown.This farm consists of 109.77 acres and is classified as
having 82%Class I,II and III soils.
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the above-referenced farms be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation Program since they are all consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
co
""""I""""
OJ
Z
~
23
Preliminary Consultations:
Clair Miller -Intensive Swine Facility Expansion:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the written summary of the
preliminary consultation for Clair Miller is included in the agenda
packet.Mr.Miller is not proposing to increase the number of animals
involved in this operation by the construction of a new building.In
addition Mr.Miller is not planning on removing the old building.
Therefore,he will be increasing his capacity to house additional
animals.During the consultation,the reviewing agencies made no
recommendations for additional requirements.The proposed expansion
meets all the setback requirements as stated in the Ordinance.The
County Extension Agent has determined that any possible additional
waste generation based on the increase in the capacity to house can be
provided for under Mr.Miller's current Waste Management Plan.The
Commission needs to approve the concept plan as submitted conditional
on receipt of a 'letter of recommendation'for approval from the Soil
Conservation Service.Mr.Spickler made a motion to approve the
concept plan as submitted with the condition of receiving a letter of
approval from the Soil Conservation Service.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.
So ordered.
Dr.John Schneider:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the written summary of the
preliminary consultation for Dr.John Schneider in included in the
agenda packet.Dr.Schneider is proposing to construct warehouse type
commercial uses on the property which is located within the boundary
of the Beaver Creek Special Planning Area.A letter has been sent to
stan Wong,Chief of the Waterway Permits Division with Water Resources
Administration,with copies to the Water Supply Division and Fresh
Water Fisheries Division,informing him of the concern of this
development within this special planning area.Once comments are
received from Water Resources Administration indicating the impact
this development may have on the hatchery,the Planning Commission
will be informed.After a discussion regarding the special planning
area,the Commission directed the staff to request additional
information from the developer regarding the intensity of the
development.Points of concern to be addressed now and in the future
are;types of uses,projected traffic volumes,stormwater runoff and
management,amounts of groundwater and septage,and the environmental
impact of these concerns.The Commission deferred any comment on the
proposed development until additional input has been received.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Demolition Permit -Kevin Hatfield:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that Mr.Hatfield is proposing to
demolish a barn which is located along the east side of Maryland Route
62 approximately 1/2 mile south of Old Forge Road.This site is
listed on the Washington County Historic Sites Survey,however,the
survey does not include the barn.The survey is for the house which
is called 'The Hive'.The Historic District Commission will review
this proposal at its March 6th meeting.After a brief discussion,Mr.
Moser made a motion to defer this request to the Historic District
Commission.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Cpmprehensive Plan Status Report:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that a copy of the narrative
regarding the goals and accomplishments of the Comprehensive Plan
since its adoption in 1981 is included in the agenda packet.He
informed them that a binder has been put together to include the
individual reports prepared for the projects that accomplish the goals
of the Comprehensive Plan.Each of the County Commissioners was
provided a copy for future reference.After a discussion,the
Commission suggested to forward a copy of the complete binder to the
2020 Commission.
24
ADJOURNMENT'
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10,00 P.M.
U"
.\')Ic;)~/.Q,il.~Q"""V~
Donald E~Zombr~Cnairman
,
(0
~,...-
enz
:2:
25
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -APRIL I,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,April I,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;Ex-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,and Donald Spickler.Staff:Director;James P.
Brittain,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;
Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber,Assistant
Planner;John Gudmundson and Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.Steven West
was absent.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Iseminger stated that under the site plan for Gary Wright,the
sentence in the second paragraph should read "Mr.Iseminger suggested
that screening should be provided along the south side of the parking
area to shield headlights from this site to Maryland Route 65"and not
1-70.Mr.Iseminger also stated that under Martin Marietta -
Pinesburg Quarry,the motion should have read:"grant site plan
approval with the 200 foot setback as indicated on the plan as well as
the 500 feet from the nearest resident as of the date when the permit
application was applied for mining expansion and conditional that the
developer comply with all the requirements of the Washington County
Zoning Ordinance;specifically Section 15.3,items F,G,and H;and
also Section 15.2.The developer must also comply with all the
requirements of the mining permit.This approval is based on the fact
that the Quarry is not located within the limits of the Urban Growth
Area boundary and due to the lack of heavy residential development in
the area.If these requirements are not met,the site plan will be
brought back to the Commission for its review.
Mr.Spickler stated that under the Kretzer Farms subdivision,the
motion should be written to state that the Commission accepted the
developer's offer for an additional 400 foot setback adjacent to the
H.B.Mellott Quarry.
Mr.Bowers noted that under the Snyder Agricultural Land Preservation
District application,the minutes state that the farm is located 1/2
mile north of Bagtown.Mr.Bowers said that Bagtown does not exist.
The location should read 4 miles southeast of Hagerstown along the
west side of Mt.Lena Road.Mr.Bowers also noted that under the
Winders Agricultural Land Preservation District application,
Mapleville Road should be changed to Maryland Route 66.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes as revised.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
pNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Brittain reminded the Commission that the Department of Natural
Resources will be conducting an informational meeting to discuss the
Independent Cement proposed expansion.The meeting will be held on
April 4,1991 at 7:00 P.M.at the Hagerstown Junior College in the
Classroom Building Room No.C-11.Mr.Brittain distributed copies of
letters from the Department of Natural Resources regarding a response
to questions by Richard McEvoy,Chairman of H.O.P.E.,for the
Commission's information.No action was taken by the Commission.
26
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Karl Morrison:
Mr.Schreiber reminded the Commission that this variance request was
tabled during the March meeting.The site is located along the south
side of Cool Hollow Road,approximately 1 mile south of U.S.Route 40.
The variance is being requested from Section 405.11.B of the
Subdivision Ordinance which states that all new lots shall have a
minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage.Mr.Morrison is proposing
to create a 1 acre lot without the required 25 feet of frontage.The
lot is being created around an existing farmhouse that is accessed by
an existing lane on the Morrison's property.The purchaser of the lot
is the farm tenant who has lived in the house for approximately 12
years.The existing farm lane is 12 feet in width.During the March
meeting,the Commission requested that a 25 foot panhandle be conveyed
in fee simple ownership rather than no frontage at all.Since the
March meeting,Melvin Gladhill,consultant,has responded to the
Commission's request by letter dated March 6,1991.Mr.Morrison
requested that the Planning Commission grant the variance allowing the
lot to be created without frontage on a public road as originally
requested.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the variance as proposed.
Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.,
Thomas and Donna Tedrick:
~r.Gudmundson presented the variance request for Thomas and Donna
Tedrick.The subject site is located along the north side of Barnhart
Road,.4 miles east of Mercersburg Road,north of Clear Spring.The
variance is being requested from Section 405.11.G and 405.11.B,1 of
the Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant is proposing to convert a
simplified lot to a development lot with a panhandle longer than the
maximum 400 feet and to subdivide it for family members even though
the lane was not existing at the time of purchase by the Tedricks.
The applicant currently owns the 6.9 acre parcel,created in 1976 as a
simplified lot,not for development,part of which has been used as a
garden.They now wish to convert it to a development lot and further
subdivide it into three lots,one for themselves and two for their
children.As the lot exists now,it has a 25 foot wide panhandle 655
feet in length.The Tedrick's have maintained a garden on the lot and
have used the panhandle for access.The panhandle is not in a
condition which could be described as an existing lane,which is a
requirement for family member conveyance.
Mrs.Tedrick informed the Commission that at the time of purchase,
they were unaware that the lot could not be developed for single-
family use.She added that she has a letter indicating that the road
did exist prior to them purchasing it,and that an adjacent neighbor
is maintaining the panhandle in grass for access to the lot.
After a brief discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the
variance on the panhandle length from 400 feet to 655 feet.Seconded
by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Spickler made a motion indicating
that the 25 foot wide panhandle is to be considered as existing at the
time of the original conveyance of the lot.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.
So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Gower Estates:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the developer has requested
that this subdivision plat be withdrawn from the agenda at this time
due to Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance's requirements that need
to be addressed prior to its consideration.
(0
-=:::t,.-
CDz
~
27
Hunt Ridge Business Park/Leroy Merritt:
Mrs.Pietro presented the revised preliminary plat/site plan for the
Hunt Ridge Business Park,lot 1.The site is located along the south
side of Maryland Route 144.Zoning is Highway Interchange.A site
plan for the existing building on lot 1 was approved by the Planning
Commission in April 1990 and a preliminary/final subdivision plat was
approved in December 1990.This revised plat shows the addition of a
warehouse facility.The developer is proposing to enlarge the 4 acre
parcel to encompass 10.5 acres.The developer is proposing to create
a 94,000 square foot warehouse addition.Public water and sewer will
serve the new addition.A total of 211 parking spaces are proposed.
Two additional dumpsters will be provided to the rear of the warehouse
area and will be enclosed.Lighting will be building and pole
mounted.There will be a building mounted sign on the front of the
warehouse.A total of four access points will be off Insurance Way.
No direct access from this site onto Maryland Route 144 is permitted.
Insurance Way will be extended and dedicated to the County.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Bowers made a motion to
grant preliminary plat/site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.By consensus,the final plat will be approved by the staff
once all requirements have been met.
Site Plans:
Village Sguare Shopping Center:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Village Square Shopping
Center.She distributed a copy of a letter from the Town of
Smithsburg indicating that pre-treatment of sewage may be possible
depending on the type of sewage being generated by this development.
The subject site is located along the south side of Maryland Route 64.
Zoni.ng is Business Local.Approximately 4 acres of the site was
rezoned from Business Transitional to Business Local in May 1990.The
developer is proposing to create a 45,685 square foot building on 5.5
acres for a shopping center/grocery store.A dual access is proposed
off Maryland Route 64.A total of 208 parking spaces will be provided
along the front,side and rear of the building and will include 10
handicap parking spaces.Landscaping will be installed along the
property lines and within the parking area.A 6 x 12 sign will be
installed at the front of the entrance location.Lighting will be
building and pole mounted through the parking area.A loading area is
proposed to the rear of the grocery and retail stores.Public water
and sewer will serve the site.A sewage pumping station will be
located on-site and will be underground.Water lines are existing in
Maryland Route 64.Sewage lines will be extended approximately 6,100
feet,at the developer's expense along Maryland Route 64 to the
Blueberry Heights subdivision.The sewage lines will be used solely
by this development,however,they do have the capacity for future
hook ups depending on the proposed use.The subject site has a S-5
sewer priority designation (service planned within 5 to 10 years).
The Sanitary District will own,maintain and operate the sewer lines
and pumping station.Proposed grading of this site will affect
adjacent properties.Mr.Paul prodonovich,Zoning Administrator,has
stated that letters from the adjacent property owners stating that
they have no objection to the grading must be received prior to the
issuance of permits.There are two outstanding letters.from adjacent
property owners.
Mr.Lewis,an adjacent property owner whose property will need to be
graded,informed the Commission that he has no objection to the
grading but would like to work with the developer on the grading plan.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval conditional on
the developer meeting all the requirements of the Town of Smithsburg
on the treatment of sewage and the Permits Office obtaining all
letters from adjacent property owners regarding the grading plan.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
28
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Huyette and Kathryn Oswald AD-90-66:
The Oswald farm is located 3 miles east of Hagerstown along the
northeast side of Chewsville Road.This farm is part or property
which was previously subdivided to convey to the Oswald's children.
The farm encompasses 37.04 acres and has 100%qualifying soils.
David,Nancy and Louise Oswald AD-90-74:
This Oswald farm is part of the farm mentioned previously in AD-90-66.
The farm is also located 3 miles east of Hagerstown along the
northeast side of Chewsville Road.The farm encompasses 58.9 acres
and has 90.65%qualifying soils.
Huyette and Kathryn Oswald AD-90-75:
This Oswald farm is also a portion of the farm mentioned in
and is located along the northeast side of Chewsville Road.
encompasses 75.75 acres and has 94.74%qualifying soils.
Sunnyland Corporation -Ray Burger AD-90-84:
AD-90-66
The farn\
The Ray Burger farm lies along the south and east sides of Falling
Waters Road and along the west side of Spielman Road (MD Route 63)
approximately 1 mile south of Williamsport.The farm encompasses 301
acres and has 51.17%qualifying soils.
Sunnyland Corporation -Ray Burger AD-90-86:
The Sunnyland Corporation farm lies along the east side of Dam No.4
Road just north of the Potomac River.The farm encompasses 182.42
acres and has 100%qualifying soils.
Sunnyland Corporation -Ray Burger AD-90-87:
The Sunnyland Corporation farm is located along the east
Waters Road approximately 2 miles south of Williamsport.
encompasses 119 acres and has 66.23%qualifying soils.
Terry Price AD-91-1:
of Falling
This farm
The Price farm is located along the
1/2 miles southeast of Downsville.
and has 51.35%qualifying soils.
Paul and Anna Shockey:
north side of Bakersville Road 2
The farm encompasses 273.9 acres
The Shockey farm is located along the north side of Maryland Route 418
in Ringgold.The farm encompasses 72.21 acres and has 94.6%
qualifying soils.This farm is contiguous to 463 District acres.
Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
that the above-referenced farms be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation Program since they are all consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.
Preliminary Consultation:
Western Commercial Funding:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary consultation summary for Western
Commercial Funding.The site is located along the west side of
Crystal Falls Road and south of Republican Avenue.The developer is
proposing to create 21 residential lots with sizes ranging from 1 to
1.8 acres.Total acreage of the site is 32 acres.A total of 14 lots
were previously approved.The concept plan will be revised per
comments received from the County Engineer.Due to the inadequacy of
Republic Avenue,the County Engineer has stated that no access will be
permitted.He recommended that the proposed interior street end with
CDoq-,......
IJJ
Z
~
29
a cul-d~-sac and lots 22,23,24 and 25 acc~ss onto th~int~rior
street.He also stated that the right-of-way at the intersection of
the new street and Crystal Falls Road must be flared to allow for the
pavement radius.
Mr.Iseminger asked if any comments were received from Stan Wong
regarding the impact on the Beaver Creek Special Planning Area.Mrs.
Pietro stated that she spoke with Susan Rivers with the Beaver Creek
Fish Hatchery and she informed the Planning staff that the Hatchery
has no problems with this proposal.
After a discussion and by consensus,the Planning Commission will
require that a hydrogeologic study be performed for this development.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance Procedur~s:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that the staff has received
several requests from property owners to determine if the roads
fronting proposed subdivisions are adequate prior to plat submittal.
These requests have been presented to the County Engineer and in some
cases the County Engineer has determined that the roads are inadequate
for additional traffic.Therefore,these proposals for development
will be denied by the County Engineer unless the road is improved to
current County standards.The staff is requesting direction from the
Planning Commission on whether these requests should be brought to the
Commission for their action or if the staff has the authority to
-inform the property OWTler that the Planning Commission will deny the
subdivision due to the inadequate road.After a discussion,the
Commission,by consensus,stated that the staff can inform property
owners that the Commission will not over-ride the County Engineer's
decision on inadequate roadways.So ordered.
Capital Improvements Program FY'92-'97:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that a draft copy dated
March 19,1991 of the capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1992
to 1997 is included in the agenda packet.The CIP Committee has
reviewed departmental and agency requests totaling $27,119.159.The
Committee will be recommending a Capital Budget of $13,800,000 in
local funds to the Board of County Commissioners.Mr.Brittain stated
the Commission should review the CIP and inform the staff of any
recommendations or comments at the May meeting.No action was taken
by the Commission.
Special Meeting:
A Special Meeting will be held on Monday,April 22,1991 at 5:30 P.M.
to render decisions on rezoing cases heard during the March 11th
public hearing and the Water and Sewerage Plan map amendments that
were heard during the March 26th public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
30
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 23,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Tuesday,April 23,1991 in the third floor conference room #331 of the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;
James P.Brittain,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate
Planners;Timothy Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro &Secretary,Janet Walkley.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:30 P.M.
Quarry Operations and Setbacks:
Mr.Richard J.McEvoy,Chairman of H.O.P.E.,made a presentation to
the Planning Commission regarding quarry operations and setbacks in
general within Washington County.In addition,Mr.McEvoy addressed
specific problems with quarry setbacks and outlined solutions
proposed by his organization.He distributed a handout to the
Commission titled "Quarry Setbacks -Sharing the Community"dated
April 23,1991 which summarized the position of H.O.P.E.
Rezoning Cases:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that due to a Special Appeals
Court decision,the Planning Commission staff is requesting that
rezoning cases RZ-91-7 and RZ-91-8 be tabled until the County Attorney
can review the recent Court decision for applicability to these cases.
Mrs.Johnson made a motion to table these rezoning cases until an
opinion is received from the County Attorney.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Bowers abstained.
RZ-91-1 Stan Valentine
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the staff had nothing to add to
the Staff Report Following the Public Hearing.Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the rezoning of
RZ-91-1 based on it meeting all the requirements of Section 16.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance.The Planning Commission adopts the staff's
findings of fact as the Commission's findings of fact.Seconded by
Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
RZ-91-2 Stan Valentine
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the staff had nothing to add to
the Staff Report Following the Public Hearing.He reminded the
Commission that if the PUD request is approved,further review of the
proposed development will occur with Preliminary and Final Development
Plans,Site Plans and subdivision plats.Extension of public
facilities and road improvements will be discussed during those stages
of development.
Mr.Spickler questioned if the developer will be participating in road
improvements along Robinwood Drive for this development.Mr.Lung
said that the County Engineer has not determined what improvements,ij
any,will be required.He added that a traffic light may be necessa~
at the proposed access road for Woodbridge and Robinwood Drive.Any
agreements for responsibilities between the County and the developer
for providing on-site and off-site improvements are required as part
of the Final Development Plan.
Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
the approval of RZ-91-2 based on the fact that it meets the criteria
setforth in Section 16.0 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission adopts the staff's findings of fact as the
Commission's findings of fact.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
RZ-91-4 Lawrence and Stan1ev Banks
31
Mrs.Pietro stated that the staff has nothing to add to the Staff
Report Following the Public Hearing for this rezoning case.After a
brief discussion,Mr.West made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners the adoption of RZ-91-4 based on the fact that a mistake
in the original zoning occurred in 1973 and that a BG zoning
classification should have been established for the existing
commercial use.The Planning Commission adopts the staff's findings
of fact as the Commission's findings of fact.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Goodrich stated that the staff has nothing to add to the Staff
Report Following the Public Hearing.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners the adoption of RZ-9l-6 based on
the applicant meeting criteria established in Sections 20.4 and 205 of
the Zoning Ordinance.The Planning Commission adopts the staff's
findings of fact as the Commission's findings of fact.Seconded by
Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that the staff has nothing to add
to the Staff Report Following the Public Hearing.Mr.Goodrich did
remind the Commission that the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone does
not require a change or mistake to be addressed.Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the adoption of
RZ-9l-5 based on the applicant meeting criteria established in
Sections 20.4 and 20.5 of the zoning Ordinance.The Planning
Commission adopts the staff's fifldings of fact as the Commission's
findings of fact.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.
CD..q,....
CD
Z
~
RZ-91-5
RZ-91-6
RZ-91-9
Kathleen M.Rilev and William S.Maharav
Todd L.Hershev
Section 19.4
Mr.Brittain stated that the staff has nothing to add to the Staff
Report Following the Public Hearing.No additional testimony was
received during the 10-day comment period.Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the adoption of the
text amendment for Rz-9l-9 as advertised.The Commission found that
the proposed text amendment will clarify Section 19.4 of the
Washington County Zoning Ordinance.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.
Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Water and Sewerage Plan Amendments:
WS-9l-l Town of Boonsboro -Mountain Laurel Road Area
Mr.Lung stated that the staff has nothing to add to the Staff Report
Following the Public Hearing.He reminded the Commission that
Appendix B of the Water and Sewerage Plan outlines the Planning
COlnmission's role in making recommendation concerning Water and
Sewerage Plan amendments.Those four criteria are:1)impact of the
proposal on the potential service area,2)compatibility with other
plans for service,3)compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan for
Washington County,and 4)impact on the existing service area.Mr.
Lung added that for the area to be served by Boonsboro public sewer
service,the area would have to be annexed into the Town of Boonsboro
and another Water and Sewerage Plan amendment would be required.Mr.
Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the
approval of WS-9l-l based on it's consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
32
WS-91-2 Washinoton Copntv Sanit~v District -St.James School
Mr.Lpng informed the Commission that this area is located outside of
the established Urban Growth Area however,the request for public
service is to correct an existing health problem.Mr.Lung added that
without a condition on the amendment,the possibility wopld exist that
the undeveloped land of St.James School could be developed at a
higher density than what could normally occur with wells and septic
systems.After a discussion,Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend
to the County Commissioners the approval of WS-91-2 with the condition
that the facilities and associated service classifications being usee
solely for institutional purposes,and that the amendment with the
recommended conditions is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
WS-91-3 Continental Investment Corporation
Mr.Goodrich stated that the staff has nothing to add to the Staff
Report Following the Public Hearing.
Mr.West asked the staff to review the implications of the fact that
the treatment facility was propo~ed verbally during the public hearing
and not in the written application and how this impacts the
Commission's proceedings.Mr.Goodrich said that it is the staff's
opinion that the Commission should act on the application as submitted
which did not include the treatment plant.He added that the
treatment plant was not advertised,the staff did not evaluate it and
no one from the general public was aware of it until it was mentioned
during the hearing.
Mr.Spickler asked for further elaboration on the availability of
public water to the site.There are two water lines in front of the
property and the Water Department has stated the City of Hagerstown
draws enough water from the Potomac River to serve this site.
However,if 731 homes are hooked up to the water system,there will b
a drop in pressure that the developer will be responsible to correct.
In the staff's opinion,public water service is available and can be
provided to the site with some improvements to the system.
Mr.Spickler also asked about the relationship between existing
Subdistrict 16 and the 201 Facilities Plan.Mr.Goodrich responded
that the 201 Plan is an inventory document and planning tool which
identifies problem areas and proposes alternatives to solve them.A
service area was identified in the St.James/Clover Heights area due
to existing sewage disposal problems.The Plan suggests providing
public sewer service to the existing development via treatment by the
plant at the prison complex.In 1982 Subdistrict 16 was created to
reserve capacity at that treatment plant for the proposed service
area.When asked if the reserved capacity was still physically
available,Mr.Goodrich said he did not know the cprrent status.
Mr.Moser reiterated his impression of the 201 Facilities Plan as a
planning document.It's his opinion that the 201 Facilities Plan was
created to study the St.James Village/Clover Heights area and not for
sewering the adjacent farm land.Mr.Moser stated that he is
concerned with the surrounding farm land in the area as it relates to
the Comprehensive Plan.It's Mr.Moser opinion,from the three
choices supplied in the Staff Report,that the majority of the
property is outside of the adopted Urban Growth Area.Mr.Moser said
he also has a concern with the impact on an overburdened state
highway.
Mr.West said it's his opinion that it's the size of the development
which causes public concern.He added that even though this is an
aggressive and large-scale plan,it possibly may not be much different
than 10 developments of 70 units each over the next 20 years.Mr.
West stated it's very healthy for Washington County to attract outside
investors who are interested in investing money in our community.He
added that it's his opinion that a development this size will make
Washington County prosper economically.
<0
~,....
roz
~
33
Mrs.Johnson asked if there were any stipulations or restrictions on
the use of the public water line when it was installed.Mr.Goodrich
said that he is unaware of any restrictions and that if there were
any,the Water Department would have informed the Planning staff when
it commented on the application.Mrs.Johnson added that she has the
same concerns as stated by Mr.Moser for this property.
Mr.Spickler stated that the Urban Growth Area boundary line is not
etched in stone.It's Mr.Spickler's opinion that the proposed
subdivision is within the Urban Growth Area.The property has access
to services which other areas of the County do not.If the County is
to direct growth in the Growth Areas,this is an area where growth
should be encouraged.He added that it's his opinion that public
facilities are available to the site.
Mr.Moser questioned if the Water and sewerage Plan amendment request
was approved and there was no capacity available at the treatment
plant at the prison,how would the site be served?Mr.Goodrich said
that other treatment locations,such as Hagerstown,Halfway or
conococheague,or a package treatment plant would have to be
investigated.Mr.Spickler said that approving an S-5 sewer priority
classification would indicate that public sewer service would be
available within 5 years to 10 years.Mr.Goodrich stated that any
designation other than S-7 will allow public services to be provided
to this site.The time periods are a guide and not inflexible.
Mrs.Johnson asked if comments had been received from the Board of
Education regarding adequacy of the school system.Mr.Goodrich said
that comments were received during the preliminary consultation in
February 1990.At that time,the Board of Education has expressed
concerns about the capacity of all the schools which will serve the
site.Since that time,the number of units has been reduced from 1100
to 731 and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (A.P.F.O.)exempts
single-family developments in the Urban Growth Area from having to met
the adequacy requirements for schools.No further comments from the
Board of Education have been received.
Mr.Moser asked where the Sanitary District's study stands as it
relates to St.James Village/Clover Heights.Mr.Goodrich said a
Draft Version has been submitted to the Sanitary District by the
engineering consultant.No final documents or conclusions have been
made.
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the
denial of WS-9l-3 since the proposed amendment is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.As a result of the
motion,Mr.Moser and Mrs.Johnson voted yes,Mr.West,Mr.Spickler
voted no,Mr.Zombro voted no to break the tie,and Mr.Iseminger and
Mr.Bowers abstained.
Mr.West made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the
adoption of WS-9l-3 as submitted.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.As a
result of the motion,Mr.West and Mr.Spickler voted yes,Mr.Moser
and Mrs.Johnson voted no,Mr.Zombro voted yes to break the tie,and
Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
WS-9l-4 SharpsburqAmerican Leqion
Mr.Goodrich stated that the staff has nothing to add to the Staff
Report Following the Public Hearing.There is no Growth Area around
the Town of Sharpsburg nor is there an intention to establish one at
this time.The Town of Sharpsburg is considered a Rural Village.
This amendment request is for a specific use for a new development.
After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners the adoption of WS-9l-4 to change the water
service priority designation of W-7 to W-3 and that the recommendation
of approval applies only to the American Legion on this site.The
amendment would be null and void if a different use is proposed for
this site.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So
ordered.
w+>-
>-3 E;;:Tro Co<
ti 0roc::
::0
0-§!ro
1-"I:<l
::l Z
<Q >-3
::l
0
'""s::
ti
rt
;:Tro
ti
0-s::rn
1-"
::lrornrn-
rt
;:Tro
Sroro
rt
1-"
::l
<Q
IIIa-u.
0s::
ti
::lfu~rona-
;:T
III III
1-"rtg-J
III ..
::l w
0
'0
is:.
(0
~..,.-
c:lz
~
3S
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 6,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,May 6,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,and Donald Spickler.Staff:Director;James P.
Brittain,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and
Edward Schreiber,Assistant Planner;John Gudmundson and Secretary,
Janet L.Walkley.Absent was Steve West.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
+
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the April regular
meeting of April 1,1991 as written.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So
ordered.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 23rd
Special Meeting as written.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation -Update:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the staff still needs
comments from the Department of Natural Resources regarding their
requirements for the proposed quarry expansion.No action was taken
by the Commission.
Martin Marietta -Pinesburg Ouarry:
Mr.Brittain stated that the Commission received a memo from the staff
outlining how all the items of concern of the Planning Commission had
been addressed on the site plan.Mr.Iseminger stated that the
Commission had concerns on the impact of the existing roads if
Pinesburg Quarry would expand and asked the status of the discussion
between the Town of Williamsport and Martin Marietta officials.Mr.
Doug Gale with Martin Marietta informed the Commission that they met
with the Mayor and Council of the Town of Williamsport.The Mayor and
Council will discuss recommendations for improvements to the roadways
and will contact Martin Marietta with comments.Mr.Brittain informed
the Commission that the County Commissioners have the opportunity to
set a performance bond regarding road improvements.Mr.Brittain
added that Paul Prodonovich will be forwarding a copy of the site plan
to the Commissioners to determine if a performance bond will be
required.
pEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Highland Manor,Phase III:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Highland
Manor,Phase III,lots 153 through 208.The subject site is located
along the west side of Maryland Route 63 just south of Huyetts
Crossroads.Lots 1 through 77 were approved in January,1988,lots 78
through 91 approved October,1988 and lots 92 through 153 were
approved in March,1989.Phase III is the final section for
residential development.A total of 3.3 acres is reserved for future
commercial use and a site plan will be required prior to development.
Phase III will consist of 55 modular home lots on 9 acres.Minimum
lot sizes will be 4400 square feet.Public water and sewer will serve
36
the site.A school bus waiting area will be adjacent to lot 102 and
will be constructed during Phase III.There is a 100-year floodplain
on the site and no construction is proposed in this area.All agency
approval have been received.Mr.Spickler asked how the Clear Spring
school district will be effected by this development as it relates to
the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.Brittain stated that
this development is exempt from the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance since single-family home lots are proposed and the site is
located within the Urban Growth Area.He added that as far as
capacity is concerned,the Clear Spring schools have existing
capacity.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat
approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
B &E Associates:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
B &E Associates,Lot 2.The site is located along the east side of
Robinwood Drive just south of Jefferson Boulevard.The owner is
proposing to create a 1.6 acre lot to include the existing site of
Ewing Oil.There are no development proposals for the remaining
10 acres.During the March 1990 regular meeting,a concept was
presented to the Commission showing the septic reserve area to be
located off-site and approval was granted by the Commission for this
arrangement.An easement has been established for lot 2 for the
septic reserve area.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Wildflower Meadows:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Wildflower Meadows,lots 2,3 and 4.The site is located along the
east side of St.Pauls Road.Zoning is Agricultural.The
Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural/Agricultural.A
preliminary consultation was held in November 1990 for the 83 lot
residential development.The 5.68 acre will be subdivided into three
lots with sizes ranging from 1.5 to 2 acres.A total of 100 acres
will remain.Individual wells and septic systems will serve the site.
The three proposed lots will front along St.Pauls Road.St.Pauls
Road to the south of the site is considered to be inadequate by the
County Engineer.These lots qualify for an exemption from the
requirements of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance under Section
4.11.The requirements under Section 4.11 states that there must
exist in the original tract of land twenty-five acres per each lot
subdivided for a total of no more than four lots,and the road width
in front of each lot to be subdivided is no less than 16 feet.These
three lots meet these requirements.If a fifth lot were to be
subdivided from the remaining lands,road improvements must be made
prior to subdivision approval.There are two existing structures
known as the Strite Farm located on lot 2 which are listed on the
Washington County Historic Sites Survey.If these structures were
ever to be removed,approval from the Historic District Commission
would be required prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Spickler stated that the
southern portion of the site located adjacent to the barn is a
wetland.He asked how that area perked and Mr.Frederick,consultant,
said that there is an approved perculation hole for that lot from the
Health Department.Mr.Schreiber added that the Health Department
requested revisions on that lot and the location of the perc area
should be satisfactory.After a discussion of an exemption from the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance regarding the 25 acres per lot
and the width of St.Pauls Road,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant
preliminary and final plat approval conditional on the staff
rechecking with the Health Department on the approved location of the
perc hole for lot 2 and that no more than one additional lot can be
subdivided from this remaining lands until St.Pauls Road is improved
to 18 feet in width.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
(0
""",....
CD
Z
~
37
Stirewalt Subdivision:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat
for the Stirewalt Subdivision.The site is located along both sides
of Edgemont Road between Frazier and Mong Roads.The owner is
proposing to create three lots on 7.5 acres with 6 acres of remaining
lands.Lots 1 and 2 are zoned Agricultural and lot 3 is zoned
Conservation.Lots 1 and 2 border a private lane but will have direct
access to Edgemont Road.The remaining lands are split by Edgemont
Road.The proposed lots will be served by individual wells and septic
systems.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a
motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.So ordered.
Orchard Meadows Section A:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Orchard
Meadows,Section A lots 1 through 34.The subject site is located
along the south side of Dry Run Road just southeast of Mercersburg
Road.Zoning is Agricultural.The owner is proposing to create 34
single-family lots on 46 acres.The lots will be served by individual
wells and septic systems.A new public road will be constructed to
serve all 34 lots.A 20 foot wide drainage easement runs through
lot 30.The County Engineer has serious concerns regarding the
construction of lot 30 with the drainage easement as shown.Mr.
Gerald Cump,consultant,stated that the drainage easement and will
not cause problems during development.He added that the easement
crosses through lot 3D,follows the boundary of lot 29 through a pipe
across the proposed new street to the stormwater management area.
After a discussion regarding the development of lot 3D,Mr.Bowers
made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval with the condition
that the final plat be brought back to the Commission to review the
drainage concerns raised by the County Engineer prior to approval.
Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Menno Martin:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Menno Martin,lot 1.The site is located along the south side of
Maugans Avenue.Zoning is Highway Interchange.In August 1988,a
site plan was approved for the existing 8 bay carwash.The applicant
is proposing to create a 1.09 acre lot from his 10 acre tract which
will include the existing carwash.A total of 8 acres will remain
which will include the applicant's dwelling.The site is served by
public water and sewer.There is an existing entrance which serves
the carwash and dwelling onto Maugans Avenue.All agency approvals
have been received.After discussing the existing access and its
relationship to development of adjacent lands and Maugans Avenue,Mr.
Bowers made a motion to table the request for further discussion
regarding these concerns.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Cono-Vale Estates:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Cono-Vale Estates,lots 3 through 13.The site is located along the
northeast side of the Cearfoss Pike.Zoning is Agricultural.The
owner is proposing to crease 11 residential lots with sizes ranging
from 1 to 1.5 acres.Total area of the site is 16.5 acres.The lots
will be served by individual wells and septic systems.A new County
owned and maintained street will be constructed to serve the lots.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Bowers made a motion to
grant preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
So ordered.
38
Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation
Airport Business Park -Lot 2:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
the Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation -Airport
Business Park,lot 2.The site is located in the Airport Business
Park along the north side of Breezehill Drive.Zoning is Highway
Interchange.The applicant is proposing to create a 1.18 acre lot for
the construction of a medical building.A total of 44.8 acres will
remain.A site plan will be required prior to construction.Public
water and sewer will serve the site.Access to the lot will be via
Breezehill Drive.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Mosex
made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded
by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Village Shopping Center:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Village Shopping Center.
The site is located along the west side of Maryland Route 68 in Clear
Spring.Zoning is Highway Interchange.There is.an existing
dentist's office on site.The applicant is proposing to expand the
office with a 2200 square foot convenience store with gas pumps on
approximately 2 acres.A total of 16 parking spaces is provided for
both the dentist's office and convenience store.Public water and
.sewer will serve the site.All agency approvals have been received.
Mr.Spickler questioned if this site will continue to be used as a
park and ride once the convenience store is constructed.Mr.Grey
Hebb,consultant with Fox and Associates,stated it will not be a park
and ride once the expansion occurs.Mr.Spickler expressed concerns
regarding the flow of traffic through the site and asked that the plan
be redesigned.Mr.Bowers suggested to block an existing access point
and add additional parking spaces.After a discussion regarding the
parking area,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table the request until
the June meeting so the consultant can redesign the plan for a safer
flow of traffic.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Determinations:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that during the April meeting,
the Commission determined that it would be consistent with the County
Engineer's recommendation on proposals to develop along inadequate
roadways within Washington County.Mr.Brittain distributed the
Sections 4.11 and 4.12 of the adopted Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance and outlined the exemptions and the appeals process of the
Ordinance.Mr.Brittain briefly reviewed these sections of the
Ordinance with the Commission.
John H.Rhodes -Brown Road:
Mr.Brittain stated that Mr.Rhodes is proposing to create two
residential lots with access off Brown Road.Brown Road is inadequate
and the County Engineer has denied the request for access.
Mr.Rhodes informed the Commission that an adjacent property informed
him that the County Commissioners stated they would pave Brown Road
for $10,000.00.He added that he would be willing to participate in
the cost of upgrading the road.Mr.Iseminger stated that the County
Engineer states that Brown Road is inadequate and is denying the
request.He added that the proposal was offered prior to the adoption
of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)and is a moot case.
Mr.Iseminger said that this request does not qualify for an exemption
as outlined in the APFO.Mr.Rhodes asked if the request could be
grandfathered since this was begun 1 year ago.Mr.Brittain stated
that preliminary plats needed to be submitted prior to December 1,
1990 in order to be grandfathered.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
disapprove the request by John Rhodes for the proposed subdivision of
c.o
~,.-
OJ
Z
~
39
his parcel since it does not meet the requirements of the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance dealing with roads.The denial is based
on the memo dated May 1,1991 from the county Engineer outlining the
inadequacy of Brown Road and since the property does not fall under
the exemptions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Seconded
by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
J.M.Jamison -Reichard Road:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting
approval to create an 8 acre lot.The 8 acre lot will be conveyed
from Mrs.Jamison'S aunt to the Jamisons.The lot is located along
the east side of Reichard Road approximately .4 miles north from its
intersection with Maryland Route 63.Due to the fact that this
request does not meet any of the exemptions of the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance and Reichard Road is inadequate,Mr.Iseminger
made a motion to deny the request to subdivide an 8 acre parcel along
Reichard Road based on the memo from the County Engineer dated
March 22,1991.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Mr.Jamison approached the Commission an offered an alternative to
subdividing.He asked if he would apply for a building permit to
construct a dwelling on the 8 acres,would he still fall within the
requirements of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.
Brittain stated that Mr.Jamison would now be requesting to construct
-a dwelling under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance not
requiring a site plan and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
only addresses subdivisions and site plans.He added that a building
permit could be applied for but the County Engineer may still deny an
entrance permit.The Zoning Ordinance states that building permits
for Principle Permitted Uses can,under certain situations,be limited
to one permit per parcel.
After a discussion regarding Principle Permitted Uses,the Commission,
by consensus,requested the staff to review with the County Attorney
and Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections,development
potential allowed by the Zoning Ordinance but not covered by the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
Peggy Gower -Manor Church Road:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that Peggy Gower is proposing to
create a 1.25 acre lot along the north side of Manor Church Road.The
applicant has stated that the remaining 12 acres will be used for
agricultural purposes.The staff is of the opinion that this request
meets the exemption standards of Section 4.1.1.of the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance.By consensus,the Commission concurred with the
staff's opinion and granted the request made by peggy Gower.So
ordered.
Brian and Terry Baker -Newcomer Road:
Mr.Gudmundson informed the Commission that the Planning staff
received a request from the Bakers to determine the adequacy of
Newcomer Road,where they would like to subdivide 1 acre from Mr.
Baker'S grandparents farm.The site is located along Newcomer Road 3
miles north of Boonsboro.Newcomer Road is 12 to 14 feet in width and
the County Engineer has stated it is inadequate for further
development.The property is currently being farmed and since it will
be conveyed to an immediate family member,the request is eligible for
exemption 4.1.2 of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance if the
Bakers widen Newcomer Road to 16 feet in front of their lot.The
Bakers plan to access onto the existing farm lane which then
intersects Newcomer Road.The Bakers are asking if they access the
farm lane,does Newcomer Road still need to be widened?The Bakers
might also propose to position the lot back along the farm lane,and
would not have direct road frontage.If the road needs to be widened
in front of their lot to 16 feet,there will not be any road frontage
in front of the lot to widen.
40
Mr.Ken Grove,attorney for the Bakers,informed the Commission that
Mr.Baker is currently operating and managing the farm.It's Mr.
Grove's opinion that this request does not fall under the requirements
of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.The Washington County
Subdivision Ordinance permits individuals the right to subdivide lots
on existing farm lanes.He added that the Bakers are aware of the
statement that must be added to the plat that the lot cannot be sold
for a period of 10 years.He added that the Bakers will not be
accessing directly onto Newcomer Road but to access off the existing
farm lane.
Due to a discussion regarding accessing onto the farm lane versus
Newcomer Road due to its inadequacy,Mr.Fred Frederick,consultant
for the Bakers,said that the Bakers will reserve 25 feet from
centerline as right-of-way for the County to improve Newcomer Road.
Mr.Gudmundson stated that the County Engineer has stated that there
is poor sight distance along this lot and improvements would need to
be made.The County Engineer suggested removing some of the slope and
trees along Newcomer Road to improve sight distance.Mr.Baker added
he has no problem in tapering the bank and cutting back trees.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant approval to the Bakers request to
subdivide a 1 acre lot from the 130 acre farm to front the existing
farm lane,conditioned on the granting o~25 feet from centerline,
sight distance improvements requested by the County Engineer and that
the lot be situated with the side yard facing Newcomer Road.Seconded
-by Mr.Bowers.Mr.Moser voted no.So ordered.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Anna Mae Gross AD-90-67:
The Gross farm is located 3/4 miles north of Boonsboro along the west
side of Mapleville Road and the north side of Mill Point Road.The
farm consists of 53.44 acres and has 100%qualifying soils.The Gros!
farm is part of a 585 acre District.Mr.Spickler made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Gross farm be included
in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Oliver Britner AD-91-5:
The Britner farm is located along the south and east sides of Doub
Road approximately 1 mile east of the Town of Williamsport.This site
is located within the Antietam Basin 201 Facilities Plan boundaries of
the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area.The farm has a W-5,S-5 water and
sewer priority designation which means that public water and sewer
could be available to the site within 5 to 10 years.The farm
consists of 193.42 acres and has 52.04%qualifying soils.Factors
supporting approval of this District are:it's contiguous to the
Byers'Agricultural Land Preservation District,the soils qualify,the
farm consists of more than 100 acres and the farm has a retail
vegetable operation compatible with the residential area.Factors not
supporting approval are:W-5/S-5 water and sewer priority
designation,Doub Road has recently be improved,and that the farm is
located within the limits of the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area
boundary.After a discussion,Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the
Britner Agricultural Land Preservation District since it's not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
Mr.Iseminger voted no and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Edqar Pryor AD-91-6 :
41
The Pryor farm is located along the northern side of U.S.Route 70 and
along both sides of White Hall Road approximately 1 mile east of
Hagerstown.The farm consists of 109.5 acres and has 63.7%qualifying
soils.Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Pryor farm be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
The Martin farm is located along both sides of Leitersburg/State Line
Road approximately 4 miles northeast of Hagerstown.The farm consists
of 156.84 acres and has 91.5%qualifying soils.Mr.Spickler made a
motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Martin farm
be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
The first DeBaugh farm is located along the south side of Mill Point
Road and to the east of U.S.Route 40A approximately 1/4 mile north of
Boonsboro.The farm consists of 122.22 acres and has 93.3%qualifying
soils.The second DeBaugh farm consists of 48.25 acres and has 93.1%
qualifying soils.This farm is part of a 585 acre District.Mr.
Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the DeBaugh farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded
by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
CD
~,.-
aJ
Z
~
Richard Martin
Louis DeBauah
William R.Oates
AD-91-7:
AD-91-8 and AD-91-9:
AD-9l-10:
The Oates farm is located on the north side of Falling Waters Road
approximately 2 miles southwest of the Town of Williamsport.The farm
consists of 62.98 acres and has 61.4%qualifying soils.The Oates
farm is 50 feet from being contiguous to the Wiles Agricultural Land
Preservation District.The State of Maryland considers this
application as being contiguous.After a discussion,Mr.Spickler
made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Oates
farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since
it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Roqer Buhrman AD-9l-11 :
The Buhrman farm is located on the west side of Maryland Route 491
approximately 3 miles northeast of the Town of Smithsburg and along
the Frederick County line.The farm consists of 182.46 acres and has
91%qualifying soils.Recently an intensive swine operation was
included on the farm.The swine operation will be required to meet
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,Article 22 Division IX
'Intensive Swine and Poultry Facilities'.Mr.Spickler made a motion
to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Buhrman farm be
included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Lee B.Worthinqton AD-91-13:
The Worthington farm is located along the north side of Maryland
Route 418 and along the Pennsylvania State line approximately 1/4 mile
east of Ringgold.The farm consists of 108.92 acres and has 82%
qualifying soils.Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the Worthington farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.
42
OTHER BUSINESS:
Capital Improvements Program FY'92-'97'
Mr.Brittain reminded the Commission that during the April meeting,a
draft copy of the FY'92-FY'97 Capital Improvements Program was
presented to them.Mr.Brittain asked the Commission if they had any
comments or recommendations regarding the proposed CIP.Since the
Commission had no additions or corrections,Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to adopt the FY'92-'97 Capital Improvements Program as
recommended by the CIP Committee.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So
ordered.
Special Meeting Date:
The Commission decided to set a Special Meeting date of Thursday,
May 23,1991 at 6:30 P.M.to discuss the proposed text amendment for
RZ-91-3 and the Planning Commission's 1991 Work Program.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
An Executive Session immediately followed.
CD
"¢,....
CD
Z
~
43
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -MAY 29,1991
The Washington County planning Commission held a Special Meeting on
Wednesday,May 29,1991 in the third floor conference room #331 of the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,and Donald Spickler.Staff:Director;James P.
Brittain,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,and Associate Planner;
Timothy A.Lung.Steven West was absent.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:30 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS:
RZ-91-3 Text Amendment
Applicant:Gerald J.Ditto:
Mr.Brittain indicated to the Commission that the "Staff Report
Following the Public Hearing"was forwarded in their agenda packet to
provide a basis from which to begin discussions and build a consensus
of opinion regarding the proposed text amendment.Mr.Brittain
requested direction from the Commission so unnecessary staff time
"would not be co~~itted on an issue for which significant amounts of
staff time had been previously expended.
Members shared opinions on the amendment in general terms deferring
discussions on the specifics of Mr.Ditto's proposal to a later
meeting.No consensus of opinion was developed during the first
workshop meeting regarding this case.In addition,at this time no
additional staff input or research was requested.The Commission,by
consensus,tabled further discussion on this text amendment until
another workshop or regular meeting.
FY'92 Work Program:
Mr.Brittain presented the staff's preliminary draft of the FY'92 Work
Program.In addition to the time line chart outlining the next year's
tasks and projects,a flowchart for the Highway Interchange mapping
project indicating milestone objectives,timing and projected hearing
dates was distributed for review.Mr.Brittain outlined briefly the
overall scope of the Work Program and constraints that the Commission
and staff could face in addressing the entire program.Two new items
appeared on the Program for the first time;they were Town Planning
Assistance Program and the Forest Conservation Plan.Also,Mr.
Brittain indicated the staff would be shortly meeting with officials
from the Office of State Planning to discuss the State's mandated Land
Preservation and Recreation Plan.The results of that meeting would
be indicated on a revised FY'92 Work Program's time line chart and
distributed for the next meeting.
Mr.Brittain stated that the Highway Interchange project's objectives
as illustrated on the flowchart indicates that any additional
comprehensive planning projects requiring public hearings could easily
require three meetings per month while that project is being
completed.
Due to other commitments of the Commission members,by consensus,
further discussion on the Work program was deferred until a June
meeting date.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,t~me.TVing.adjo i/)e:J~dJ r <~
DoI(ald-i."Zo
ned at 8:30 P.M.
44
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 3,1991
The Washington county Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,June 3,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;
James P.Brittain,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate
Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber,
Assistant Planner;John Gudmundson and Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTEB:
Mr.Brittain noted that the Special Meeting of May 23,1991 was
canceled and rescheduled to May 29,1991.Mr.Iseminger made a motion
to approve the minutes of the May 6,1991 regular meeting with the
noted correction.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the staff still needs
comments from the Department of Natural Resources regarding their
requirements for the proposed quarry expansion.No action was taken
by the Commission.
Village Shopping Center Site Plan:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Village Shopping Center.
The site is located along the west side of Maryland Route 68 in Clear
Spring.Zoning is Highway Interchange.There is an existing
dentist's office on site.The applicant is proposing to expand the
office with a 2200 square foot convenience store with gas pumps on
approximately 2 acres.A total of 16 parking spaces is provided for
both the dentist's office and convenience store.Public water and
sewer will serve the site.All agency approvals have been received.
Due to concerns expressed by the Commission during the May meeting
regarding the flow of traffic through the site,the Commission took no
action on the proposed site plan.During the May meeting Mr.Bowers
suggested to block an existing access point and add additional parking
spaces.Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that the concerns
expressed by the Commission had been addressed.After a brief
discussion,Mr.Spickler made a motion to grant site plan approval.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
James Harnish:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the variance request for James Harnish.The
site is located along Homestead Road in Big Pool.Mr.Harnish is
proposing to create 3 lots along a private road,Homestead Road.
During the variance review,the County Engineer determined that
Homestead Road is a County maintained roadway.Due to Homestead
c.o
~,..-
CDz
::2:
1-5
Road's inadequacies,the County Engineer is denying the request for
subdivision since it does not meet the requirements of the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance.The applicant does not qualify for any
exemptions under the APFO since the lots will not be conveyed to
immediate family members and would have less than 25 acres remaining.
Mr.Spickler stated that it's his opinion that this site is not a
viable piece of development property.After a discussion,Mr.Bowers
made a motion to table the variance request until the July regular
meeting.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Kenneth and Gloria Bousley:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Kenneth and Gloria
Bousley.The site is located along the west side of Lake Drive just
south of its intersection with Maryland Route 63.Zoning is
Agricultural.In January 1991,a preliminary consultation was held
for development on this site.The Bousley's are proposing to create 7
single-family lots on 28 acres.The variance is being requested from
Section 405.11.B.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that all
panhandles must not exceed 400 feet in length.Proposed lot #2 will
be served by a 422 foot long panhandle.Lake Drive is a County
maintained roadway.Lot #2 will have frontage along the public
roadway,however,due to the shape of the panhandle,it cannot be
shortened.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance request.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
James Horn:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for James Horn.The site
is located along the east side of Neck Road,1300 feet south of
Falling Waters Road.Zoning is Agricultural.This variance is from
Section 405.11.B.1.of the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Horn is
proposing to create a 3 acre lot to be conveyed to an immediate family
member which will not front on an existing lane.A total of 25 acres
will remain.Topographic conditions in the area of the proposed lane
are generally flat.Neck Road in the area of the existing lane is
approximately 18 feet in width.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant
the variance request with the condition that the 10-year family member
statement be added to the plat.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Bruce Yommer:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Bruce Yommer.The
site is located in the eastern boundary of Boonsboro Pike (U.S.
Alternate Route 40)just 1/2 mile north of its intersection with
Lappans Road.Mr.Yommer is proposing to create a 3 acre lot with no
public road frontage.There is an existing dwelling on the site which
is served by a 900 foot long panhandle.Mr.Yommer stated his
hardship is a financial one due to a divorce.After a discussion,Mr.
Spickler made a motion to deny the variance request due to the 900
foot long panhandle that would provide access to the new lot and that
no demonstrated hardship was provided.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Subdivisions:
Oakleigh Estates:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Oakleigh
Estates.The site is located to the west of Terrace Hills and to the
south of Foxleigh Meadows.Zoning is Residential Urban.The property
is located within the adopted Urban Growth Area.The developer is
proposing to create 26 single-family lots on 16.3 acres.Proposed lot
sizes will range from .3 to .9 acres.Access to the proposed lots
will be via a new County street called Winthrop Drive located off
Hepplewhite Circle in Foxleigh Meadows.A 50 foot wide parcel for
access to this development was provided when Foxleigh Meadows was
subdivided.The site will be served by public water and sewer.The
City of Hagerstown Water Department has commented that any further
development of the remaining lands may require the connection of the
46
12 inch water line to Northern Avenue and/or Fountainhead.Sewer
service will be split between the City of Hagerstown Water Pollution
Control and the Washington County Sanitary District.Lots 1 through 5
and 22 through 26 will be served by gravity sewer into the Sanitary
District's system.Lots 6 through 21 will be served by grinder pumps
into the City of Hagerstown treatment plant via sewer lines through
Terrace Hills.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Zombro
asked how far the railroad tracks are from the development and if any
screening is proposed.Mr.Lung stated that it is approximately 100
feet from the property line to the railroad and that each lot has a 4C
foot rear yard setback.He added that at this time,that area is
heavily wooded.Mr.Brandenburg added that he does not plan to remove
many of the existing trees in that area.Mrs.Johnson suggested
installing a fence along the railroad for safety purposes.There was
discussion regarding the 50 foot wide parcel at the end of the
proposed street with the possibility for the use of this parcel as a
means of access to other lands owned by Mr.Brandenburg's which maybe
developed in the future.Alternative means of access were also
discussed.Mr.Lung commented that future access to the Brandenburg
property via Terrace Hills was restricted to a maximum of five lots on
the recorded subdivision plat for Terrace Hills.It was the County
Engineer's opinion that the extension of Hepplewhite Circle may be
advantages to the County only under certain conditions,therefore,
designation of this 50 foot wide parcel for a future street may not be
appropriate at this time.Mr.Spickler made a motion to grant
preliminary plat approval conditional on additional evaluation being
"made on access to the other lands.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to table action on Oakleigh Estates.In his
opinion,preliminary plat approval would be premature if an evaluation
concerning access to the other lands determines that changes to the
design are necessary.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Northbrook Estates:
Mr.Lung presented the final subdivision plat for Northbrook Estates,
Section A.The site is located along the east side of Maryland Route
60 (Leitersburg Pike).Zoning is Residential Suburban and is within
the Urban Growth Area.Section A consists of 61 residential lots on
22.25 acres.The proposed lots range in size from approximately 1/4
acre up to 3 acres.Access to the lots will be via a new County
street system with a single access onto Route 60.The Maryland State
Highway Administration required paved accel/decel and by-pass lanes on
Route 60 and also stated that lots fronting Route 60 must use the
internal street for access.The County Engineer is currently
reviewing grading plans for 19 lots.Public water and sewer will
serve the site.A sewage pumping station will be located on site and
has been approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.All agency
approvals have been received except for the County Engineer's review
due to the grading plans.During the April meeting,the Planning
Commission granted conditional preliminary approval to Northbrook
Estates stating that Final plats must be brought back to the
Commission due to concerns regarding traffic flow,floodplain and
wetlands.Section A does not involve any work in the wetlands or
floodplain area.Regarding the traffic flow at the Route 60 access,
the County Engineer commented that any stacking of vehicles which can
be expected will not create an unsafe condition.The County
Engineer's calculations show that approximately three vehicles per
minute either into or out of the subdivision could be expected.At
that level,stacking should not be a problem.Mr.Bowers made a
motion to grant final plat approval conditional on receipt of County
Engineer's approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Roy and Francis Corwell:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Roy and Francis Corwell.The site is located along the west side of
the Big Spring/Clear Spring Road.Zoning is Agricultural.The owner
is proposing to create four single-family lots with sizes ranging from
between 1.2 to 7.2 acres.Total area of the site is 11.4 acres.A
total of 42 acres will remain.The site will be served by individual
(0
~,.-
CDz
:2:
47
wells and septic systems.Access to the four proposed lots will be
via the Big Spring/Clear Spring Road.There is floodplain located on
lot #12,however,no development will occur in that area.All agency
approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant
preliminary and final subdivision plat approval.Seconded by Mr.
Bowers.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Bonnard Morgan:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Bonnard Morgan.The site is located along the north side of Burnside
Bridge Road.zoning is Conservation.The applicant is proposing to
create a 5.9 acre lot with 27.44 acres remaining.The original
creation of the proposed lot was by a simplified subdivision plat for
the conveyance to existing lot,2 which occurred in March 1986.In
December 1986,this parcel was conveyed to lot #3 for additional lands
with an access to Burnside Bridge Road.At this time,lot #3 is being
requested to be subdivided into two lots.The County Engineer
approved the creation of a simplified lot for a portion of lot #3 but
disapproved the creation of a development lot for proposed lot #4 due
to the inadequacy of Burnside Bridge Road.The applicant is stating
that this subdivision would fall under exemption Section 4.1.1.of the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance since the land is solely used for
agricultural purposes.The staff is of the opinion that sufficient
evidence has not been provided to satisfy this exemption request.
There is no Forestry Management Plan existing and there is no proof of
·sale of trees.All agency approvals have been received.
Mr.Michael Kefauver,owner,stated that he pursued a Forestry
Management Program in March.He added that the property was used as
an orchard from 1900 to 1950 and he has topographical maps indicating
this.Mr.Kefauver stated that he does not was to construct a house
on the property at this time.Mr.Schreiber suggested leaving the
subdivision plat as a simplified plat,not for development.Mr.
Kefauver added that he would like to construct a house later and would
the Commission to approve the plat at this time.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table the request until further review
can be done by the County Engineer.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Potomac Manor:
Mr.Goodrich presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Potomac
Manor,Sections G and H.The site is located along the south and west
sides of Eastern Boulevard adjacent to existing sections of Potomac
Manor.Preliminary consultations were held in 1984 and 1985 for the
entire development.There are a total of 135 lots in Sections C,D,E
and F which are already approved.Sections G and H will consist of 82
single-family lots with minimum lot sizes of 7500 square feet.zoning
is Residential Urban.Public water and sewer will serve the site.
Roads to serve Sections G and H will extend into the City of
Hagerstown and a subdivision plat will be submitted to the City for
development of approximately 12 lots.There is floodplain located on
the site,however,no development will occur in this area.There is
an existing Potomac Edison right-of-way on the property and a portion
will be relocated.The developer is proposing to serve six lots by
panhandles.The Subdivision Ordinance limits the number to four
panhandles per an original tract.The developer is stating that the
panhandle design demonstrates excellence in design and maximizes use
of the site.This panhandle design was used for the previous sections
of Potomac Manor.The Zoning Administrator has a concern that the
lots are setup with building setbacks for single-family dwellings of 1
and 1 1/2 stories.Single-family dwellings with 2 and 2 1/2 stories
have greater setbacks.The staff is concerned with what the developer
could or should do for security along the railroad.Mr.Jack Byers,
developer,stated that due to the railroad being located in a steep
ravine,the lots to the rear cannot access the railroad.
48
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval
conditional on receipt of all agency approvals,the subdivision plat
being adjusted to indicate setbacks for 2 and 2 1/2 story dwellings,
and the use of the six panhandle lots based on excellence of design.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Sheriff's Patrol Facility:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the construction of a new
building for the Sheriff's Patrol Facility.The site is located aloil~
the southeast corner of Western Maryland Parkway and Tandy Drive.
Zoning is Industrial General.The new 89'x 89'one-story building
will be located to the front of the existing building near the corner
of Tandy Drive and Western Maryland Parkway.Once the building is
constructed,existing patrol facilities will be relocated to the new
building.A total of eight additional parking spaces are proposed,
however,there are no additional employees proposed.Landscaping will
be provided around the building.The staff requested that screening
be added around the generator and transformer pad.The staff has been
informed that the generator and transformer pad will be enclosed;thus
screening will not be necessary.The staff suggested that landscaping
be provided around the impoundment yard.The staff had concerns with
the use of one existing entrance road to serve the entire Detention
Center complex.The developer is stating that the one entrance is
adequate for the complex.The County Engineer and Soil Conservation
District have issued site plan approval.Approval is outstanding from
the Hagerstown Water Department and the Water Pollution Control.
After discussion regarding the location of new parking areas,Mr.
Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval conditional on receipt
of all agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Iseminger
abstained.So ordered.
Washington County Detention Center -Minimum Security Wing Additior
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Minimum Security Wing
Addition for the Washington County Detention Center.The site is
located along the southeast side of Western Maryland Parkway in the
Washington County Business Park.Total area of the site is 10.5
acres.The County is proposing to construct a 22,000 square foot
minimum security wing.A total of 10 new employees are proposed.A
total of 130 additional parking spaces are proposed consisting of 70
spaces for inmate work release program,10 staff members and 50
visitor parking spaces.A total of six handicap spaces are proposed
to the front of the building.Exterior lights will be building
mounted and pole mounted lights in the parking area.Landscaping will
be located along the front of the building,to the side of the
concrete patio area,and in the parking island.There will be six
enclosed courtyards inside the security wing addition.Public water
and sewer will serve the site.The County Engineer,Soil Conservation
District and Hagerstown Water Department have approved the site plan.
The Zoning Ordinance does not specify the number of parking spaces
required for prisons.Mr.Gary Rohrer stated there are 130 parking
spaces provided which is more than adequate for the facility.The
existing entrance to the site is centrally located and is 28 feet in
width and is adequate to serve the site.Mr.Rohrer stated that
comments were received from the Halfway Volunteer Fire Company which
addressed concerns regarding existing facilities.He added that thee
concerns are irrelevant to this proposal,however,the concerns will
be addressed through the permitting process.
Mr.West made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
CD
~,....
CO
Z
~
49
Homewood Retirement Center:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for the Homewood Retirement
Center.The site is located along the southeast "corner of Wright Road
and Elliott Parkway in the 70/81 Industrial Park.The site consists
of 4.78 acres and the developer is proposing to construct a 21,000
square foot building to be used as a corporate headquarters for the
Homewood Retirement Community as well as child and adult daycare for
members of the staff and surrounding community.In April 1991,the
developer requested a Special Exception to permit the daycare facility
on the site and was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Two
points of access to Elliott Parkway is proposed;no access to Wright
Road is proposed at this time.A total of 72 parking spaces are
proposed.Public water and sewer will serve the site.Landscaping is
provided throughout the site.Lighting will be both pole and building
mounted.The proposed recreation area borders a steep slope and the
staff is recommending a fence for safety purposes.Mr.Steve
Zoretich,consultant,stated there will be no problems with
constructing a fence around the recreation area.Mr.Spickler made a
motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Planned Unit Development:
South Pointe Preliminary Development Plan:
"Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary development plan for South
Pointe PUD.The site is located along the north side of East Oak
Ridge Drive.Zoning is Residential Suburban with the Planned Unit
Development overlay zone.A preliminary consultation was held in
February 1990 for the entire proposal.In May 1990,the County
Commissioners approved the requested rezoning for the property.The
property encompasses 122.4 acres and the developer is proposing to
create 597 total dwelling units;89 single-family lots,150 one-story
townhouses and 142 two-story townhouses,216 multi-family apartment
units,and 12 acres to be developed commercially.The development
will be served by County maintained public streetp.·Private parking
will be available in the apartment complex to be maintained by the
developer.Total open space area encompasses 30 acres to include tot
lots,swimming pool,picnic areas and tennis court.Two bus waiting
areas are proposed throughout the development.The entire development
will be developed in four phases.The zoning Ordinance requires a
time schedule for each phase on the preliminary development plan.The
current plan shows phasing lines,however,does not indicate the
approximate date when construction of each phase will begin.
Sidewalks are located throughout the site.The staff recommended that
sidewalks be extended into the single-family area to connect with the
remaining portion of the PUD.Mr.Bowers questioned what portion of
the frontage will be dedicated for right-of-way for future widening.
Mr.Robert Johnson,consultant stated that 40 feet will be dedicated
from centerline as worked out with the County Engineer.Mrs.Pietro
informed the Commission that preliminary development approval was
received from the County Engineer.She added that during previous
meetings,the City Engineer had commented that the City would permit
connection from this development to the City via Kuhn Avenue,Rose
Hill Avenue,and Corbett Street.The County Engineer has stated that
those streets are inadequate and would not recommend connection.Mr.
Paul Crampton,developer,informed the Commission that he does not
have plans to connect this development into the City of Hagerstown.
Mr.Moser asked if the phasing of the commercial area meets the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which states that a percentage of
residential must be developed prior to development of the commercial
area.Mr.Johnson added that every effort will be made to meet all
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Bowers made a motion to
grant preliminary development plan approval.Seconded by Mr.West.
Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
50
Preliminary Consultations:
Clear Spring High School Proposed Animal Waste Storage Structure:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the Department of Permits and
Inspections received an application for a permit to construct an
animal waste storage structure to serve an existing intensive swine
facility owned and operated by the Clear Spring High School.As
required by Division IX of the Zoning Ordinance,a preliminary
consultation was held.The proposed waste storage structure does not
meet the minimum building setbacks of 500 feet from the property line
of the adjacent 'R'zoned property owned by the Clear Spring
Historical Associates which is occupied by a dwelling and temporary
mobile home.A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals will be
necessary.During the consultation the Health Department expressed
concern regarding the use of a tile drain around the proposed storage
pit with the drainage going directly into an adjacent stream.The
Soil Conservation Service designed the structure and the Department of
the Environment approved it.The Soil Conservation Service stated
that groundwater around the pit must be drained in order to prevent
damage to the structure.The only alternative would be not to build
the structure.The Health Department stated that their concerns could
be alleviated if the discharge from the drain could be monitored on a
regular basis to assure that manure is not leaking into the drain.
The Health Department suggested a monitoring program be established at
the school to monitor the discharge.This would also provide an
educational experience.The Extension Agent has determined that based
on the storage capacity of the waste structure and the manure produced
by the operation,adequate land is available for utilization of the
waste according to the approved Nutrient Management Plan.The Soil
Conservation District has approved the Waste Management Plan.No
additional recommendations were made by the reviewing agencies and all
approvals have been received.After a brief discussion regarding the
operation,Mr.Spickler made a motion to approve the concept plan wit
the condition of Board of Zoning Appeals approval,and initiation of
the monitoring program once the facility is constructed.Seconded by
Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
Cedar Ridge Children's Home and School:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the written summary of the
preliminary consultation is attached.He stated that the consultation
was held in order to meet the requirements of the of the Water and
Sewerage Plan which requires a preliminary consultation to qualify for
a service priority classification.A public hearing is scheduled for
June 4,1991.Cedar Ridge Ministries is proposing to construct a new
classroom facility and possibly a conference center and lodge in the
future.A new wastewater treatment plant and water supply system is
proposed to serve the development.No action was taken by the
Commission.
Meadow Brook South:
Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that the written summary of the
preliminary consultation is attached to the agenda packet.She added
that the County Engineer stated that Broadfording Road is only 16 feet
in width and must be widened to 18 feet prior to subdivision approval
During the consultation the County Engineer questioned why access is
being proposed on an inadequate portion of Broadfording Road when
there are portions of that road that are adequate.Mr.Bruce Hoffman
developer,stated that it's his opinion that others will benefit by
him improving Broadfording Road and he should be reimbursed by other
developers.He added that the County should contribute to improving
the road.Mr.Bowers asked how much it will be to improve the roadway
and Mr.Elvin Wiley,consultant,stated that figures are not available
at this time.Mr.Moser stated that impact fees may be a solution.
After a discussion,no action was taken by the Commission.
c.o
~......coz
:::2:
51
OTHER BUSINESS:,
Demolition Permit -Fahrney Keedy Memorial Home:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that Fahrney Keedy Memorial Home
is proposing to demolish a portion of their facility which is listed
on the Washington County Historic Sites Survey.The site is located
north of the Town of Boonsboro.Mr.Goodrich presented a drawing as
to what portion of the building will be demolished and Mr.Bowman of
Fahrney Keedy Memorial Home distributed pictures of the facility when
it was first constructed and informed the Commission of what is being
proposed for demolition.After a discussion regarding the proposed
demolition,Mr.Bowers made a motion to defer this request to the
Historic District Commission.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
G.Philip Nowak AD-90-72:
The Nowak farm is located 2 mile southwest of the Town of Sharpsburg
along the east side of Millers Sawmill Road.The farm consists of
117.01 acres but only has 40.58%Class I,II and III soils,and
Forestry Classes I and II.The farm does qualify for the Program due
to its dairy use.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the Nowak farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.
Charlotte,Richard and Sharon Newcomer AD-91-14:
The Newcomer farm lies along the east side of Charles Mill Road 2
miles east of Leitersburg.The farm consists of 113.28 acres and has
100%Class I,II and III qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion
to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Newcomer farm be
included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.
Mr ..Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Charlotte,Richard and Sharon Newcomer AD-91-15:
The Newcomer farm lies along the west side of Newcomer Road 2 1/4
miles east of Leitersburg.The farm consists of 21.94 acres and has
100%qualifying soils.The farm is contiguous to an 185 acre
District.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Newcomer farm be included in the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.
Charlotte and Richard Newcomer AD-91-16:
The Newcomer farm lies along the east side of Charles Mill Road 2
miles north of Smithsburg.The farm consists of 72.22 acres and has
97.13%qualifying soils.This farm is also contiguous to 165 District
acres.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Newcomer farm be included in the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.2
52
,
Charlotte and Richard Newcomer AD-91-16A:
The Newcomer farm lies 600 feet west of Charles Mill Road 1 mile east
of Leitersburg.The farm consists of 25.76 acres and has 64.13%
qualifying soils.This farm is also contiguous to over 800 District
acres.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Newcomer farm be included in the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained
So ordered.
Charlotte and Barbara Newcomer AD-91-17:
The Newcomer farm lies to the east of Grove Road 1 mile east of
Leitersburg.The farm consists of 55.5 acres and has 75%qualifying
soils.This farm is also contiguous to 800 District acres.Mrs.
Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the Newcomer farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded
by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Gerald and Velma Poffenberger AD-91-19:
The poffenberger farm lies along both sides of U.S.Route 70 at its
intersection with White Hall Road 2 miles east of Hagerstown.The
farm consists of 78 acres and has 92.7%qualifying soils.Mrs.
Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the poffenberger farm be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Robert and Hedwig Belz AD-91-20:
The Belz farm is located along the west side of Mercersburg Road 2
miles northeast of the Town of Clear Spring.The farm consists of
250.78 acres and has 78.6%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a
motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Belz farm be
included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So
ordered.
Leo and Jane Cohill AD-91-21:
The Cohill farm lies along the east side of Broadfording Road and the
north side of Cohill Road 1 1/4 miles northeast of the Town of Clear
Spring.The farm consists of 78.681 acres and has 95%qualifying
soils.The farm is contiguous to over 200 District acres.Mrs.
Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the Cohill farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded
by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Special Meeting:
The Washington County Planning Commission will hold a Special Meeting
on Monday,June 17,1991 at 6:30 P.M.in the Planning Commission's
conference room to discuss the Planning Commission's work Program.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
j
Donald
')
,mbro,Chairman
(0
-e;:t
,.-ccz
::iE
53
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -JUNE 17,1991
The Washington County Planning Commis~ion held a special meeting on
Monday,June 17,1991 in the Planning Commission's conference room,
third floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;Carol Johnson,Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler
and Steven West.Staff:Director;James P.Brittain,Senior Planner;
Stephen T.Goodrich,and Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung.Absent
was EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 6:30 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting
of May 29,1991.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Oakleigh Estates:
Mr.Lung distributed a composite tax map that illustrated the proposed
subdivision and adjacent parcels.Also the staff distributed a memo
.from the County Engineer,Terry McGee,regarding future access to the
remaining lands of the subject parcel and other lands owned by Mr.
Brandenburg and family.The Commission and staff discussed various
future alternatives to serve this area.The Commission,by consensus,
determined that Northern Avenue and the adequacy of Northern Avenue
will play an important role in the development of this area and that
access through the subject subdivision will be best determined at some
future date.Mr.Spickler made a motion to remove Oakleigh Estates
preliminary plat from the table.,Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Mr.Lung indicated that the staff had nothing to add to the June 3rd
presentation and that all approvals are in from the reviewing
agencies.Mr.Spickler made a motion to grant preliminary approval.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.The Commission requested that the
final plat be brought back to them for review and approval.
FY'92 Work Program:
Mr.Brittain and Mr.Goodrich outlined the FY'92 Work Program and
possible staff assignments.The staff's presentation concentrated
around the on-going tasks and the various Plans that must be generated
due to State mandates.These projects were given the highest
priorities by staff.In addition to the materials and information
provided at the May 29th meeting,the staff discussed the Land
Preservation and Recreation Plan.The Plan's requirements had been
finalized after the May 29th meeting.
Mr.Brittain reiterated from previous discussions that the Commission
and staff's commitment to the Highway Interchange Study and subsequent
public informational meetings and hearings will place constraints on
other comprehensive planning projects not mandated by State law.
The Commission,by consensus,agreed to the Work Program and directed
the staff to place the Work Program on the July 1st Regular Meeting
agenda for formal adoption.
The Commission also directed the staff to prepare a letter to the
Board of County Commissioners regarding the Commission's desire for
additional County incentives and commitments to the Agricultural
Preservation Program.
54
NEW BUSINESS'
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance:
Mr.Brittain outlined the Commission's responsibility under Arti~le II
which requires a six month periodic report to the Board of County
Commissioners.The Commission and staff discussed events over the
last six months of the initial implementation phase of the Ordinance.
In general,the Commission felt the Ordinance was still in its infancy
state and that they would continue to evaluate the Ordinance's
implementation and administration.
Mr.Spickler made a motion to inform the Board of County Commissioners
that there is a continuing need for the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.On call for the question,
Commission members Mr.Iseminger,Mrs.Johnson,Mr.Moser and Mr.
Spickler voted 'aye'and Mr.West voted 'nay'.The motion carried.
Election of Officers:
Being deferred from the June I Regular Meeting,the Commission held
election of officers for FY 1992.
Mr.Spickler nominated Mr.Zombro for Chairman.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.No other nominations were placed on the table for
consideration.On a call for the vote,Mr.Zombro was unanimously
elected Chairman.
Mrs.Johnson nominated Mr.Iseminger for Vice-Chairman.Seconded by
Mr.West.No other nominations were placed on the table for
consideration.On a call for the vote,Mr.Iseminger was unanimously
elected Vice-Chairman.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at
8:30 P.M.
CD
""'",.-
COz
:2:
55
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JULy 1,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,July 1,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,and Steven west.Staff:Director;James P.Brittain,
Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.
Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber,Assistant Planner;John
Gudmundson and Secretary,Janet Walkley.Absent was Donald Spickler.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3,1991
Regular Meeting as written.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 17,1991
Special Meeting as written.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the staff still needs
comments from the Department of Natural Resources regarding their
requirements for the proposed quarry expansion.No action was taken
by the Commission.
James Harnish -Variance Reguest:
Mr.Gudmundson reminded the Commission that this variance request was
tabled during the June meeting.Mr.Harnish is requesting the
variance to create 3 lots without the required 25 feet of public road
frontage.During variance review,the County Engineer determined that
all of the paved portion of Homestead Road (approximately 814 feet)is
owned and maintained by the County.Therefore,the lots do have
public road frontage and the request for a variance from the public
road frontage requirement is not necessary.The County Engineer has
stated that Homestead Road is only 12 feet in width and he cannot
approve any development for this road.It has also been determined
that there is poor sight distance due to a curve and additional right-
of-way may be needed for future road widening.The Planning staff is
requesting that the Commission deny the request so Mr.Harnish can
appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals or pursue road improvements.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to deny the subdivision request since it
does not meet the requirements of the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Bonnard Morgan (Mike Kefauver):
Mr.Schreiber reminded the Commission that the preliminary and final
subdivision plat for Bonnard Morgan/Mike Kefauver was tabled during
the June meeting.Mr.Kefauver is proposing to subdivide existing lot
#3 into two parcels with access to Burnside Bridge Road.The County
Engineer has disapproved the development of this lot due to the
inadequacy of Burnside Bridge Road.Mr.Kefauver stated that this
subdivision would fall under exemption Section 4.1.1.of the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance since the land is used solely for
agricultural purposes.The applicant supplied information to support
this claim.Staff supplied information to the affect that the parcels
as deeded do not meet minimum requirements and that the parcels'
current use and recent history do not support the claim of being used
solely for agricultural purposes.
Mr.Frank Hill,attorney for the applicant,briefly explained the
56
history of the property and why the subdivision request should be
approved.
After a discussion,Mr.West made a motion to deny the request for
subdivision since Burnside Bridge Road was determined to be inadequate
and the property does not meet the requirements for an exemption
outlined in Section 4.1.1.of the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Edward Cline:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Edward Cline.The site
is located along the north side of Center Lane approximately 900 feet
east of Maryland Route 66.The variance is being requested from
Section 405.11.B.of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that all
lots will have a minim~~of 25 feet of public road frontage.Mr.
Cline is proposing to subdivide his 1.2 acre property into two
parcels.The proposed lot will be .53 acres in size and will not have
public road frontage but will have access over an existing lane which
serves an existing dwelling.Mr.Cline will construct a house for
himself on the new lot while his in-laws will remain in the existing
house on the remaining lands.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant
the variance based on lot width,driveway location and that the 10-
year immediate family member statement is added to the plat.Seconded
by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
William E.Murray:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
William E.Murray,lot #1.The site is located along the east side o~
the Sharpsburg Pike just north of Poffenberger Road.This subdivision
is a portion of a mixed-use development known as Cross Creek.The
Commission has previously reviewed two preliminary consultations for
the development and approved a cluster plan for a residential section.
The 'application is to subdivide 5.58 acres for commercial purposes.
Zoning is Highway Interchange.Access to the site will be via a new
road to be called Battle Creek Boulevard.The Maryland State Highway
Administration and County Engineer requested that rights-of-way be
reserved for the possible future extension of Battle Creek Boulevard
to Poffenberger Road.At this time,Battle Creek Boulevard will end
in a cul-de-sac.State Highway Administration and County Engineer
approvals have been received with the condition that lot #1 access
Battle Creek Boulevard only.Public water and sewer will serve the
site.Since the proposed use is commercial and zoning is HI,the
Planning Commission has the authority to establish additional setbacks
and buffers.A site plan will be required prior to any development on
the site.The Planning staff recommended that any additional buffer
or setback requirements be established when the site plan is
submitted.When the residential cluster plan was approved,the
Planning Commission required that the buffer between the residential
and commercial areas be established on the commercial side of the
property and be constructed during whichever phase occurs first.
Mr.Bowers had questions regarding the entire concept plan and Mr.
Lung briefly explained what is being proposed.
After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary
and final plat approval with the condition that the buffers,setbacks
and road network be reviewed during the site plan phase.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.So ordered.
CD
~,..-
OJz
:2:
57
Hiser and Kothari:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Hiser and Kothari,lots 1 through 4.The site is located at 21 North
Street in Maugansville.The owners are proposing to create 4 lots on
.56 acres.Proposed lot sizes will be .14 acres with semi-detached
dwellings constructed.Public water and sewer will serve the site.A
variance was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (AP-2460)to
reduce the subject site's lot area,lot width and front yard setback
line.Other stipulations of that decision are that all parking shall
be to the rear of the dwelling units and residences shall have brick
on the front of the buildings.The County Engineer expressed concerns
regarding the grass alley but did approve access to the site.Mr.
Hiser and his consultant by memorandum to the Planning Commission
stated that the alley is public and a part of a previous subdivision
in the Maugansville area.Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant
preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
Cloverton II:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Cloverton
II,lots 1 through 23.The site is located along the east side of
Maryland Route 63.Zoning is Residential Suburban.The owner is
proposing to create 23 residential lots on 11 acres.Proposed lot
sizes will be from .3 to .5 acres.Public water and sewer will serve
-the site.A newly constructed street to be owned and maintained by
the County will serve the site.All agency approvals have been
received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Orchard Meadows:
Mrs.Pietro presented the final subdivision plat for Orchard Meadows.
The site is located along the south side of Dry Run Road.During the
review of the preliminary plat,the Commission expressed concerns
regarding the drainage swale running through lot #30 and requested the
final plat be brought back for additional review.The engineer has
stated a new drainage swale has been constructed which will flow to
the stormwater management pond.Drainage from four lots will flow
through the swale across lot #30 and a drainage easement has been
created.After a discussion regarding the type of material used to
construct the drainage system throughout the development,Mr.Bowers
made a motion to grant final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.
Iseminger.So ordered.
Richard Oakley:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Richard Oakley,lot #1.The site is located along the northwest side
of Beaver Creek Church Road.Zoning is Agricultural.The owner is
proposing to create one 12.78 acre parcel.The lot was previously
approved as a simplified plat for agricultural purposes only.A
25'x 125' panhandle to Beaver Creek Church Road serves the lot.
-Individual well and septic will serve the site.There are wetlands
and 100-year floodplain located on the site,however,no construction
will occur in these areas.A 50 foot buffer has been established from
the floodplain area.The County Engineer has stated that Beaver Creek
Church Road is inadequate due to the requirements outlined in the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.The applicant is stating that
is meets the exemption standards of Section 4.1.1.,however,no
evidence has been submitted to substantiate this request.
Mr.Fred Frederick stated that it's his opinion that this parcel does
meet the requirements of Section 4.1.1.since the Commission granted
the creation of a simplified plat for agricultural purposes only in
1983.
58
After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to deny the
preliminary and final subdivision plat due to Beaver Creek Church Road
being inadequate and insufficient evidence was submitted to grant an
exemption under Section 4.1.1.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.West voted
no.So ordered.
Millvville:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat fOl
Millyville,lots I through 4.The site is located along the northwest
side of Ashton Road just north of 1-70.The owner is proposing to
create 4 lots on 3.85 acres.A total of 91.6 acres will remain.
Individual wells and septic systems will serve the site.A 50 foot
wide right-of-way has been reserved between lots 1 and 2 for possible
future development of the remaining lands.Prior to any development
of the remaining lands,a preliminary consultation must be held.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant
preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So·
ordered.
Wayne E.Webber:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that a simplified subdivision
plat to attach a .28 acre parcel to an adjacent lot was approved in
1987 for Mr.Webber but never recorded.The proposed use for this lot
is for commercial use.The Planning staff has the authority to
-approve simplified plats but since this is for commercial use,the
Commission must reapprove the subdivision.Mr.Bowers made a motion
to reapprove the subdivision plat for Wayne E.Webber.Seconded by
Mr.West.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Washington County Regional Airport T-Hangar No.3:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for a new T-Hangar at the Washington
County Regional Airport.The site is located along the north side of
the Airport with access via Henson Boulevard.The proposed building
will be 625'x 60'x 20'and will house aircraft along with some
office space.The T-Hangar will not be connected to public water and
sewer facilities at this time 1 though they are available.There will
be no full-time employees using the site.The site plan meets all the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.Due to FAA requirements,
landscaping around the T-Hangar is limited to grass islands.All
agency approvals have been received.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to
grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Interstate Warehouse Partnership:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Interstate Warehouse
Partnership.The site is located along the west side of Maryland
Route 63 just south of Huyetts.Zoning is Highway Interchange.A
10,000 square foot building will be constructed on 20 acres which will
combine office and warehouse space.A total of 24 parking spaces are
proposed.Sidewalks will be constructed to the side and front of the
building.Lights will be building and pole mounted which will be
installed in the parking area.Public water and sewer will serve the
site.Landscaping is provided along the side of the building and in
the parking area.A note will be added to the site plan indicating
that no outside storage of materials will be permitted.Mr.West
added that the plan indicates that screening of the dumpster will be
either a brick wall,fence or shrubs.He stated that screening should
not consist of a brick wall for this development.Mrs.Johnson made a
motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
c.o-q-,......
coz
::2E
59
Maryland Paper:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Maryland Paper.The site is
located along the south side of Elliott Parkway.The owner is
proposing to construct two additions totaling 19,200 square feet to
his existing building which will be used as a warehouse.Additional
screening is proposed around the parking area and spare parts storage
area.Building mounted lights are proposed.The existing sign does
not meet the setback requirements as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
This will be taken care of prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by
Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Bowman Group:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for the Bowman Group.The site
is located along the west side of Governor Lane Boulevard
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of Maryland Route 68.Zoning is
Planned Industrial and Highway Interchange.The site consists of
23.57 acres.The property is currently used as a terminal for the
Bowman Trucking Company.The owner is proposing to create a temporary
tractor trailer holding area and office.The proposed holding area
will be covered by crushed stone.Access to the site will be via an
existing access off Governor Lane Boulevard.Stormwater management
will be provided by the existing regional stormwater management
facility.There is a small amount of floodplain which on the site,
-however,there will be no construction within the floodplain area.
Although the proposed use is temporary,parcel 205 which is a portion
of the site plan proposal is zoned Highway Interchange.This portion
requires a minimum 50 foot buffer yard and landscaping.Any future
use of parcel 205 would also require a 50 foot buffer and landscaping.
Therefore,it's the Planning staff's opinion,the buffer yard for
parcel 205 should be landscaped and screened at this time in
accordance with Section 19.5(c)as stated in the Washington County
Zoning Ordinance.
Since the holding area is on a temporary basis,the staff is
requesting that after two years,the plan be resubmitted for more
permanent requirements and reapproval by the Commission.
Mr.Roger Schlossberg,attorney for the owner,briefly explained to
the Commission why and how the trucks were moved from the Ostrow Farm
to the Bowman site.
After a discussion,Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant site plan
approval with the site plan to be reviewed in two years and that
landscpaing associated with parcel 205 to be designed when there is a
permanent use established.Seconded by Mr.West.Mr.Iseminger
abstained.So ordered.
Washington County Sanitary District Administration Office Addition:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the addition to the Washington
County Sanitary District Administration Offices.The site is located
along the north side of Elliott Parkway.The Sanitary District is
proposing to add a 4,784 square foot addition to its existing office
building.A total of 34 additional parking spaces will be installed
to the rear of the site.Building and pole mounted lights to the
addition and parking area are proposed.The addition will be served
by public water and sewer.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan
approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
60
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
R.Leon and Hilda E.Cushwa AD-91-22:
The Cushwa farm lies along the south side of Fairview Road and both
sides of Spickler Road approximately 5 miles northeast of the Town of
Clear Spring.The farm consists of 138.904 acres and has 89.3%
qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the Cushwa farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with thf
Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bower:
abstained.So ordered.
Tritapoe,et al AD-91-23:
The Tritapoe farm lies along both sides of Maryland Route 67
approximately 1 3/4 miles north of Weverton.The farm consists of
73.86 acres and is contiguous to a proposed 82 acre District (Tritapoe
et al AD-91-24).The farm has 79.5%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson
made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the
Tritapoe farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr,Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Tritapoe,et al AD-91-24:
The Tritapoe farm lies along both sides of Maryland Route 67
approximately 1/2 miles north of Weverton.The farm consists of 82
acres and is contiguous to a proposed 73.86 acre District (Tritapoe et
al AD-91-23).The farm has 100%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made
a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Tritapoe
farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since
it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconder
by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Robert W.Cline AD-9l-26:
The Cline farm lies along the east side of Dam No.4 Road
approximately 3 miles south of the Town of Williamsport.The farm
consists of 65 acres and is contiguous to a 1480 acre District.The
farm has 56%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Cline farm be included
in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Charles C.and Alliene S.Downs AD-9l-27:
The Downs farm lies between Mercersburg Road and Broadfording Road
approximately 1 1/2 miles northeast of the Town of Clear Spring.The
farm consists of 145 acres and has 96.7%qualifying soils.Mrs.
Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the Downs farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered,
Charles C.and Alliene S.Downs AD-91-28:
The Downs farm lies along the north side of Broadfording Road and the
east side of Mercersburg Road,approximately 2 miles northeast of the
Town of Clear Spring.The farm consists of 130 acres and has 78.9%
qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the Downs farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
61
Charles C.and Alliene S.Downs AD-9l-29:
The Downs farm lies along the east and south side of Broadfording Road
approximately 1 3/4 miles northeast of the Town of Clear Spring.The
farm consists of 118 acres and has 70.9%qualifying soils.Mrs.
Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the Downs farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Austin A.Flook AD-91-30:;~
CD
"I::t,..-
CO
Z
~
The Flook farm is located on both sides of Mt.Hebron Road at its
intersection with Dogstreet on the southeast side of the Town of
Keedysville.The farm consists of 280.76 acres and has 91.5%
qualifying soils.While the entire farm lies within the 201
Facilities Plan Study Area,only the 8 acres within the Town of
Keedysville has designated water and sewer service.Mrs.Johnson made
a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Flook farm
be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.
Bowers abstained.So ordered.
JoAnn M.Flook AD-91-3l:
The Flook farm lies along the south side of Wheeler Road approximately
300 feet east of the Town of Keedysville.The farm consists of 126.25
acres and has 81%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Flook farm be included
in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger suggested that Mr.Seifarth attend the August meeting
and give the Commission the current status of the Agricultural Land
Preservation Program.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rezoning Cases:
Mr.Brittain reminded the Commission that these two rezoning cases
were tabled until the facts of a recent Court ruling could be reviewed
by the County Attorney.The County Attorney,be memorandum to the
Commission,indicated they could proceed with their recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners and if further legal review is
necessary,it would be completed when the Commissioners decide on the
cases.These cases were heard during the March public hearing.
Ewing Oil Company RZ-91-7:
Mr.West made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the property owned by Ewing Oil Company be rezoned based on there
being a mistake in the original zoning.The Commission adopts the
staff's findings of fact as their findings of fact.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Ray M.Johns RZ-91-8:
Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
that the property owned by Ray M.Johns be rezoned based on there
being a mistake in the original zoning.The Commission adopts the
staff's findings of fact as their findings of fact.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
62
Water and Sewerage Plan Amendments:
Shepherds Spring Campground WS-91-5:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the Staff Report Following the
Public Hearing is included in the agenda packet.Mr.Lung did state
that during the public hearing there were questions raised regarding
which agency would be responsible for monitoring the water system.
Letters were received from the Maryland Department of the Environment
clarifying the roles of the Washington County Health Department and
the Maryland Department of the Environment,from Stan Bond addressing
the Health Department's requirements on the review process,and Lynn
Palmer clarifying that the Health Department will be responsible for
monitoring the facility.
Mr.Iseminger asked for a clarification between community and non-
community systems and Mr.Lung briefly explained the difference.
Mr.West made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the
approval of WS-91-5 conditional upon the subject water supply system
and service area being used solely for the Church's campground and
retreat.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Cedar Green Farm Subdivision WS-91-6:
Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that the Staff Report Following
the Public Hearing is included in the agenda packet and the staff has
nothing else to add to the report.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners the denial of WS-91-6 since the
site is located outside of the adopted Urban Growth Area and that it
is not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Cedar Ridge Children'S Home and School WS-91-7:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the Staff Report Following the
Public Hearing is included in the agenda packet.He stated that the
Sanitary District will be responsible for maintaining the water and
sewer system.He added that even though the site is located outside
of the adopted Urban Growth Area,the proposed use on the site is a
Principle Permitted Use in this zoning district.Providing public
facilities to serve this use would be the best way to serve the site.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
the approval of WS-91-7 conditional upon the subject facilities and
service areas being used solely for the Children's Home and School.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
FY'92 Work Program:
Mr.Moser made a motion to adopt the FY'92 Work Program as reviewed
during a Special Meeting of June 17,1991.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
So ordered.
August Meeting Date:
Due to the lack of a quroum for the August 5th date,by consensus,the
Commission will hold their August Regular Meeting on August 12.
Cut-off for Agenda Materials:
The Commission discussed alternatives to the current deadlines for
preparation of its agenda packets which would allow additional review
time by Commission members.After the discussion,Mr.Moser made a
motion that the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Commission shall
be mailed by no later than two Thursdays preceding the Regular
Meeting.Approvals from agencies for all matters to be considered by
the Commission must be received by the Planning Commission Office by
no later than 9:00 A.M.two Mondays prior to the Commission meeting.
All variance requests must be received at least two Fridays prior to
the Commission meeting.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
63
CD-q-
.,-
COz
::2
··I~
Donald E.
64
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 12,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,August 12,1991 in Court Room No.1 of the Court
House,Hagerstown,Maryland.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Ex-Officio,Ronald
L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven
West.Staff:Director;James P.Brittain,Senior Planner;Stephen T.
Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and
Edward Schreiber,Assistant Planner;John Gudmundson and Secretary,
Janet L.Walkley.Vice-Chairman Bertrand L.Iseminger was absent.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser made a motion to adopt the minutes of ,the July 1,1991
regular meeting as written.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Independent Cement Corporation -Update:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that a letter was received from
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)regarding the Surface Mining
Permit for the proposed expansion for Independent Cement Corporation
(ICC).Independent Cement Corporation now needs to accept the
modifications and controls put on the permit by DNR.After the
modifications have been accepted,DNR has thirty days to issue the
permit.Mr.Brittain stated that Mr.Ed Larrimore with DNR is present
to answer any questions of the staff and Commission regarding the
permit.
Mr.Zombro thanked Mr.Larrimore for taking time to attend the
meeting.
Mr.Lung distributed copies of a letter from Delegate Bruce Poole to
the Commission.On July 22,1991 a letter was received from DNR
indicating that they were prepared to issue approval of the Mining and
Reclamation Plan and issue a Surface Mining Permit for the proposed
expansion of Independent Cement Corporation's quarry.The letter
indicated that ICC has the right to request a hearing on the
modifications that were imposed on the permit and if ICC declines a
public hearing,DNR was required to issue a permit in thirty days.
The Mining and Reclamation Plan goes hand in hand with the site plan
which will be reviewed at a future Planning Commission meeting.The
Mining and Reclamation Plan includes detailed information on the
operation of the quarry,reclamation of the quarry after mining is
completed,blasting procedures,berm construction,dewatering,etc.
The staff has reviewed the Mining and Reclamation Plan along with the
conditions of the permit and has comments that may have an influence
on the Planning Commission's review of the site plan.
Mr.West questioned about the impacts on the water supply and what it
means.Mr.Ed Larrimore approached the Commission and introduced
Jeanine Mauersburg also with the Department of Natural Resources.Mr.
Larrimore stated that there is an existing Water Appropriations Permit
which allows ICC to appropriate or draw water out of the ground.The
modificiations now do not propose any additional water appropriations.
As the mining area increases,there will be additional appropriation.
At such time that the water being withdrawn comes close to the amount
already authorized,the permit will be reviewed as a separate entity.
House Bill 499,which was passed last year,will require that DNR
impose a zone of influence around limestone quarries in Washington,
Frederick,Carroll Counties.Mr.Larrimore stated that over the
coming months,DNR will be defining a zone of influence around the
quarry which will anticipate any well problenls due to dewatering of
CD
""",.-
OJ
Z
~
65
the quarry.This zone of influence will make the quarry responsible
for replacing the water supply within that zone if the groundwater
supply is effected.
Mr.West said that the DNR's letter states that a fence is to be
constructed in the northwest area.He asked if DNR is requiring this
fence.Mr.Larrimore said that DNR is requiring a fence to be
constructed to a length of 2600 feet in the Old Forge area.The fence
will be constructed in a two year phasing period;50%this year and
50%next year.Mr.West said that the letter stated that the average
setback from existing dwellings is 600 feet and he questioned why the
recommended setback for this quarry is below 600 feet.Mr.Larrimore
stated that the figures were from existing quarries that have been in
operation for many years.Surface mining regulations went into effect
in 1989.
Mr.Lung asked Mr.Larrimore if he had an opportunity to review the
comments expressed by the Planning staff.Mr.Larrimore presented
copies of a letter from blasting experts regarding blasting and damage
to nearby properties as requested by the staff.Mr.Larrimore stated
that the staff commented on the renewal process of the permit.He
added that DNR reviews the permits on a five year basis.The
Department of Natural Resources has the authority in the statute that
allows DNR to modify the permit during the process.The permittee has
the right to request a hearing and if after the hearing the permittee
refuses to accept the conditions,DNR can revoke the permit.There
was a discussion with Mr.Larrimore concerning the acreage of the area
currently being mined and how long it has taken to mine that area and
.the acreage of the expansion area and how long it would take to mine
that area.Ms.Mauersburg quoted the average amount of area mined per
year as being 1.1 acres.Mr.Bowers was concerned with such a large
area being permitted at one time and asked why a phase-in plan was not
implemented.
Mr.Brittain asked Mr.Larrimore if any changes to the site plan are
requested by the Planning Commission,how will this effect the
issuance of the permit to ICC.He added that the site plan will not
be reviewed before the September 9,1991 meeting.Mr.Larrimore
stated that DNR's permit should be as compatible as possible with the
County's site plan.If the Planning Commission's requirements are
beyond when DNR's permit requirements,it would be difficult to change
the permit.He added that if an additional few weeks is needed,it
could possibly be arranged.
Mr.West asked if Independent
modifications to the permit.
July 26,1991.
Cement Corporation had accepted the
Mr.Larrimore said ICC accepted it on
No action was taken by the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Wayde Hockenberry:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the variance request for Wayde Hockenberry.
The site is located along the north side of U.S.Route 40
approximately 1/4 mile west of st.Pauls Road.The applicant is
requesting to subdivide a 1 acre lot which did not pass Health
Department perculation tests and to include the septic field on
property owned by his father by means of a septic easement.The
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance states that the On-Site Sewage
Disposal Ordinance should be followed.Due to the On-Site Sewage
Disposal Ordinance requiring septic systems to be on the same lot,the
staff is recommending denial of the variance request since an easement
should only be approved on existing lots of record experiencing septic
failures without enough land area for replacement systems.The Health
Department has indicated they will approve of the request,however,
they discourage this type of arrangement.
Mr.Russ Townsley,consultant for the applicant,stated that a
66
perculation test could not be obtained on the rear portion of the lot.
He added that his client could not afford to include the area where
the perculation test was approved.Mr.Townsley stated that when
perculation tests are disapproved,the Health Department suggests
creating an easement area.He added that he has a letter from the
Health Department approving the request.
After a discussion,Mr.West made a motion to deny the variance
request based on the staff's recommendation that the lot does not have
an approved perculation area on-site and it not being in compliance
with Section 401.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.So ordered.The Commission is of the opinion that the
Hockenberrys could come up with a solution to include the perculation
area within the proposed lot.
Subdivisions:
Richard Oakley:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Richard Oakley,Lots 2 through 5.The subject site is located along
Beaver Creek and Beaver Creek Church Roads.Zoning is Agriculture.
The owner is proposing to create 4 lots on 39.5 acres.Proposed lot
sizes will range from 3 to 26 acres.The lots will be served by
individual wells and septic systems.Access and frontage to proposed
lots 2,3 and 4 will be via Beaver Creek Road,access and frontage to
lot 5 will be via Beaver Creek Church Road.The County Engineer has
stated that Beaver Creek Church Road is inadequate,however,this
.development meets the exemption requirements of Section 4.1.1.of the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.There is floodplain and
wetlands on the site but no construction will occur in these areas.
All agency approvals have been received.Mr.West made a motion to
grant preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.
Mrs.Johnson abstained.So ordered.
Deal Farms:
Mr.Schreiber presented the final simplified plat for Deal Farms,
parcels 1 through 4.The site is located along Frazier and Welty
Church Roads.Zoning is Agricultural.The mother is proposing to
create four parcels and convey them to her children.Parcels 1,2 and
3 will front along Frazier Road and parcel 4 will have frontage along
Welty Church Road.Normally,simplified plats do not require Planning
Commission approval.Due to the fact that these are large simplified
parcels,the staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commission
should approve them and add wording to the plat so in the future the
parcels cannot be bought with the misconception that builidng permits
could be issued.The applicant will be adding additional wording to
the plat with the intent that no structures can be constructed until
there is an approved development plat for the lots.
Ernie Golden,consultant,stated that the family'S intent is to
partition off parcels with the parcels being conveyed from the mother
to each family member.The family will not be developing the parcels
at this time and will be placing the property into the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program.Mr.Golden added that at some time in the
future,one dwelling will be constructed on each lot.Mr.Schreiber
informed Mr.Golden that when .the dwellings will be constructed,a
development plat must be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit.
After a discussion,Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant final simplified
plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
c.o
~,....
OJ
Z
::§:
67
Kenneth and Gloria Bousely:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Kenneth and Gloria Bousely,Lots 2 through 8.The subject site is
located along Lake Drive just south of Maryland Route 63.A
preliminary consultation was held in June 1991 and the Commission
approved the length of panhandles for this development.The owner is
proposing to create 7 residential lots with sizes ranging from 1 to 11
acres.Individual wells and septic systems will serve the lots.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant
preliminary and final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So
ordered.
Kline Subdivision:
,
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
the Kline Subdivision,Lot A.The subject site is located along the
south side of Old Ravenrock Road.Zoning is Agricultural.The owner
is proposing to construct a 30'x 80'office building with storage
yard.A Special Exception for equipment storage yard and a variance
from the required front and side yard setbacks was granted by the
Board of Zoning Appeals in September 1990.A variance was also
granted for additional reduction in front and side yard setbacks in
July 1991.Due to the location of the storage yard,the Commission
may want to establish additional screening from Ravenrock Road.Mr.
Spickler made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval
without additional screening.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Determinations:
Karen Waltz:
Mr.Schreiber presented the road adequacy determination for Karen
Waltz.The property is located along the north side of Georgetown
Road just east of Maryland Route 64.Zoning is Residential Rural.
The applicant is proposing to construct a dwelling on .4 acres which
is an existing lot of record.The applicant is also proposing to
enlarge the .4 acre tract to a 1 acre parcel in order to construct the
house on the old property line.The County Engineer has issued his
disapproval since Georgetown Road is only 16 feet in width.The
horizontal and vertical curves are adequate in this area.Mr.West
made a motion to grant a proposed future subdivision request as
proposed to that it is an expansion of an existing lot of record and
that the intent of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is not
being violated since no additional traffic will be generated.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Mary Trumpower:
Mrs.Pietro presented the road adequacy determination for Mary
Trumpower.The property is located along the south side of Hicksville
Road.The applicant is proposing to create 3 residential lots off of
her 135 acre farm.This request meets the exemption requirements of
Section 4.1.1.of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance which
states that one lot can be subdivided for each 25 acres of land as
long as the road in front of the property is a minimum of 16 feet in
width.Mr.West made a motion to grant the proposed future
subdivision since it qualifies for the exemption requirements of
Section 4.1.1.of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Seconded
Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Edward Cline:
Mrs.Pietro presented the road adequacy determination for Edward
Cline.The property is located along Center Lane in Cavetown.The
Commission previously granted a variance for a lot without public road
frontage.The proposed future subdivision does not meet the
requirements of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance due to poor
sight distance along Maryland Route 66.During the variance request,
it was stated that Mr.Cline will be constructing a dwelling to the
rear property and his mother-in-law will continue to live in the
existing dwelling.After a discussion,Mr.West made a motion to
68
grant the proposed future subdivision since no additional traffic will
be generated since the applicants already live on the property.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.By consensus,the Commission is
of the opinion that this case and others of similar circumstances
should not be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and
should be handled via Section 3.3 by the Planning Director.
Richard Huntzberry:
Mrs.Pietro presented the road adequacy determination for Richard
Huntzberry.She informed the Commission that this development was
previously submitted as a concept plan called Peach Tree Estates,an
11 lot residential subdivision located along Republican Avenue.The
developers of peach Tree Estates were working with Glenn Dull on
solutions to the road width and sight distance problems along
Republican Avenue when Mr.Dull passed away.Mr.Terry McGee began
reviewing the proposed development and supported comments by Mr.Dull
regarding the proposed development.In December 1990 the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance was adopted and a new set of requirements
must be adhered to.At this time there is a new development proposal
by Mr.Huntzberry for a 4 lot residential subdiv~sion.The County
Engineer is continuing to state that Republican Avenue is inadequate
due to several locations with poor sight distance and inadequate road
width.
Mr.Russ Townsley,consultant for Mr.Huntzberry,briefly explained
the history of the property to the Commission and explained the sight
distance problems along both 90 degree turns along Republican Avenue.
Ee added that Mr.Huntzberry is willing to do whatever is necessary
but he is unable to obtain property from private individuals for
improvements to Republican Avenue.
Mr.SpiCkler made a motion to table any action on this request until
portions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance can be reviewed.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Moser agreed that there are problems
with portions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance being very
vague,however,the road width requirements is clearly stated in the
Ordinance.On a call for the question,the motion died to table any
action due to all Commission members opposing the motion.
Mr.West made a motion that the Planning Commission take the position
that this proposal by Mr.Huntzberry does not meet the requirements of
the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and,therefore,the Planning
Commission recommends that significant improvements would have to be
made to the property and road prior to subdivision approval to meet
the County Engineer's reservations.Seconded Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Roger Buhrman -Intensive Swine Facility:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the written summary of the
preliminary consultation for Roger Buhrman'S intensive swine facility
is included in the agenda packet.He added that in the summary it was
stated that Mr.Buhrman is experimenting with feed additives,however,
it should have stated it was a manure additive and also that Mr.
Buhrman is removing dead animals from the facility on an as needed
basis instead of having a renderer pick them up.During the
preliminary consultation it was noted that the barns did not meet the
300 foot setbacks from an adjacent property.Since the consultation,
Mr.Burhman has purchased the property in question and a deed has been
recorded.The Soil Conservation District stated during the
consultation that they could not issue a certification that the waste
storage structure was constructed according to their specifications
until additional information is received concerning the design
standards used in the construction of the facility.At this time,
Tri-County Confinement Systems is in the process of supplying the
necessary information to the Soil Conservation District so that they
can issue their approval.
In order to address odor complaints from adjacent property owners,Mr.
Buhrman agreed to amend the Nutrient Management Plan to limit the
CD
'¢,...
CO
Z
~
69
amount of spreading on fields adjacent to residents.The odor
complaints appear to be a result of manure spreading on grass and
pasture land which is located close to some residences.Manure
applied to this type of crop cannot be incorporated into the soil and
therefore,presents a much higher probability of odor problems.The
best way to reduce the potential for odor would be to eliminate or
reduce manure applications on these crops.However,the Extension
Office has indicated that under Mr.Buhrman's existing cropping plan,
there is not sufficent land available to totally utilize the manure on
crops where it can be incorporated into the soil.The revised
Nutrient Management Plan states that spreading will occur on the grass
hay and pasture only twice a year.
Mr.William Nairn,representing the adjacent property owners,
distributed a copy of a list indicating the property owners he is
representing.Mr.Nairn stated that according to the procedures
listed in the washington County Zoning Ordinance,the Planning
Commission may establish additional requirements for the issuance of
the certification and approval of the intensive swine facility.He
added that he will be addressing requirements that the adjacent
property owners feel are necessary regarding the protection of the
air,water and soil.Mr.Nairn stated that the property owner's major
concern is with waste disposal from the animals.The Waste Management
Plan makes recommendations regarding the disposal process and the
property owners would like the recommendations to be turned into
requirements.The Waste Management Plan recommends application of
manure in the morning rather than in the afternoon or evening.The
adjacent property owners have witnessed spreading during evening hours
.within the past few weeks.Mr.Nairn stated that morning application
should be made a requirement and that application should not occur
during windy days,on the weekends,in the fall or winter when the
ground cannot absorb the manure,or within 100 feet of streams or 50
feet within a watercourse.Mr.Nairn stated that incorporation of the
manure into the soil can occur in different ways;ie.spreading the
manure on the top and discing it under.The Waste Management Plan
states that incorporation should occur within 12 hours within
spreading but not more than 24 hours.The Nutrient Management Plan
states that incorporation should occur within one to five days.The
more strict requirement of 12 hours should be required for this
facility to incorporate the waste disposal into the soil to reduce
potential runoff to streams as well as odor control.Mr.Nairn stated
that he has a copy of a letter to the Frederick County Health
Department regarding manure injection.The Frederick County Health
Department indicated that incorporation would occur much faster if an
injection machine were used.The property owners are recommending
that the Planning Commission make it a requirement that Mr.Buhrman
purchase inject the manure.Mr.Nairn stated that both the Waste
Management Plan and Nutrient Management Plan recommend testing of the
soil.The property owners would like to see a requirement that
testing be done by independent agencies with the results reviewed
periodically.The problem is that nutrients from manure build up over
time and to state that the nutrients on the ground are ok,does not
mean that within a year,the nutrients may not be proper.Periodic
testing should occur to determine if the amount of manure being
applied is beyond the point where it is providing nutrient assistance
to the plants and may be polluting the water.Mr.Nairn stated that
the property owners are concerned with the enforcement of the Nutrient
Management Plan and Waste Management Plan.
Mr.Hans Goerl,representing Roger Buhrman,stated that as a
preliminary observation,there has been a fair degree of
misapprehension on this facility.Mr.Burhman has been running a hog
raising operation on this property since 1974.When Mr.Buhrman
decided to expand his operation,there was a moritorim on expansions
in Washington County.Mr.Buhrman owns 289 acres and pays Washington
County property taxes on 270 acres and the remaining 19 acres he pays
Frederick County property taxes.When Mr.Buhrman wanted to expand
his hog operation,he approached two County Commissioners,Paul
Prodonovich,Zoning Administrator with Washington County and John
Frye,a recently retired State employee (Department of Assessment and
Taxation)with knowledge of County boundaries.He was informed by
each individual that they were not sure of the location of the
70
Washington County/Frederick County boundary.Mr.Buhrman approached
Frederick County and was advised by them during a site visit that
based on the lay of the land determined by the watersheds of the
Little Antietam and the Monocacy River,the property was located in
Frederick County.Mr.Buhrman then approached the Washington County
Soil Conservation Service and with map overlays,determined the
property was located in Frederick County.As a result of substantial
odor complaints,Mr.Buhrman received a letter from Paul Prodonovich
stating that the property was located in Washington County and that
the facility is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.At this time,
Mr.Buhrman is still not sure which County his barns are located.Mr.
Goerl is recommending that Washington County perform a survey to
determine which County the barns are located.Mr.Buhrman is
determined to abide by the Washington County regulations to have his
facility in compliance with the Ordinance to avoid litigation.
In response to Mr.Nairn's comments regarding odor,Mr.Goerl stated
that odor control is handled by the regulations outlined in the
Intensive Swine and Poultry Facility Ordinance.The Ordinance states
that odor generated by an intensive swine or poultry facility that has
an approved and implemented Waste Management Plan,will be considered
acceptable.The Waste Management Plan is not to be approved by the
Planning Commission but by the Soil Conservation Service.The Waste
Management Plan has been approved by the Soil Conservation Service for
some period of time.Mr.Goerl stated that in Mr.Nairn's comments it
was noted that Mr.Buhrman should be required to purchase an injection
machine.On the type of crops (grass hay and pasture)Mr.Buhrman
farms on his property,injection cannot be used.Mr.Goerl closed by
~tating that Mr.Buhrman is living in an Agricultural area and that
raising hogs is a Principle Permitted Use in this zoning district.
After a discussion by the Commission regarding whether the property is
located in Washington County and what criteria is required,no action
was taken by the Commission.
Natural Well Estates:
Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that the written summary of the
preliminary consultation for Natural Well Estates is included in the
agenda packet.The subject site is located along the south side of
Natural Well Road approximately 1000 feet east of Falling Waters Road.
The owner is proposing to create 45 residential lots on 62 acres.
Zoning is Agricultural.The main concerns during the consultation
were expressed by the Engineering Department.Natural Well Road is
inadequate for additional traffic since it is only 15 feet in width.
There are sight distance problems at the entrance of the site onto
Natural Well Road and looking in an east/west direction.Falling
Waters Road is also inadequate for additional traffic.Traffic counts
must be taken due to high peak hours of travel.Based on the results
of the traffic counts,the Engineering Department may require Falling
Waters Road to be widened to 20 feet.The Planning Commission has the
authority to determine the maximum length of the cul-de-sac.The
Engineering Department stated during the consultation that there is
not much that can be done on the length due to the shape of the lot.
Mr.Kenneth Mackley,attorney for Mr.Allen Shank,developer,stated
that Mr.Shank is well aware of the road width problems of Natural
Well and Falling Waters Roads.Unless the County Engineer
unexpectedly places excessive widening conditions for Natural Well
Road,Mr.Shank is prepared to pay for all necessary widening.
(0
-..:t,.-
coz
:2:
71
Ms.Suzanne Donaldson,an adjacent property owner,voiced concerns on
behalf of all property owners in the area regarding the additional
traffic on inadequate roadways,the possibility of groundwater and
well contamination with the installation of 45 wells and septic
systems on this property,and the possibility of endangering of cave
inhabitants'in the area that are listed as endangered species.
No action was taken by the Commission.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Maureen M.Warner AD-9l-32:
The Warner farm lies along Charles Mill Road,2 miles northwest of
Smithsburg.The farm consists of 79 acres and has 84%qualifying
soils.Mrs.~ohnson made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Warner farm be included in the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
F.Carlton Ernst,Jr.AD-9l-33:
The Ernst farm lies along the north side of Broadfording Road,2 1/2
miles northeast of Clear Spring.The farm consists of 143.675 acres
and has 96.1%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Ernst farm be included
in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent
,with the Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Holmes L.and Dolores E.Haller AD-9l-34:
The Haller farm is located along the east side of U.S.Route 40,1
1/2 miles north of Boonsboro.The farm consists of 23 acres and has
91.8%qualifying soils.This farm is contiguous to 145 District
acres.Mrs.~ohnson made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Haller farm be included in the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Conococheague Sportsmans Club AD-9l-35:
The Conococheague Sportsmans Club,Inc.is located south of Maryland
Route 34,2 miles southwest of Sharpsburg.The property consists of
168.45 acres and has 99%qualifying soils.Mrs.~ohnson made a motion
to recommend to the County Commissioners that the property owned by
the Conococheague Sportsmans Club be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation Program for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.
Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Bonnard ~.and Peggy R.Morgan AD-9l-36:
The Morgan farm lies along the west side of Chestnut Grove Road,2 1/4
miles southeast of Sharpsburg.The farm consists of 134.37 acres and
has 98%qualifying soils.Mrs.~ohnson made a motion to recommend to
the County Commissioners that the Morgan farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Bonnard ~.and Peggy R.Morgan AD-9l-37:
The Morgan farm lies 600 feet west of Chestnut Grove Road,2 miles
southeast of Sharpsburg.The farm consists of 159.4 acres and has
100%qualifying soils.Mrs.~ohnson made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the Morgan farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So
ordered.
72
Bonnard J.and Peggy R.Morgan AD-91-38:
The Morgan farm lies along both sides of Snyder's Landing Road,1/2
miles west of Sharpsburg.The farm consists of 152.66 acres and has
87%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the Morgan farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So
ordered.
Joseph K.and Marioin C.Scott:
The Scott farm lies along the south side of Natural Well Road,2 miles
south of Williamsport.The farm consists of 227.27 acres and has
53.3%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to
the County Commissioners that the Scott farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive plan for the County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rezoning Cases:
Behaga Ganim RZ-91-11:
Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff
reports and testimony of the June 10,1991 public hearing,Mr.West
~ade a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the denial of
RZ-91-11 for property owned by Behaga Ganim.This recommendation is
based on the Commission's opinion that the applicant did not prove
that a change in the character of the neighborhood had occurred.In
addition,the Commission is of the opinion that the applicant's
definition of the neighborhood was to broad and that it was more
confined to the residential areas of Hebb and Emmert Roads.Seconded
by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Spickler and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Harry L.Powers.III RZ-91-12:
Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff
reports and testimony of the June 10,1991 public hearing,Mr.West
made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the
property owned by Harry L.Powers,III be approved.This
recommendation is based on the Commission's opinion that the applicant
demonstrated that there was a mistake in the original zoning and an
Agricultural zoning classification should have been established during
the intitial comprehensive zoning of the County in 1973.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.Mr.Spickler and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
North Village Development Company RZ-91-13:
Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff
reports and testimony of the June 10,1991 public hearing,Mr.Moser
made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the
property owned by the North Village Development Company be approved.
This recommendation was based on the Commission's opinion that there
was a change in the character of the neighborhood.Seconded by Mr.
West.Mr.Spickler and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Special Meeting:
Due to the lateness of the hour,by consensus,the Commission agreed
to hold a Special Meeting on Monday,August 26,1991 at 5:00 P.M.to
consider the following items:State Certification of County's
Agricultural Land Preservation Program,Concept Plan for Dr.
Schneider,Demolition Permits for Potomac Edison;Norfolk and Western
Railroad;and Daniel Dunlap,2020 Legislation and Gerald A.Ditto's
Text Amendment.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
MNB146
74
1
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -AUGUST 26,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held a Special Meeting
on Monday,August 26,1991 in the third floor conference room of
the County Administration Building,Hagerstown,Maryland.
Members present were:Vice-Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger,
EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,Bernard Moser,
Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;
James P.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,and Eric Seifarth,and
Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.Chairman Donald E.Zombro was
absent.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 5:00 P.M.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Concept Plan -Dr.Schneider Lot 2:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that a preliminary consultation
was held several months ago for a proposed multi-lot commercial
Jight industrial development located at the I-70/Route 66
interchange.The site encompasses 60 acres.Proposed lots will
range in size from 3 to 5 acres.Zoning is Highway Interchange.
Areas of concern during the preliminary consultation consisted of
the Special Planning Area associated with the Beaver Creek Trout
Hatchery.The proposal was sent to various State agencies.The
agencies have resonded with general comments,however,specific
comments cannot be made until a detailed site plan is submitted.
The developer is not required to go into this type of detail on a
concept plan.The consultant has submitted additional
information for for the development of lot #2 and is requesting
that the Planning Commission allow him to proceed with
subdivision and site plan submittal for this lot.The Planning
Commission does not formally approve concept plans but the
consultant has requested that the Planning Commission review the
plan due to requirements of the Highway Interchange district
stating that the Planning Commission can impose additional
requirements on buffers and setbacks.
Mr.Iseminger questioned if this site is visible from 1-70.
Rodney Tissue from Associated Engineering Sciences said the site
is on a hill and a portion of the building will be visible.Mr.
Iseminger asked if the staff reviewed the plan in regard to
screening along 1-70.Mr.Lung said that review will occur
during the site plan review stage.Mr.Iseminger said that the
interchange as viewed from 1-70 should be kept as aesthetically
pleasing as possible.
Mr.Tom Summers,also representing Dr.Schneider,informed the
Commission that there is a large area between the property and
1-70 which has trees on it.The property may only be able to be
seen from Route 66.Dr.Schneider is willing to work with the
Commission's concerns and would like the Commission's input on
this proposal.
Mr.Spickler stated that the Commission is concerned with the
topography of the area,the park-n-ride and the Beaver Creek
Trout Hatchery.The Commission is aware that it would be
difficult to say what will happen on the entire site with the
topography being the way it is.Mr.Summers added that the
biggest problem will be designing the access to the site.Mr.
Rodney Winebrenner from Associated Engineering Sciences gave the
Commission a detailed review of access points into the site and
comments made by the State Highway Administration.
CD..q
y-eoz
~
2
Mr.Iseminger asked where drainage from this site will flow.Mr.
Winebrenner said drainage will flow across the park-n-ride toward
1-70 to an inlet to Route 66 and drains toward Beaver Creek.Mr.
Tissue added that stormwater management will either be handled
with individual systems on lots or a regional facility if some of
the lots could drain to a certain point which is based on
topography.This will be reviewed by the Maryland State Highway
Administration and the Water Resources Administration.
Mr.Moser said the letter from Department of Natural Resources
listed comments regarding toxic spills.He asked if the Zoning
Ordinance gives authority for specifying special conditions for
the site plan of lot #2.Mr.Lung said the Zoning Ordinance does
give that authority.He added that he spoke with a
representative from the Department of the Environment and they
will be reviewing this application in their Division of Hazardous
and Solid Waste Disposal in regard to runoff.Depending on the
type of use proposed,the site plan will be reviewed to make sure
that any type of hazardous material that could be washed off the
site would be controlled prior to it entering the watershed •
Mr.Moser asked if the Planning Commission approved the site plan
for lot #2,what effect will that approval have on the staff's
review of the Highway Interchange Study.Mr.Lung stated that
all current HI zoned land in the County will be rezoned to
HI-I,HI-2 or some other designation based on the characteristics
ot the individual properties.HI-I is more open zoning
classification for business and commercial uses and HI-2 is for
residential uses.The existing land use on properties or
proposed uses which have been approved will be taken into
consideration.
Mr.Iseminger stated that a minimum a hydrogeological study needs
to be done for the site to know how a potential spill could
effect the groundwater or the Beaver Creek.Mr.Lung added that
a hydrogeologic study is recommended for development in the
Beaver Creek Planning Area by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr.Bowers stated that in his opinion since the roads and
stormwater management areas will be dedicated to the County,he
would like to see a total concept plan for the entire development
prior to site plan approval for lot #2.He also stated that in a
previous case in the HI district for a proposed commercial use
within a sensitive area,the County required an environmental
impact study.It was his opinion that the Planning Commission
should be consistent on action that is taken for proposed
developments in sensitive areas.
After a discussion,by consensus,the Commission informed the
consultant that a hydrogeologic study and an environmental impact
study should be submitted with the site plan for lot #2.
State Certification of County's Agricultural Land Preservation
Program:
Mr.Spickler made a motion to approve the Certificate.Seconded
by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger recommended that the Planning staff draft a letter
to the Governor regarding the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program for the Commission's review.
Demolition Permits:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the demolition permits
are referred to the Planning Commission because of the County
Commissioners'policy which states that any demolition permit of
a structure listed on the Historic Sites Survey must be reviewed
by Planning Commission and Historic District Commission prior to
issuance of a demolition permit.
75
76
3
Potomac Edison Company:
The Historic District Commission recommended approval of the
demolition of the barn on the site which is located along Doub
Road just south of 1-70.After a discussion,Mr.Spickler made a
motion to recommend approval of the demolition permit.Seconded
by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Norfolk and Western Railroad:
The Historic District Commission took no action on the proposed
demolition permit for the Norfolk and Western Railroad because
the permit was invalid since the applicant did not return the
affidavit from the owner of the property giving them the
authority to make the application.The subject site is located
along Maryland Route 34 in Sharpsburg.After a discussion,Mr.
Moser made a motion to table action on this request for a
demolition permit.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Daniel Dunlap:
The Historic District Commission recommended disapproval of the
demolition permit for Daniel Dunlap because no one gave
justification as to why the log house was to be demolished.The
subject site is located along Maryland Route 67.After a
discussion,Mr.Bowers made a motion to recommend approval of the
issuance of the demolition permit for Daniel Dunlap.Seconded by
Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
2020 Legislation:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the Maryland
Association of Counties (MACO)routed a survey soliciting
information on current environmental and growth controls to all
counties in Maryland.The survey has been completed by staff and
returned to MACO.The information obtained will be presented to
the Maryland Legislature's Joint Committee on Growth this summer.
No action was taken by the Commission.
Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance -Article V Schools:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that during the six month
review and report to the County Commissioners regarding the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,it was identified that the
Sharpsburg Elementary School had exceeded 105%of its I.A.C.
rating.Under current criteria of the Ordinance,the Planning
Commission cannot approve subdivision plats unless enrollment is
below 105%of the I.A.C.rating or qualifies for an exemption
under Section 5.1.Since Sharpsburg Elementary School is located
outside of a designated Growth Area,residential development
having the potential of containing school aged children is non-
exempt from the Ordinance's criteria.After a discussion,the
Commission,by consensus,decided to wait until September's
enrollment figures are released by the Board of Education before
taking further action.
Gerald A.Ditto Text Amendments RZ-91-3:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that a Staff Report and Analysis
Following the Public Hearing was prepared and submitted to the
Commission after the June 10,1991 public hearing.He added that
the Commission discussed this proposed amendment at a Special
Meeting held on May 29,1991 but no action was taken at that
time.
Mr.Spickler stated that the issues that surround the Animal
Waste Ordinance,ie.odor,etc.are numerous and Mr.Ditto has
raised additional issues.He added that the question arises if
the Planning Commission wants to be involved in the mandatory
aspects of a Nutrient Management Plan.The issue involved now is
(0
~....-
00z
::?E
4
not how to best manage an operation but whether or not it becomes
mandatory to regulate operations because of the neighbors who do
not like the way agricultural is progressing in an Agricultural
zone.Mr.Iseminger stated that he concurs with Mr.Spickler's
comments.He added that he would have problems supporting the
proposed amendment as written,however,Mr.Ditto did come up
with some interesting points.Mr.Iseminger stated that this
proposal should not have to be taken back to the Committee that
first prepared this Ordinance.Mr.West stated that it took
educated people to establish it as it's written today.He added
that he does not know how to recreate that process to support
this amendment.Mr.West stated that he would have to have allot
of expert input before making any changes.Mr.Moser stated that
he is impressed with the submission of the proposed amendment.
It's his opinion that the existing Ordinance is discriminatory
and that this should be addressed by the County.As long as the
Commission continues to approve residential developments next to
active farms,the problem will continue to get worse.Mrs.
Johnson stated that she concurs with Mr.Moser's comments.She
added that the current problem is odor but further down the road
it will be a waste management problem.Mr.Bowers suggested that
the Ordinance include all animals.Mr.Spickler recommended that
the Planning staff and Commission members review Mr.Ditto's
proposed amendment one by one and have the County Attorney review
the changes.Mr.West suggested that the Ordinance could be
expanded to include all types of animal husbandry operations.It
w~s Mr.West's opinion that if the Ordinance is to be studied
further,he would like more technical input on the Waste
Management Plan.
After a discussion by the Commission,by consensus,it was
determined that a committee should be formed with Planning
Commission members and staff members to review this further.
Mr.Ditto stated he is willing to compromise on this proposed
amendment,however,the Waste Management Plan is not the section
of the Ordinance to compromise because this is the environmental
aspect of the Ordinance.There is problems in the Ordinance with
regard to capacity to house definition.It does not allow for
the new technology of housing.Mr.Ditto added that he would be
receptive to a Committee to reevaluate the Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at
7:30 P.M."
1 ~./'\hQ.['/~-~a.
_"E.OOb,cna,"
77
78
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 9,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,September 9,1991 in Court Room No.1 of the Court
House,Hagerstown,Maryland.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger,EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;
Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate
Planners;James P.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Edward Schreiber,and
Eric Seifarth;Assistant Planner,John Gudmundson and Secretary,
Janet L.Walkley.Absent was Lisa Kelly Pietro.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to adopt the minutes of the Regular
Meeting of August 12,1991 as written.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So
ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
"
Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that Independent Cement Corporation
is requesting site plan approval to expand its existing quarry
operation.The site is located along the south side of Old Forge
Road.Zoning is Industrial Mineral.The area proposed for expansion
consists of 109 acres and is located to the east of the existing
quarry.Along with the application for site plan approval,ICC has
submitted a revised Mining and Reclamation Plan to the Department of
Natural Resources for approval.DNR has stated that they are prepared
to approve the Mining and Reclamation Plan and issue a Surface Mining
Permit with modifications to the proposed expansion.
During the August meeting,the planning Commission discussed the
Mining and Reclamation Plan with officials from the Department of
Natural Resources and DNR has also responded to questions raised by
the staff in writing which is included in the agenda packet.In
response to a question by a Commission member concerning ICC's water
appropriation permit,the staff received information that ICC
currently has a water appropriation permit which allows 820,000 gpd
average dewatering and according to DNR,ICC currently pumps 185,618
gpd.
The Mining and Reclamation Plan and site plan have been revised since
the original submittal in August 1989 based on comments from DNR and
other agencies.The revised plan shows a new effected area and Mr.
Lung indicated this area on a copy of the site plan.The Department
of Natural Resources has established a setback of 500 feet from
existing adjacent dwellings to the limit of extraction.In those
areas where there are no existing dwellings within 500 feet,the
setback is 200 feet from ICC's property line.The Potomac Edison
Company has a 100 foot power line easement which runs through the
eastern portion of the affected area.ICC has elected to not cross
over this easement with the extraction limit.If the power line
easement were to be crossed,it would require the relocation of the
power line.The site plan proposes the construction of an earthen
berm approximately 8 feet in height around the perimeter of the
affected area.The location of the berm is approximately 200 feet
inside ICC's property line.Along with the earthen berm which is
designed to provide a visual screen,a vegetative fence is proposed
along the berm.According to the Mining and Reclamation Plan a
chainlink fence is to be constructed along the existing berm in the
vicinity of Old Forge Road.The site plan also calls for the
relocation of an existing private access road that currently serves
to..q
.,.-
CCI
Z
~
79
three existing dwellings on adjacent property.The proposed relocated
access road runs along ICC's property line in between the property
line and the proposed berm.
As stated previously,DNR is prepared to approve the site plan.The
Soil Conservation Service and Soil Conservation District have approved
the plan.The County Engineer has reviewed the revised site plan with
the recommendation that a road improvement bond be posted by ICC.The
County Commissioners will be acting on the bond at a later date.
The Planning staff has the following comments for the Planning
Commission to consider when taking action.Note #1 under "Landscape"
on sheet #2 is unclear.The note reads that "additional trees may be
planted along the western boundary within the 100 foot buffer strip if
mining progresses to the west and additional screening becomes
necessary.Plant two rows of pines (spacing 8'x 8')along the top of
the earthen berm".The note does not state who will determine when
this screening is necessary and if the two rows of pine along the top
of berm will definitely be planted.The note on the site plan
concerning the potential relocation of the power line is inappropriate
and should be removed because the proposed limit of extraction no
longer infringes on the Potomac Edison right-of-way.The location of
the chainlink fence to be installed along Old Forge Road should be
shown on the plan.In addition to this,the staff as well as the
Zoning Administrator has recommended that the entire site be fenced.
The fence should be located in between the berm and the relocated
access road.House Bill 499 is a recently adopted State regulation
which requires that DNR establish a zone of dewatering influence
around surface mines in Carroll,Frederick and Washington Counties in
Maryland.This zone of dewatering influence has not yet been
established for ICC.The Department of Natural Resources explained
why this zone is not included in the permit in their letter to the
Planning Commission dated August 26,1991.Mr.Lung read that portion
of the letter.In response to the staff's inquiries to DNR concerning
blasting impacts and potential damage to adjoining properties and
structures,DNR stated in their letter of August 26,1991 that,"while
it's difficult to predict the relationship between property damage and
distance of the blast,DNR believes that a setback of 500 feet from
dwellings provides an adequate level of structural protection.Our
(the Department of Natural Resources's)recommendation would be that
future dwellings be constructed a minimum of 500 feet from the limit
of blasting line".Mr.Lung pointed out the 500 foot setback from all
adjoining property lines bordering any non 1M zoning districts on a
copy of the site plan.He stated that the 500 feet should be measured
from the property line due to the fact that improvements can be made
to adjacent property to within 5 feet of the property line.
Mr.Iseminger questioned if the relocated access road will be paved or
gravel.Mr.Lung stated it will be gravel.There was no indication
on the site plan that it would be a hard surface road.
There was a discussion between Planning Commission members,the staff
and the applicant concerning various aspects of the site plan and the
Mining and Reclamation Plan.The discussion involved the impact that
House Bill 499 will have on this application,the ability for future
Planning Commission review of the plan as mining progresses,a time
table showing when and where mining is to progress into the site,the
location and timing of the construction of the berm and fencing,and
the location and screening of the relocated access road.Mr.Bowers
asked the applicant if ICC would be willing to submit the site plan
for this expansion in phases so that the Planning Commission would
have the ability to review the expansion on a 5,10,15 and 20 year
basis and apply any new regulations that may be adopted.John Urner,
Attorney for ICC,responded that ICC would not be agreeable to a
phase-in schedule.Mr.Bowers asked if the approval of this plan has
anything to do with ICC's incineration plans.Mr.Urner stated that
the plans are not related.Concerning setback requirements,Mr.
Spickler stated that a 500 foot setback from property lines is
necessary based on the protection of the public safety and previous
testimony heard by the Planning Commission.Screening for both the
access road and the quarry operation along with fencing and the berm
is necessary to protect adjacent property and the residents who live
80
there.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about giving approval to a
site plan that would span nearly 100 years without the opportunity for
periodic review by the County in the future.
Mr.Spickler moved to require a 500 foot setback from property lines
for the limit of extraction.The motion was based on Mr.Larrimore's
letter to the Planning Department dated August 26,1991 with the
recommendation that future dwellings be constructed 500 feet from the
limit of the blasting line to provide protection,the public testimony
and record,and the building setbacks contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Following Mr.Spickler's motion,there was discussion about additional
requirements involving fencing,location of the relocated access road,
screen planting and phasing of the construction of the fence,
screening,and berm.
Mr.Spickler made an addition to the motion that the proposed
relocated access road be 75 feet from the existing property line and
that it be screened from the existing property,the fence (chainlink)
and berm is to be constructed as mining progresses.Mr.Moser
seconded the addition.
There was a discussion concerning the construction of the fence,the
vegetative fence and the berm,and the timing of their installation.
It was agreed to change the motion concerning the installation of the
f~nce (chainlink)to require that the fence (chainlink)be constructed
along the entire length of the expansion area at one time.
Mr.Bowers made a motion to amend the aforementioned motion that the
site plan not become effective until House Bill 499 is complied with.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Iseminger commented and Mr.Bowers
concurred that the purpose of this requirement is that it is in the
best interest of the public and the citizens of Washington County and
for the same reasons that the Bill was presented to the floor of the
Maryland State House.So ordered.On a call for the question of the
main motion,as amended,the motion passed unanimously.
Roger Buhrman Intensive Swine Facility:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that a response is still outstanding
from Soil Conservation District regarding the certification for the
construction standards of the facility.The Soil Conservation Board
will be meeting on Wednesday,September 11,1991 and will forward a
recommendation to the County after that meeting.The University of
Maryland Cooperative Extension Service is preparing a revised Nutrient
Management Plan to address some of the items which were discussed
during the preliminary consultation.
Mr.Bowers asked if there would be a time on this particular operation
that the Planning staff could meet with the adjacent residents to
discuss some of the problems regarding this operation.Mr.~ch
stated that the staff will be speaking with Mr.Burhman and residents
of the area to start the process of opening the lines of
communication.The Planning Commission concurred with the staff
holding a meeting with the residents of the area.
(!)
"'¢
,.-
coz
:2:
81
Gerald Ditto Text Amendment RZ-91-3:
Mr.Zombro stepped down from the Chair and Mr.Iseminger chaired the
meeting for this particular subject.
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that during the extension of the
Regular August Planning Commission which was held on August 26,1991,
the Commission decided to appoint a committee to review Mr.Ditto's
proposed text amendment.He added that the committee needs to be
appointed at this time.Mrs.Johnson,Mr.Moser and Mr.Iseminger
volunteered to be on the committee.The meeting of the committee will
be held on Monday,September 16,1991 at 8:00 A.M.
Mr.Zombro returned at this time to Chair the remainder of the
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Daniel J.Poyner:
Mr.Gudmundson informed the Commission that Mr.Poyner has .requested
that this variance request be withdrawn from the agenda.No action
was taken by the Commission.
William C.and Nancy Kercheval:
M~.Schreiber informed the Commission that Mr.and Mrs.Kercheval have
requested that this variance request be withdrawn from the agenda.No
action was taken by the Commission.
Clyde N.Stotler:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Clyde N.Stotler.
The subject site is located along the south side of Dogstreet Road,
approximately 1300 feet east of Nicodemus Mill Road.The variance is
being requested from Section 405.11.B.1(b)of the Subdivision
Ordinance which states no conveyance of the lot will be made to anyone
not a member of the immediate family for a period of five years.The
applicant is proposing to sell his previously approved 1 acre lot
outside the immediate family to avoid bank foreclosure.The lot was
originally approved with the five year immediate family member
provision on September 4,1987 leaving approximately 1 year left on
the provision.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the variance request.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Vincent P.Smith:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Vincent P.Smith.
The subject site is located along the north side of U.S.Route 40,
approximately 1 mile west of Maryland Route 63.The variance is being
requested from Section 405.2.A.of the Subdivision Ordinance which
states that a minimum 500 foot distance between all new access points
on Minor Arterial roadways are required.Mr.Smith is requesting that
the Commission grant a reduction in the 500 foot access spacing
requirement to 150 feet.Sight distance is adequate in this location.
The Maryland State Highway Administration has issued a residential
access permit for this driveway.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant
the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
82
Subdivisions:
Vincent P.Smith:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Vincent P.Smith,lots I and 2.The subject site is located along the
north side of U.S.Route 40 approximately 1 mile west of Maryland
Route 63.Zoning is Conservation.A preliminary consultation was
held on this site in 1989.The Planning Commission previously granted
a variance to create five residential lots without the required 25
feet of public road frontage which will be conveyed to immediate
family members.The Board of Zoning Appeals reduced the lot sizes and
widths on this particular subdivision.The lot widths and setbacks
for side yards was reduced from 30 feet to 15 feet,lot width was
reduced from 300 feet to 100 feet and the lot area was reduced from 3
acres to 40,000 square feet.The two proposed lots will be 1.4 acres
each with 16.77 acres remaining.Private wells and septic systems
will serve the lots.Frontage and access to these lots will be via a
50 foot wide private street.If any of the lots are sold outside the
immediate family,the private street would have to be improved to
current County standards.
Mr.Spickler asked who will be responsible for upgrading the road if
the need arises.Mr.Schreiber stated it will be the owner or
developer of any of the lots.Mr.Spickler suggested that the road be
constructed to County standards at this time.Mr.Schreiber stated
that the condition of the variance was that these lots could be
created without being served by a public street.Mr.Goodrich added
that there is a note on the plat stating that if the lots are sold
outside the immediate family,the road must be upgraded to County
standards.He suggested that the note could be modified to specify
that it will be the family members that will be responsible for
upgrading the road.This note could also be placed into the deeds for
the lots when subdivided.Mr.Arch added that he is concerned with
private roads serving developments.He suggested that an additional
statement be placed on the plat indicating that at some point in time
if there is a petition to the Board of County Commissioners that the
County Engineer would be in a position to assess all the properties
within the development to bring the private road to current County
standards.After a discussion,Mr.Spickler made a motion to approve
the preliminary and final subdivision plat with a note being added to
the plat stating that the developer will be responsible in upgrading
the road if a lot is sold outside the immediate family as well as his
heirs and assigns.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.West voted no.So
ordered.
Tedrick Subdivision:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat
for Tedrick Subdivision,lots 1 through 3.The subject site is
located along the north side of Barnhart Road approximately .38 miles
east of Mercersburg Road.Zoning is Agricultural.Total area of the
site is 6.8 acres with lots 1 and 2 consisting of 1.8 acres and lot 3
consisting of 3.2 acres.Private wells and septic systems will serve
the site.The Planning Commission previously granted a variance
request on the panhandle length from the required 400 feet to 1300
feet.Lots 1 and 2 will be conveyed to immediate family members and
will have access over an easement on lot #3's panhandle.All agency
approvals have been received.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant
preliminary and final subdivision plat approval.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
c.o
""".,..-
OJ
Z
~
83
Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance Determinations:
Danny Vaughn:
Mr.Schreiber presented the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance road
adequacy determination for Danny Vaughn.The subject site is located
along the west side of Harp Road just south of Maryland Route 64.Mr.
Vaughn is proposing to create two 1 acre lots with 4 acres remaining.
The County Engineer has stated that Harp Road is inadequate due to its
width being 12 feet.This subdivision request does not qualify for
any exemptions as outlined in the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to deny the subdivision
request since it does not meet the requirements of the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
James E.and Iris M.Matheson AD-91-40:
The Matheson farm lies west of Monroe Road approximately 1/2 mile west
of the Town of Boonsboro.The farm consists of 161.95 acres and has
93.2%qualifying soils.Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to
the County Commissioners that the Matheson farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation District Program since it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Donald F.and Michael W.Belz AD-91-42:
The Belz farm lies along the west side of Mercersburg Road
approximately 1 mile north of the Town of Clear Spring.The farm
consists of 135.15 acres and has 96%qualifying soils.Mr.Spickler
made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Belz
farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation District
Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded
by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Harold H.and Harriet L.Bowman AD-91-44:
The Bowman farm lies along the north side of Old Forge Road,along
both sides of Beck Road and to the east of Maryland Route 62.The
farm consists of 175.248 acres and has 64.9%qualifying soils.Mr.
Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
the Bowman farm be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
District Program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Gene B.and Evelyn A.Keller AD-91-45:
The Keller farm lies along the north side of Bakersville Road
approximately 1/2 miles southeast of Downsville.The farm consists of
14.8 acres and has 100%qualifying soils.This farm is contiguous to
the Price farm which consists of 273 acres.The majority of this site
is located within the floodplain,however,floodplain soil is one of
the better farming soils in the County.Mr.Spickler made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Keller farm be included
in the Agricultural Land Preservation District Program since it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.
Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Charles E.and June M.Shank AD-91-46:
The Shank farm lies along both sides of Wishard Road,5 miles
northwest of Hagerstown and along the north side of the Conococheague
Creek.The farm consists of 114.3 acres and has 61.26%qualifying
soils.Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Shank farm be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation District Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.
So ordered.
Site Plans:
84
Huyett Business Park:
Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Huyett Business Park,lot
#2R.The property is owned by McCleary and Early Inc.and is located
along the west side of Maryland Route 63 just north of 1-70.The site
is proposed to be developed with the construction of an
office/warehouse building.The material that is to be stored within
the warehouse is yet to be revealed to the Planning staff.The
building will be constructed in two phases consisting of 10,000 square
feet each.The access to the site will be from Maryland Route 63 via
a driveway constructed within a a 50 foot right-of-way and to County
road standards.The site will be served by public water and sewer.
To the south of the site there will be a large stormwater management
pond to the rear of the building which will empty into a swale on the
lands of Sanitary Disposal.The building is surrounded by a gravel
parking area to permit access to all sides of the building for
loading,unloading,and turning around.Landscaping is provided along
the northern and eastern side of the site.There are a total of 20
parking spaces provided.Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant site plan
approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So
ordered.
Elementary School -Mt.Aetna Road:
Mr.Brittain presented the site plan for a proposed new elementary
school to be located along Mt.Aetna Road.The County Highway Plan
calls for the construction of a new Minor Collector roadway to connect
Mt.Aetna Road with a future Major Collector.The Major Collector is
p.lanned to connect Robinwood Drive and Eastern Boulevard.This Minor
Collector roadway will be constructed to County standards and will end
in a T-turnaround.Future connection of the remaining sector will
serve Colonial Park East subdivision and vacant parcels to the north.
The site will be served by public water and sewer.Access to the
school site will be via the Minor Collector roadway with three access
points.The first access will be an exit only for buses,the second
access point will be entrance and exit and third access will serve a
majority of the vehicular traffic utilizing the school's parking lots.
A total of 153 parking spaces are proposed including 6 handicap
spaces.The elementary school will be designed to hold a capacity of
600 students.All drainage associated with the building and
impervious surfaces from this site will be collected and fed through
an underground system to the stormwater management pond.The
stormwater management pond is located within a floodplain area and
will require Water Resources Administration approval.A six foot high
fence will encompass the stormwater management pond for safety
purposes.Mr.Brill,with Fox and Associates,informed the Commission
that he spoke with a representative with Water Resources
Administration and they have stated that the pond will not need to be
permitted as long as it meets the requirements of the Soil
Conservation Service.Pole mounted and building mounted lights are
proposed.Landscaping is provided around the entire site and
building.The staff has informed the consultant that additional
landscaping will be required between the north end of the parking and
adjacent lands zoned RS.Additional parking may be required for
evening activities.County Engineer has indicated that his final
approval is tied in with solving a downstream drainage problem in
Colonial Park East.
The Commission members expressed concern regarding bus traffic flow
and pedestrian access through the site.It was recommended that the
Board of Education be contacted to further review the Commission's
concerns on the possibility of relocating the exit only access.
CD
~.,..-
CO
Z
~
85
After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan
approval with conditions of showing a stabilized access to the
ballfields for additional parking for evening activities,finalizing
the landscaping plan,and receipt of final approvals from all agencies
and departments.In addition,the Board of Education is to inform the
Commission in writing that it has reviewed their concerns regarding
bus and pedestrian traffic in the drop off area.Seconded by Mr.
Bowers.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Demolition Permit -Harold V.and Doris L.Farrow:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that demolition permits are
referred to the Planning Commission because of the County
Commissioners'policy which states that any demolition permit
requested for a structure listed on the Historic Sites Survey must be
reviewed by Planning Commission and Historic District Commission prior
to issuance of a demolition permit.
This particular lot contains the barn which is a portion of the
original farmstead listed as site #WA-V-150.The barn was subdivided
previously and the house and another barn are located on the remaining
lands of this subdivision.The Historic District Commission reviewed
the demolition permit during its September meeting,however,at that
time,it was discovered that the affidavit,which transfers the right
from the owner to the applicant the ability to apply for the permit,
was not submitted.The HDC did not take any action during its
September meeting.The affidavit has been submitted since the meeting
and will be presented to the HDC during its October meeting.Mr.West
made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition permit.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Highway Interchange Study:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the staff needs direction
concerning the order in which the Highway Interchange areas are to be
reviewed as part of the Highway Interchange Study.The County
Commissioners will also be asked for their comments on the order.He
stated that the proposed order developed by the staff was included in
the agenda packet to include the following areas:Group I -1-81 @
State Line,Showalter,Maugans Avenue and Maugansville Road;Group 2 -
1-81 @ Salem Avenue,U.S.Route 40,and Halfway Boulevard;Group 3 -
1-81 @ 1-70,U.S.Route 11 and Maryland Route 68;Group 4 -1-70 @
Maryland Route 66,U.S.Route 40,Maryland Route 65 and Maryland Route
63;and Group 5 -1-70 @ Maryland Route 68,Maryland Route 58,
Maryland Route 522 and 1-68.After a discussion and by consensus of
the Commission members,it was determined that the staff should review
the interchanges in the following order:Group 1 -1-70 @ Maryland
Route 66,U.S.Route 40,and Maryland Route 65;Group 2 -1-81 @
State Line,Showalter,Maugans Avenue,and Maugansville Road;Group
3 -1-81 @ Salem Avenue,U.S.Route 40 and Halfway Boulevard;Group
4 -1-81 @ 1-70,U.S.Route 11,Maryland Route 68,and 1-70 @
Maryland Route 63;and Group 5 -1-70 @ Maryland Route 68,Maryland
Route 56,Maryland Route 522 and 1-68.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
/"1~QJ!
86
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 7,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,October 7,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Vice-Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger;Ex-
Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,and Bernard Moser.Staff:
Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,
Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Edward
Schreiber,and Eric Seifarth,Assistant Planner;John Gudmundson and
Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.Absent were:Chairman,Donald E.
Zombro;Donald Spickler,Steven West and staff member James P.
Brittain.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser stated that under the minutes of the August 26,1991 Special
Meeting,he abstained from voting on the demolition permit for Potomac
Edison instead of Mr.Iseminger.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to adopt
the minutes as corrected.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Mrs.Johnson made a motion to adopt the September 9,1991 minutes as
written.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Addition to the Agenda:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that the Washington County
Commissioners have requested that the site plan for T-Hangers #4 be
added to the agenda so the bidding process can begin at the end of
October.Mr.Moser made a motion to add the site plan for the T-
Hangers to the agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Roger Buhrman Intensive Swine Facility:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that Mr.Buhrman has requested review
and approval of an application for an intensive swine facility located
east of Maryland Route 491,south of Wise Road.Per Division IX of
the Washington County Zoning Ordinance,a preliminary consultation was
held in July and the summary was reviewed by the Commission during the
August regular meeting.A discussion was held and time given to the
attorneys representing the adjacent property owners and Mr.Buhrman.
No action was taken by the Commission because approval from the Soil
Conservation District was outstanding and the Nutrient Management Plan
was being revised to address comments made at the Preliminary
Consultaiton.The application was again discussed during the
Commission's regular September meeting,however,no action was taken.
Since the September meeting,the Planning Department has received a
copy of the revised Nutrient Management Plan and a letter from the
Soil Conservation District regarding the certification of the waste
storage structure.The Nutrient Management Plan has been revised to
reduce manure applications to twice a year (spring and fall)on the
grass hay and pasture crops and once a year on grain and corn crops;
either in spring or fall.Time to incorporate the manure into the
soil has been reduced to a maximum of three days.The Soil
Conservation District has received the necessary engineering
information from Tri-County Confinement,the company who designed the
waste storage structure.Bases on the information supplied to the
Soil Conservation District the structure was built according to the
Soil Conservation Service's standards and specifications.The
structure was not inspected by the Soil Conservation Service during
construction.
The Maryland Department of the Environment is requiring that Mr.
(0
"""0r-ca
Z
~
87
Buhrman obtain an NPDES Discharge Permit for his operation.The
discharge permit will be based on the Nutrient Management Plan and
will address manure application rates,timing of application,and
buffers from adjacent properties and dwellings in order to protect the
ground and surface water.The Maryland Department of the Environment
anticipates no significant changes to the revised Nutrient Management
Plan,a draft permit will be taken to public hearing in January 1992.
Mr.Lung addressed concerns expressed during previous meetings.The
Nutrient Management Plan took into consideration areas of potential
water pollution as well as the guidelines established in the Waste
Management Plan.Additional protection will be provided once a
Discharge Permit is issued by the Maryland Department of the
Environment.The Soil Conservation Service has indicated that Mr.
Buhrman's facility has sufficient manure storage capacity for the
number of animals that are in the facility and to meet the
requirements of the Nutrient Management Plan which calls for
application to occur twice a year.The Waste Management Plan,
developed by the Soil Conservation District,recommends that spreading
be done in the morning.
Mr.Lung stated at this time there are no outstanding agency responses
and it appears that the application is ready for Planning Commission
action.If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the
application,the staff would like to suggest that conditions be
imposed.1)recommend that Mr.Buhrman continue using the additive to
the manure pit to reduce odor based on the recommendation of the
Agricultural Extension Agent,2)any changes to the Nutrient
Mpnagement Plan that may be necessary as a result of the NPDES Permit
be made a part of the Nutrient Management Plan imposed by the County,
and 3)the Zoning Administrator obtain from the Soil Conservation
Service copies of the drawings and documentation supplied to them by
Tri-County Confinement to verify the standards used in the
construction of the waste storage structure.
Mr.Bowers questioned who will be inspecting the waste storage
facility.Mr.Lung said the Zoning Administrator will issue a
Certificate of Compliance,however,no inspection is required.
Normally,the Soil Conservation Service would inspect the waste
storage structure during construction,however,since Mr.Buhrman did
not apply to Washington County prior to construction of the structure
and was not involved with the Soil Conservation Service's cost sharing
program,the Soil Conservation Service had no reason to inspect the
structure.It is for these reasons that the Zoning Administrator is
requesting certification from the engineers of the structure to assure
that it was built according to the applicable standards.
Mr.Arch stated that the NPDES Discharge Permit is not part of the
County's requirements,however,it could have an impact on the
Nutrient Management Plan as a result of the Maryland Department of the
Environment's review.
Mr.Buhrman expressed concerns about the requirements of the Nutrient
Management Plan and how this would effect his manure spreading
practices particularly the time constraints for spreading.Mr.
Buhrman's attorney,Hans Goerl requested that the Planning Commission
permit him to consult with his client prior to final action being
taken on the application.At this time,the Commission suspended the
review period until Mr.Goerl and Mr.Buhrman were ready for
additional discussion.
Gerald Ditto Text Amendment RZ-91-3:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that a Workshop meeting was held on
September 16,1991 with only one Planning Commission member present;
Mr.Moser.He added that there was a general discussion concerning
animal waste management regulations and the issue of conflicts between
various principle permitted uses in the Agricultural zoning district
and ways that they could be resolved.Mr.Arch suggested to the
Commission that the meeting be rescheduled when the entire Commission
can be present.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to reschedule the
discussion regarding Mr.Ditto's text amendment for the November
88
regular meeting.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Thomas Smith SV-91-022:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Thomas Smith.The
subject site is located along the east side of Mt.Laurel Road just
north of the Town of Boonsboro.The variance is being requested from
Section 405.11.G.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which limits the
length of panhandles to a maximum length of 400 feet.Mr.Smith is
proposing to create a 10 acre lot which will leave the remaining lands
to be served by an 854 foot panhandle.Zoning of the property is
Agricultural.The proposed lot will not be conveyed to an immediate
family.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to grant variance approval.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Charles McGowan SV-91-023:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Charles McGowan.The
subject site is located along the east side of Itnyre Road,
approximately 2800 feet north of Cave Hill Road.The variance is
being requested from Section 405.11.B.l.of the Subdivision Ordinance
which states the creation of lots for immediate family member
conveyance without public road frontage shall front on a private drive
or right-of-way.The applicant is proposing to create a 2 acre lot
for an immediate family member not fronting on the existing lane.The
proposed lot will be served by a 1165 foot panhandle.Mr.Moser made
a motion to grant variance approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So
ordered.
Alan Meyers SV-91-024:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Alan Meyers.The
subject site is located along the south side of Tommy town Road at its
intersection with House Road.The variance is being requested from
Section 405.11.G.4.and 5.which states that the stacking of panhandle
lots for more than two tiers of lots is prohibited and panhandle
length shall not exceed 400 feet.Mr.Meyers is proposing to create a
12.9 acre lot which would be the third tier of lots and would be
served by a 922 foot long panhandle.This proposed subdivision is in
conformance with a Preliminary Consultation which was held on
August 17,1987.The approval of existing lots 7 and 8,prior to an
amendment for this section of the Subdivision Ordinance,along with
the proposed subdivision,have created the need for this variance.
Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant variance approval.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Mrs.Johnson voted no.So ordered.
Daniel Poyner SV-91-017:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the variance request for Daniel Poyner.The
subject site is located along the east side of Mapleville Road
(Maryland Route 66)just 1/2 mile north of the Town of Boonsboro.The
variance is being requested from Section 405.11.G.4.and 5.which
states that the stacking of more than two tiers of lots is prohibited
and panhandle length shall not exceed 400 feet.The property currently
has a 50 foot wide 184 foot long panhandle with a turning flare which
was originally platted in 1965 when the road frontage lots were
approved.The preliminary Consultation for this lot envisioned
splitting the panhandle into two distinct sections each having 25 feet
of road frontage.The owner still envisions splitting the panhandle
into two 25 foot sections,as in the original concept,however,he now
proposes utilizing one dual access driveway to service both.The
existing house will be located on the rear portion.The panhandle to
serve the rear lot will be 550 feet long and will give the three tier
effect.The staff is recommending denial of this variance from the
provisions of Article IV,Section 405,Subsection II-G,items 4 &5
since the request does not present any justification for a variance as
outlined in Article I,Section 107 of the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.
Iseminger suggested that the applicant construct a road to current
<0
~
T"'"'coz
:2:
89
county standards to serve the development.After a discussion,Mrs.
Johnson made a motion to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Roger Buhrman Intensive Swine Facility:
At this time Mr.Goerl approached the Commission and stated that Mr.
Buhrman is willing to comply with the Soil Conservation District's
Waste Management Plan as incorporated in with the Planning
Commission's order.Mr.Goerl asked Mr.Bowers if the County
Commissioners would be willing to take action on Mr.Buhrman's
Agricultural Land Preservation District at this time as well.Mr.
Bowers said that as long as Mr.Buhrman is agreeing to comply with all
the requirements of Washington County and agreeing to waive all rights
with Frederick County,the County Commissioners will take that into
consideration when reviewing the Agricultural Land Preservation
District application.Mr.Bowers questioned Mr.Buhrman if he is now
agreeing that his property is located within the boundaries of
Washington County and not Frederick County.Mr.Goerl responded by
saying that he is since he is willing to comply with Washington
County's requirements.There was some discussion regarding where Mr.
Buhrman pays property taxes and how this issue will be resolved.
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the intensive swine
facility application based on the following conditions:1)Mr.Burhman
shall continue the treatment of the manure pits with a special
bacterial culture to assist in reducing the degree of odor as
recommended by the Agricultural Extension Agent,2)any changes to Mr.
Buhrman's Nutrient Management Plan that may be required as a result of
the NPDES Discharge Permit to be issued by the Maryland Department of
the Environment should be included in the plan used by the Department
of Permits and Inspections for enforcement purposes,and 3)that the
Department of Permits and Inspections (Zoning Administrator)obtain
from the Washington County Soil Conservation District,prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Compliance,copies of all drawings and
correspondence supplied to the Soil Conservation District by the
applicant or his agents certifying that the waste storage structure
was constructed according to Soil Conservation Service standards and
specifications.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
J &J Subdivision:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
J &J Subdivision,lots 1 through 3.The subject site is located
along the east side of Maugansville Road.Zoning is Agricultural.
The owner is proposing to create three 1/2 acre lots on 2.25 acres.
The remaining lands consist of 1/2 acre and will contain the existing
house.Public water and sewer will serve the site which permits the
reduction in lot sizes from 1 acre to 1/2 acre.All agency approvals
have been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary and
final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Mary E.Murphy AD-91-47:
The Murphy farm lies along the east side of Dam No.4 Road
approximately 2 1/2 miles south of Downsville.The farm consists of
309.5 acres and has 89.81%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a
motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Murphy farm
be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation District Program
since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Ned E.McAllister AD-91-12:
The McAllister farm lies to the west of Charles Mill Road and borders
the C &0 Canal property to the south in Big Springs.The farm
consists of 83.43 acres and has 59.7%qualifying soils.This farm is
contiguous to an existing Agricultural Land Preservation District.
90
Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
that the McAllister farm be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation District Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So
ordered.
Helen Janet H.Charles AD-91-49:
The Charles farm lies on both sides of Charles Mill Road and borders
the C &0 Canal property to the south in Big Springs.The farm
consists of 59.936 acres and has 89.5%qualifying soils.This farm is
contiguous to an existing Agricultural Land Preservation District.
Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
that the Charles farm be included in the Agricultural Land
Preservation District Program since it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So
ordered.
Ruth E.Wolford and Mary L.Brechbill AD-91-50:
The Wolford/Brechbill farm lies 200 feet south of U.S.Route 40 and
300 feet west of Maryland Route 56.The farm consists of 119.59 acres
and has 66.7%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Wolford/Brechbill farm
be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation District Program
since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered .
.Kenneth A.Barnhart AD-91-52:
The Barnhart farm is located on the south side of Keedysville Road .8
miles east of its intersection with Maryland Route 65 and 2 miles west
of the Town of Keedysville.The farm consists of 166.59 acres and has
73.01%qualifying soils.Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to
the County Commissioners that the Barnhart farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation District Program since it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers
abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Frank and Mary Kipe:
The written summary of the preliminary consultation for Frank and Mary
Kipe was included in the Commission's agenda packet with nothing to be
added by the staff.There was no action taken by the Commission.
Site Plans:
McDonalds:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the McDonald's Restaurant to
be located along the south side of Maugans Avenue just east of 1-81.
Zoning is Highway Interchange.The applicant is proposing to raze the
existing building and construct a 3200 square foot McDonald's
Restaurant on 1.6 acres.Approximately 1800 customers are proposed
per day.The restaurant will operate with three shifts per day with
13 employees per shift.A total of 41 parking spaces have been
proposed,however,only 22 spaces are required.Public water and
sewer will serve the site.One dumpster for solid waste disposal will
be located to the rear of the building.Two parking spaces are
located in front of the dumpster.A note has been added to the plat
stating that disposal pick-up will occur during off-hours (4:00 A.M.
or 5:00 A.M.).Access to the site will be via Maugans Avenue.There
is a patio with landscaping proposed at the front of the building.
The existing trees to the east of the property will remain in order to
meet the required 75 foot buffer along the residential land uses.
Variances were granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the sign
height to be 75 feet along 1-81.The sign to the front of the site
will be 35 feet in height.The Appeals Board also granted a variance
to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 15 feet for the
addition of seven parking spaces.All written agency approvals have
<.0
"'d",..-
coz
~
91
been received except County Engineer and Water Pollution Control.
Mr.Russ Townsley with Fox and Associates informed the Commission that
McDonalds approached the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from
the previous variance on the sign height from 75 feet to 100 feet and
was granted October 7,1991.
Mr.Bowers expressed concerns regarding traffic flow into the site and
added that it is a poor design for an entrance into the site.He
recommended accel/decel lanes be added for public safety.Mr.Dave
Gearhart with McDonalds,indicated that the entrance into the site is
35 feet wide.He added that previously,McDonalds have designed sites
with a concrete median to divide the entrance/exit.Mr.Gearhart
stated that sometimes this design is more of a hazard than safety.He
added that the wider the entrance without a division,the safer the
entrance is.Mr.Bowers suggested notifying the County Engineer so he
is aware of his concerns regarding traffic flow.
Mr.Iseminger questioned if the parking spaces along Maugans Avenue
will be screened to shield from headlights.Mrs.Pietro said that the
plan indicates that a low lying juniper is proposed for that area.
Mr.Gearhart stated that he has no problem in adding landscaping to
shield traffic on Maugans Avenue from the headlights of vehicles
parked facing toward Maugans Avenue.
After a discussion,Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant site plan
approval conditional on a discussion with the County Engineer
regarding off-site roadway improvements associated within
~ngress/egress to the site,landscape screening for the parking spaces
fronting Maugans Avenue to minimize headlight impact from vehicles in
the parking lot on traffic on Maugans Avenue.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Urban Growth Area Determination -Lawrence Redmond:
Mr.Goodrich informed the Commission that Mr.Lawrence Redmond is
requesting that the Planning Commission decide whether the 35.85 acre
tract located along the east side of Maugansville Road is located
inside or outside of the Urban Growth Area boundary.He added that
the main concern when deciding if the property is in or out of the
boundary would be the availability of public facilities to the site
(in this case sewer)and the difference in density that this property
could be developed at.Mr.Goodrich identified major roads and water
and sewer availability limits on maps for the Commission.
Mr.Iseminger stated that it's his opinion that the Urban Growth Area
boundary line is flexible.He added that if the Commission rules that
this property is located within the boundary,he does not want to set
a precedent for future cases.Mr.Goodrich stated that with the
Commission making a decision,it will indicate that the Commission has
the discretion in determining boundaries for future uses.Mr.
Iseminger added that if public facilities are available and capacity
is sufficient,it makes sense in this case to indicate that the site
is within the boundary of the Urban Growth Area.
Mr.Bowers made a motion to indicate that the
assumed to be part of the Urban Growth Area.
Johnson.So ordered.
Redmond property is
Seconded by Mrs.
92
Demolition Permit -Carl Iman,Jr.:
Mr.Goodrich presented the demolition permit for Carl Iman,Jr.The
property is located along Mt.Tabor Road and is the site of the Mt.
Tabor United Brethern Church.The church is listed on the Historic
Sites Survey,thus requiring Historic District Commission and Planning
Commission review prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.The
Historic District Commission reviewed and tabled any action on the
request during its October meeting because the parties involved may
need more time to discuss alternatives to demolition.Mr.Goodrich
stated that there may be a way to restore the structure.The
intention of the applicant is to dismantle and move the church to
another location.After a discussion,Mrs,Johnson made a motion to
defer any action on this request to the Historic District Commission.
Seconded by Mr,Moser.So ordered.
Needy Family Crafts -Highway Interchange District:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that this item was withdrawn from the
Commission's agenda.No action was taken by the Commission.
Antietam Development Limited -Simplified Plat:
Mr.Iseminger stepped down as Chairman of the meeting and turned the
Chair over to Mrs.Johnson.
Mr.Gudmundson presented a request by Davis,Renn and Associates,Inc.
on behalf of their client Antietam Development Limited,to subdivide a
.6.8+acre parcel along a 'BG'-'PB'zoning boundary that traverse the
tract.Antietam Development proposed to subdivide the tract utilizing
the Simplified Plat process.Mr.Gudmundson informed the Commission
that since the purpose of the proposed subdivision is not specifically
permitted under Section 318.1 that the staff could not approve it
administratively.The subdivision,located on the south side of
Longmeadow Road near its intersection with U.S.Route 11,would
create a 3.3 acre parcel zoned 'BG'and a 3.5 acre parcel zoned 'PB'.
Utilization of the Simplified Plat procedure to process the proposed
subdivision would require the Commission's approval.Staff noted that
the Commission's approval would not express any commitment regarding
the future development of this parcel or its ability to meet the
requirements of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.Moser
made a motion to grant the use of the Simplified Plat process for
acquisition and that the Planning Director sign the Simplified Plat
once all agency approvals have been received.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.
Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
At this time,Mr.Iseminger returned to Chair the meeting.
Addition to the Agenda
Site Plan:
Washington County Regional Airport T-Hangers ~4:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for the Washington County
Regional Airport T-Hangers ~4.The site is located along the north
side of the Washington County Regional Airport.Access to the site is
via Henson Boulevard.The construction of the T-Hanger will consist
of four 20 foot high buildings and will house 54 airplane hangers with
some office space.Public water and sewer is available to the site,
however,no connections are proposed at this time.A total of 38
parking spaces are proposed.No landscaping is proposed for this site
due to FAA regulations.Building mounted lights are proposed for
security purposes.The site plan meets the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.No agency approvals have been received at this time.
After a discussion,Mrs.Johnson made a motion to table any action on
this site plan until information is received from the reviewing
agencies.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
(0
~.
,.-
coz
:2:
93
Workshop Meeting:
The Planning Commission will be holding a workshop meeting on Monday,
October 21,1991 at 5:15 P.M.to discuss the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance.They also indicated they would continue review
of the T-Hanger site plan at this meeting.
Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing -Independent Cement Corporation:
Mr.Iseminger asked if any of the Planning staff will be present at
the Appeals Board hearing when ICC will be discussed.Mr.Arch
informed the Commission that the County Attorney,himself and possibly
Tim Lung will be present at that hearing.Mr.Iseminger stated that
if the staff is of the opinion that Commission members need to attend,
to let him know.
Mt.Aetna Road Elementary School:
Mr.Iseminger questioned if any correspondence has been received from
the Washington County Board of Education regarding the drop-off area
for students.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Brittain had verbally
contacted the Board of Education,however,he was not aware if a
written response had been received.Mr.Iseminger stated that since
that site plan review,he is more concerned with the safety of the
children.He added to get comments from the County Engineer regarding
whether the proposed drop-off will be safe.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
94
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -OCTOBER 21,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Monday,October 21,1991 in the third floor conference room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Bernard Moser,
and Donald Spickler.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate
Planners;James P.Brittain and Edward Schreiber.County Engineer
Terrence P.McGee and Assistant Engineer Joe Kroboth were also
present.Carol Johnson and Steve West were absent.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 5:15 P.M.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Site Plans:
Airport T-Hanger:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for the Airport T-Hanger #4.
~he site is located in the northern section of the Airport.Access to
the site will be via Henson Boulevard.The four proposed buildings
will house 54 aircraft along with 10 spaces for future office use.A
total of 38 parking spaces are provided.Building mounted lights are
provided for security purposes.No landscaping is proposed due to FAA
regulations.Public water and sewer is available to the site,
however,no connections are being made at this time.A discussion was
held regarding the stormwater runoff and collection and also water and
sewer being provided for the site.Mr.Bowers made a motion to grant
site plan approval conditional on water and sewer being made available
to existing and future offices.Seconded by Mr.Zombro.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance:
Mr.Terrence McGee,County Engineer,stated that over the last ten
months of the Ordinance the County Engineer has found situations that
were not included in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.
McGee stated that the biggest concern that the Engineering Department
has is trying to consider the adequacy of an existing road.Right now
the way the Ordinance is written it refers to the Washington County
Specifications for Highways and Street Improvements.He added that
those standards are for new construction which involves 20 foot roads
and 6 foot paved shoulders and they do not work well for evaluating
existing roadways.The Engineering Department has been working on
trying to research available literature from the technical bodies;ie.
ASHTO (American State Highway Transportation Officials),National
Transportation Research Board and Federal Highway Administration.
None of the literature addresses how to determine the adequacy of an
existing road.Mr.McGee said there are several items that can be
used to determine if a road is safe or not;horizontal and vertical
alignment as it affects vehicle control as well as sight distance
concerns,road width,bridge width and condition of bridge,
intersection capacity and sight distance,overall pavement strength if
it will hold up to the number of vehicles involved,friction
characteristics of the pavement,pavement markings,signage,road side
hazards such as embankments and guard rails.Many of these items are
addressed in the new road standards but do not apply well to existing
roadways.Mr.McGee distributed a copy of a draft of a policy to
determine the adequacy of existing roadways for additional
development.He added that he would like the Commission's input on
this proposed policy.At this time,when doing review for the
adequacy of existing roads,the Engineering Department reviews the
CD
~,-
OJ
Z
~
95
sight distance and road width on that existing roadway.Mr.McGee
again stated that there is no one document that the Engineering
Department can review to determine the adequacy of roadways.Current
sight distance standards are from ASHTO;however,this is for new road
construction.The Engineering Department has reviewed other design
standards trying to back off from the ASHTO standards.Mr.McGee
briefly explained the ASHTO sight distance standards.
Mr.McGee stated that the Engineering Department would like the
Commission's input on their intent and views of the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger asked if frequency of travel and
traffic counts factored in this proposed draft?Mr.McGee said yes;
they are still using typically 8 vehicle trips per day per dwelling
unit for an average daily traffic count.There is a section in the
proposed draft for road widths which is determined by the number of
total vehicles that are existing and what are proposed by the new
development.
Mr.Joe Kroboth,Assistant County Engineer,stated that there is a
section in the draft which the Planning Commission should review when
determining when evaluating the adequacy of roadways;ie.existing
traffic,traffic generated by the proposed development.The last item
in the draft references any other information that may reasonably be
required by the County Engineer.The Engineering Department feels
that it's very important to be consistent in reviews for subdivisions.
Therefore,the Engineering Department has prepared this draft based on
~ome of the geometric problems and safety issues it is encountering.
Since ASHTO is the recognized publication or standard the entire draft
was based on ASHTO.Subdivisions are being denied primarily based on
not meeting sight distance requirements.The ASHTO standards are
basically set up for new construction.After a review of publications
on research projects by the Transportation Research Board and Federal
Highway Administration,existing roads should be handled differently
since they were constructed when the standards were different.
Mr.Zombro informed Mr.McGee that the Planning Commission has
endorsed your recommendation on denial 99%of the time.There are
things that come up in the judgement of the Planning Commission,which
may make their perspective different from the County Engineer.
However,the Planning Commission understands the County Engineer's
position since the County Engineer is interpreting the law as it is
written.Mr.Zombro said it's his opinion that the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance needs some review and recommendations on changes.
Mr.Moser asked how much more can it be watered down.He added that
he relies on the County Engineer's recommendation on what those
standards should be.The intent of this Ordinance was to channel
growth into the Growth Areas.Mr.Iseminger stated that he agrees
with Mr.Moser.It's his opinion that the Commission is getting away
from what the original intent of the Ordinance was.If changes need
to be made,it should come from the Planning Commission.Other
Counties should be contacted who have been involved with APFOs to
determine their standards for adequacy of roads.Mr.Arch stated that
this draft proposal from the County Engineer is very good.He added
tpat this draft covers the engineering viewpoint that the Planning
Commission should be taking.The Planning Commission should not just
review roads on their adequacy or inadequacy but on terms of what is
the level of service for that road and whether the impact of the
proposed development can be handled by that existing road or if it
needs to be improved.If the road needs to be improved,it must be
determined who will be responsible for those improvements;the County,
the developer or a combination of the two.Mr.Iseminger stated that
there is more to consider than just the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.It all ties together,the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program,the Transportation Program for the County,Capital
Improvements Program.Mr.Moser said he has no problem with relaxed
standards for existing roads.He added that it concerns him that the
Commission continues to exempt items from the APFO.Mr.Bowers said
you have to keep in mind the cases that have been denied,not the ones
that have been exempted.Mr.Moser added that a great deal more cases
would have been denied if additional items were included in the APFO.
96
The only thing in the Ordinance now is roads.It's a very weak
Ordinance when you look at other Adequate Facility Ordinances.Mr.
Moser stated that he's sensing that the Commission may want to go back
and start over again.Mr.Kroboth said that the purpose is to present
the information in the draft proposal and determine what the
Commission's views are on how adequacy should be determined.The
Engineering Department is trying to determine that what is approved is
what the Commission wants to see.Mr.Iseminger said that some of the
problems relate to the fact that when the APFO was drafted it was
figured that there would be some common sense in decision making on
the determination of adequacy.A lot of people feel that is not being
done.Mr.Iseminger said he does not agree with that.There is some
leeway and the Engineering Department is taking too stringent a look
when considering the number of homes being added on a road for 1 and 2
lot subdivisions,since they do not have the same impact as a 30 lot
subdivision.He added that he realizes that the Engineering
Department is conducting their review from a safety standpoint
concerning sight distance.If there is a certain amount of traffic on .•
that road at this time,will an additional 6 cars impose a safety
hazard.Mr.McGee stated that if you are aware of a substandard
roadway and it's permissible to add even one more vehicle,you are
liable for any accidents.Mr.McGee stated at this time,the
Engineering Department is trying to determine standards that can be
used consistently and there will still be room for case by case
scenarios.Mr.Spickler stated that it's his opinion the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance is not a growth management tool.The APFO
was designed to provide adequate facilities for the people and
provides a vehicle to improve inadequate facilities standards which
the Adequate Facilities Ordinance calls for.It needs to provide the
opportunity for people to do things and not have people relegated to
inactivity because the road is inadequate.Mr.Spickler said that
adequacy in width and sight distance should be less critical than
'level of service'in determining adequacy.He added that if get into
that realm then the liability issue is lost because we are not dealing
with adequacy;what we are dealing with is whether or not the level of
service provided is adequate.Mr.Spickler added that the Commission
needs to take the County Engineer's advice as an expert in the field
of engineering.Mr.Kroboth said that theoretically the Engineering
Department cannot evaluate these roads for level of service because
the underlying basis for level of service assumes the geometry meets
the safety requirements.Mr.Iseminger stated that the approach that
the Engineering Department is taking is the correct one.Mr.Moser
said that he understands where these developers are coming from.He
added that he hopes that the Commission can soon move on to the impact
fee part of this and take it one step further.That would help some
of these situations.Let each developer pay his own way.The intent
is not to become a burden to the tax payers of the County.Mr.Moser
asked where the impact fee issue stands.Mr.Bowers said in order for
the Board Chairman to move,we have come up with a recommendation for
not only going with impact fees but addressing several different
scenarios.Mr.Moser said that he can appreciate where the County
Engineer is coming from due to the potential liability.Mr.Bowers
stated that as the Planning Commission reviews the County Engineer's
proposal there is still a large portion of the puzzle that has not
been addressed.Within a Highway Interchange zone there should be
some criteria for over and above the standard criteria.Mr.Bowers
said there should be criteria established for a de-acceleration lane
into subdivisions.Mr.Arch stated that part of the problem is the
Subdivision Ordinance.The Subdivision Ordinance is very thin.
Criteria regarding de-acceleration lanes are normally included in the
Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.McGee stated that the Engineering
Department is trying to place in the Design Standards acceleration,
deceleration and stacking lanes.
Mr.Arch stated that the Ordinance uses the concept of remaining lands
but practically speaking,there isn't any remaining lands;only lots.
The Ordinance states you can create one lot but anytime you have a
subdivision you are going to end up with two lots.Sometimes
remaining lands are not shown at all on the plat,this is particularly
true with small subdivisions that don't show the entire property.How
(0
~,.....
a::l
Z
~
97
does the Planning Commission know they are not creating a zoning
violation on the remaining land portion of a subdivision if the final
plat doesn't show all the information on it.Mr.Iseminger stated
that when the subdivision comes to the Planning Commission,it is
always asked what will happen to the remaining lands.Mr.Brittain
suggested that if the subdivision is on an inadequate road,call the
subdivision lot 1 and parcel A.Parcel A is not for development and
should be stated as such.
Mr.Iseminger suggested reviewing the proposed draft and holding
another workshop meeting with the County Engineer.Mr.Bowers
suggested that the County Engineer take the proposed draft and present
examples of situations.Mr.McGee agreed.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
"1 •(),~l~j'---"'-_A-~~il /<JC/vv l {!
Donald E.Zombro,hairman
98
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 4,1991
The Washington county Planning Commission held its regular monthly
meeting on Monday,November 4,1991 in the Public Meeting Room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;
Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate
Planners;James P.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,
Edward Schreiber,and Eric Seifarth;Assistant Planner;John
Gudmundson and Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to adopt the minutes of the October 7th
regular meeting as written.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger requested that minutes of the Special Meeting which was
held on October 21,1991 should be prepared.Mr.Arch said they will
be ready for the Commission's approval at the December meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Gerald Ditto Text Amendment:
Mr.Lung informed the Commission that the staff's analysis of Mr.
Ditto's request was included in their agenda packet along with the
staff report following the public hearing.Mr.West stated that in
light of the fact that the staff analysis points out that much of the
current Ordinance addresses the concerns of this proposal and with the
absence of any significant support during the public hearing and the
objection of the text amendment from parts of the agricultural
community and that it appears that additional rules and regulations
are not needed,he made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners the denial of text amendment RZ-91-3.Seconded by Mr.
Iseminger.On a call for the motion,Mr.Moser,Mr.West,Mr.
Iseminger and Mr.Zombro vote 'aye',Mrs.Johnson voted 'nay',and Mr.
Spickler and Mr.Bowers abstained from voting.Motion passed.So
ordered.
Mt.Aetna Elementary School:
Mr.Brittain reminded the Commission that they previously reviewed the
site plan for the proposed elementary school off of Mt.Aetna Road a
few months ago.At that time,the Planning Commission requested that
concerns be expressed to the Board of Education regarding the drop-off
area for the students mixing with school bus traffic.A letter has
been received from the Board of Education indicating that after
additional review,the Board has redesigned the student drop-off area.
The students will now be able to enter the building without crossing
school bus drop-off area.The revised site plan has not been
submitted to date.Staff will bring the site plan back to the
Commission if the revisions raise concerns with regard to other
criteria addressed by the plan.No action was taken by the
Commission.
<.0
~
"I""'"coz
~
99
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Kia Young:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the variance request for Kia Young.The site
is located along the west side of Mt.Briar Road,1/4 mile north of
Marble Quarry Road.The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 3 acre
lot without any road frontage.The variance is being requested from
Section 405.11.B which states that each lot shall front on a publicly
maintained road.The site currently consists of 52 acres with a
panhandle access onto Mt.Briar Road.The panhandle is approximately
50 feet in width and 550 feet in length to the main portion of the lot
and another 700 feet to the proposed subdivision.This will not be
considered as a panhandle lot;it's an easement access out to Mt.
Briar.There is an existing house on what would be remaining lands.
The property is currently being farmed.The applicant has claimed
that the extraordinary hardship is due to extreme financial difficulty
caused by an accident.Ms.Young suggested moving the proposed lot
closer to the easement location.Mr.Spickler stated that it's not
the Commission's history to grant variances based on an economic
hardship.He asked if there were topographic or some other
circumstance to base the hardship on.Mr.Spickler suggested being
more creative with the proposal to try to be in compliance with the
Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger suggested working with the
~lanning staff to determine how much road frontage there is and
perhaps a variance could be approved from the required amount of road
frontage and could propose a shared access and the lot could be moved
closer to the driveway.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table the
variance request for Kia Young until the December meeting so the
applicant has more time to work with the staff.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Michael Development Corporation:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat for
Michael Development,lots 1 through 5.The site is located along the
north side of Route 56,southwest of Big Spring.The developer is
proposing 5 single-family lots on 43 acres.Lot sizes range from 4 to
15.5 acres.A total of 12 acres will remain.The lots will be served
by individual wells and septic systems.There is a house on lot #5
that will remain and there is a shed located within 5 feet of the 30
foot future dedicated right-of-way.An administrative variance has
been filed and the Planning Director has the authority to grant
variances for future dedicated right-of-way.All agency approvals
have been received.The plat for lots 6 through 10 has been submitted
to the Planning Department.This site is located on the opposite side
of Route 56.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary and final
plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Prospect Hill:
Mr.Lung presented the final subdivision plat for Prospect Hill
Section II,lot 2 through 10.The preliminary plat was presented to
the Commission in March 1991 and the Commission requested that the
final plat be brought back to the Commission for its review.The site
is located near Sandy Hook between Route 340 and Valley Road.Zoning
is Conservation.The developer is proposing to create 9 lots on 33.8
acres.The lots range in size from 3 to 5 acres.The lots will be
served by private wells and individual septic systems.A new public
street will be constructed off Valley Road by the developer and
dedicated to the County.The proposed street is approximately 1100
feet long and ends in a cul-de-sac.The plat was given preliminary
approval in March 1991 with conditions that certain items be addressed
prior to final plat approval.The conditions were as follows:1)
Concerning wetlands on the property;the applicant has received all
the applicable wetland approvals for this development from the U.S.
100
Army Corp of Engineers,the Maryland Department of the Environment and
the Department of Natural Resources.2)Private accesses to lots #2
and #10 onto Valley Road have been addressed.As requested by the
County Engineer,all the driveways for this subdivision will enter
onto the new street.There will be no private accesses onto Valley
Road.The wetlands permit included a wetlands crossing for the
driveway serving lot #10.3)Concerning the possibility of headlights
from vehicles entering the driveways for lots 6 and 7 shining into
vehicles on Route 340.The topography of the land between Route 340
and the driveways for lots 6 and 7 and the grade separation between
the two roads should eliminate the possibility of any glare.
Following a field investigation by the staff and consultation with the
State Highway Administration,it was determined that screening is not
necessary.Written approval from the County Engineer is still
outstanding.All other agency approvals have been received.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant final plat approval conditional on
receipt of written approval from the County Engineer.Seconded by Mr.
Spickler.So ordered.
Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance Determination:
Riverbend Farms:
Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that Riverbend Farms,Section II,
lots 1 through 39 is on the agenda to determine whether the
subdivision falls within the jurisdiction of the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance.She added that a history of Riverbend Farms was
included in the agenda packet.It includes the preliminary
consultation which was held in 1988 to the present along with a letter
from Malcolm Davis stating why he feels it should not be under the
APFO.Mr.Zombro stated that when the concept plan was submitted,
this subdivision was included in as one concept and was for a lot
larger number of building lots than is now being proposed.Mrs.
Pietro stated there was originally 40 lots proposed for Section I and
23 lots were approved.Ninety lots were proposed for Section II
during the preliminary consultation and now the developer is proposing
39 lots.Mr.Spickler asked what the reason was for the reduction in
the number of lots for both sections.Mrs.Pietro stated that in
reading the minutes of the preliminary consultation,it was a
combination of the Health Department and County Engineering concerns
for the road.Mr.Lung added that he recalls from the consultation
that there was a problem getting approved perculation areas for that
number of lots and also getting wells on the lots due to contaminated
wells in the area.Mr.Zombro said that he recalls that Glenn Dull
wouldn't approve it for 160 lots due to road inadequacy but he would
approve it for a lesser number of lots.Mr.Davis stated that Mr.
Dull said during the preliminary consultation that Dam No.4 Road is
inadequate for the number of lots proposed for the project.Mr.Dull
stated that the project is too ambitious.Mr.Davis said that
meetings were held with Mr.Dull and it was determined by him that if
the number of lots were cut in half (138 lots),the road can handle
that number of lots.Mr.Davis said the number of lots were reduced
to 62.At that point Mr.Dull performed preliminary traffic counts
and measured the road.It was determined that it was inadequate at
one point but once the number of lots were reduced,it was adequate
for those lots (62 lots).Section I was approved and lots were sold.
Mr.Dull wrote a letter to a neighbor in the vicinity of this
development stating that he would permit the development but he would
not permit the three entrances that were proposed.Mr.West stated
that he doesn't have to stretch his imagination very far to perceive
that this project started out with about twice as many parcels as was
subsequently approved and it's clear that the position that the County
Engineer took in the beginning was that the density was too high.It's
also clear once Phase I was approved that the County Engineer had
determined that the density was appropriate.In Mr.West's opinion,
he has no problem with the concept.Mr.West said he has no problem
with the road being adequate for this density under the Ordinance or
not under the Ordinance.In his opinion that is what has occurred and
information provided by a County Commissioner involved with the
previous reviews confirmed this.Mr.West said he has no problem with
(0
~
"II'"'""
OJ
Z
~
101
this development going forward under the APFO or if it had gone
forward before the APFO.He added that the Planning Commission might
want to address the condition of Dam No.4 Road along the frontage of
Phase I and Phase II.Mr.Davis stated that a traffic study was done
by the Traffic Group and a representative is present.Mr.Glenn Cook
with the Traffic Group informed the Commission that Dam No.4 Road is
basically 18 feet wide.He added that there are some locations that
narrows down to 17 1/2 feet but may only be for a 5 or 10 foot
segment.It does not have a significant impact on the amount of
traffic that the road can handle.Overall the road is 18 feet wide
for the entire length of it and that is more than capable of
supporting the amount of traffic that is on the road system today plus
the traffic that is projected to be generated by these additional
units.Mr.Cook was questioned with regard to capacity of the road
and the effect vertical curves have on that capacity.Mr.Cook
indicated that vertical curves do not have a significant impact on
road capacity.Mr.Cook also confirmed that vertical curves were
present on this road.
Mr.Davis stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to
determine the adequacy or inadequacy of a road.The County Engineer
offers recommendations and you can discount or accept them.In that
regard as far as the Planning Commission is concerned,you have facts
that Mr.Dull felt that Dam No.4 Road was inadequate at one point and
was adequate for 62 lots.Secondly the Ex-Officio member Mr.Roulette
substantiated,as well as the Traffic Group,also stated that Dam No.
4 Road is adequate.On the other hand Mr.McGee has stated that it's
inadequate and based that decision on the existing regulations of the
APFO.
Mr.West said that prior to APFO adoption the Planning Commission
required the frontage road of any new development to be improved to
new County construction standards.At the time that this development
was undertaken and the complication occurred,the County Engineer
indicated that with this configuration of lots that Dam No.4 Road was
adequate.Did Mr.Dull make any comments requiring improvements to
Dam No.4 Road where it was contiguous to the development.Mr.Davis
stated that Mr.Dull did not necessarily want improvements to Dam No.
4 Road because it would increase the number of lots.At that time,
the County Commissioners didn't want any more lots here.
Mr.Bowers made a motion that based on the conclusion of the County
Engineer and Traffic Group's study which agreed with the conclusion of
the County Engineer,that the Planning Commission proceed and
determine that the road system is adequate in this area.Mr.West
seconded.On a call for the question;Mr.West,Mr.Moser,Mr.
Spickler and Mr.Bowers voted 'aye',Mrs.Johnson voted 'nay'and Mr.
Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Moser stated that in light of the memorandum from the County
Attorney and the questions which were raised on how to approach the
subdivisions that are in conflict with the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance,he made a motion to table the Orchard Heights,David,
Mowen,Dharl Wilfong and Chester Sollenberger requests until such time
that the Planning Commission can meet with the County Engineer and
County Attorney to address the conditions as set forth in Mr.France's
memorandum.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Mr.Zombro informed the audience that the Planning Commission received
a memo from the County Attorney and the Commission members want to be
able to review this memo prior to making decisions on those requests.
Mr.Bowers stated that it appears that those four individuals are
confused as to what the Commission is planning to do on these
requests.Mr.Bowers suggested that Mr.Arch read the memo from the
County Attorney regarding the APFO.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning
Commission received a letter from Ralph France,County Attorney,which
specifically addressed the Riverbend Farms subdivision but is also
setting a precedent with regard to other developments.Specifically a
lot of developments have been requesting appeals to the Planning
Commission of the determination of the County Engineer that a road is
102
inadequate and what has been happening is the Planning Commission
denies the appeal.The review that was done by the County Attorney
focused on two issues:1)whether or not there was a grand fathering
provision within the Ordinance for developments that have had a
preliminary consultation prior to implementation of the APFO.The
County Attorney has determined that grandfathering is not a provision
and therfore,it could not occur.The second issue was with regard to
the APFO itself.There are two sections within the Ordinance;one
section deals with the traffic volume/capacity relationship the
Planning Commission needs to take into consideration when reviewing
roads for adequacy and the second deals with design standards.Most
of the new developments are being denied because of the determination
of road inadequacy with regard to current new design standards being
applied to existing roads.What is occurring is that we are trying to
develop review criteria with regard to these existing roads which will
incorporate different design standards.A workshop session has been
held to begin developing a policy criteria statement and possible
revisions to the APFO...
Site Plans:
Mt.Roundtop campground:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Mt.Roundtop Campground.The
site is located along the east side of Seavolt Road,approximately 3
1/2 miles southwest of the Town of Hancock.Zoning is Agricultural.
Total area of the subject site encompasses 344 acres.This site plan
is for Phase I and consists of 20 acres.Phase I will include 212
trailer sites,18 tent sites and 9 cabin sites.Future phases will
have 400 additional trailer sites and a 100 seat restaurant.Sewer to
the site will be provided by an on-site sewage treatment plant that is
to be maintained by the Sanitary District.Water service is proposed
by wells with a storage tank.This site was involved in a Water and
Sewerage Plan amendment which permitted the site to go from its
current designation of W-7/S-7 to W-5/S-5 in December 1990.There are
four bath houses proposed on the site and one pavilion and four gravel
parking areas.Three play areas and a swimming pool is proposed.
Lighting is provided at the bath houses and parking areas.Solid
waste disposal is to be collected in trash cans located throughout the
site and brought to individual dumpsters.Parking spaces will be one
space per trailer/cabin/tent site.All interior roads will be private
and maintained by the owner.One access is proposed onto Seavolt
Road.
Mr.Iseminger recommended that the solid waste be recycled and that
separate recycling bins be provided throughout the site.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval with the condition
that separate recycling bins be provided throughout the site.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rezoning Cases:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table the discussion regarding
rezoning cases RZ-91-l4,RZ-91-l5,RZ-91-l6,RZ-91-l8,RZ-91-l9,and
RZ-91-20 until a special meeting.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Water and Sewerage Plan Amendment:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table the discussion regarding the
Water and Sewerage Plan amendment WS-9l-8 until a special meeting.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
c..o
~....-c.oz
~
103
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
Menno Martin AD-91-51:
The Martin farm lies along both sides of Lehman's Mill Road,1 mile
west of Leitersburg.The farm consists of 85.9 acres and has 80.9%
qualifying soils.The farm is 500 feet away from being contiguous
with an existing District.Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to
the County Commissioners that the Martin farm be included in the
Agricultural Land Preservation Program due to its uniqueness.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Millard D.Kefauver,et al.AD-9l-53:
The Kefauver farm lies along the east side of Smoketown Road and both
sides of Mansfield Road,1/2 miles north of the Town of Sharpsburg.
The farm consists of 167 acres and has 46.2%qualifying soils.The
farm qualifies for the Program due to it having a specialized dairy
use.Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Kefauver farm be included in the Agricultural
Land Preservation Program due to its specialized dairy use.Seconded
by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered .
Millard D.Kefauver AD-9l-54:
~he Kefauver farm lies along the south side of Mansfield Road,1 mile
northeast of the Town of Sharpsburg.The farm consists of 114 acres
and has 50.6%qualifying soils and qualifies for the Program.Mr.
Spickler made a motion to recommend to the Commissioners to include
the Kefauver farm in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Taylors Orchard Section C:
The written summary of the preliminary consultation for Taylors
Orchard Section C was included in the Commission's agenda packet with
nothing additional being added by the staff.No action was taken by
the Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Maugans Avenue Corridor Study:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that he included in the agenda packet
a preliminary analysis for Maugans Avenue which was done by the
Engineering Department as an outgrowth of the site plan review for
McDonald's.The Engineering Department has performed preliminary
traffic counts for that area.The traffic count for this corridor at
this time is approximately 18,000 vehicles per week for a two-lane
highway and the road is operating at a level of service 'F'.Mr.Arch
stated that a recommendation should be made by the Planning Commission
to the County Commissioners requesting them to have a study completed
on road improvements needed for this road corridor.After a
discussion,Mr.West made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that a study be performed for the entire Maugans Avenue
corridor.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
Impact Fees:
Mr.Zombro suggested that the Planning Commission send a letter to the
County Commissioners recommending they review the status of
implementing impact fees since that was a major issue in precipitating
the adoption of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.West
said that the Commissioners should bring the Planning Commission up to
date on the process because the Planning Commission's understanding
was that the County Commissioners wanted impact fees and the Maryland
Delegation said that prior to impact fees legislation being approved,
104
there must be an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance adopted along
with the creation of a Department of Public Works.Mr.Bowers agreed
that a recommendation should be made to the Commissioners.Mr.Moser
suggested waiting until after the meeting with the County Engineer and
County Attorney regarding the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
School Enrollment Figures:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that the current school enrollment
figures have not been received.
Independent Cement Corporation Public Hearing:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that the public hearing with the
Board of Zoning Appeals for the Independent Cement Corporation has
been postponed at the applicant's request.Mr.John urner,attorney
for Independent Cement,has requested a transcript of the meetings and
correspondence regarding this case.Mr.Arch stated that the cost for
this information is over $300.00 and it's his opinion that the tax
payers of Washington County should not be subject to paying for this
type of material to provide information for an individual to develop
his case.Mr.zombro suggested to bill Mr.Urner.Mr.Arch stated
that is the intent.
Special Meeting:
The Planning Commission will hold a Special Meeting on Monday,
November 18,1991 at 5:30 P.M.in the third floor conference room of
the County Administration Building to discuss the rezoning cases and
Water and Sewerage Plan amendment.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
1
,()!b
Chairman
<.0
~
y-eoz
:2:
105
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -NOVEMBER 18,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Monday,November 18,1991 in the third floor conference room in the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger;EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers,Carol Johnson,
Bernard Moser,and Donald Spickler.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,
Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;James P.
Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Edward Schreiber,and
Secretary,Janet L.Walkley.Absent was Steven West.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 5:30 P.M.
The special meeting is being held to consider rezoning cases heard in
public hearing on September 16,1991 and also Water and Sewerage Plan
amendment heard on October 1,1991.
Rezoning Cases:
David and Patricia Schooley -RZ-91-14:
Mrs.Johnson made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
the approval of RZ-91-14 for David and Patricia Schooley based on it
meeting the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.Mr.Zombro and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Bowers stated that during the hearing there were questions raised
regarding the possible conflicts with the proposed Historic
Preservation Overlay with the established Agricultural Land
Preservation District.Mr.Good~ich stated that a memo was written to
the Washington County Historic District Commission regarding that
issue as to whether there was or wasn't a conflict.The staff advised
the respect~ve Commissions that there wasn't a conflict.The Historic
Preservation zone controls the appearance of the building and the
Agricultural Land Preservation District controls the use of the land.
There were concerns regarding tax credits and it was determined that
there would never be a rebate or refund of any more tax than what the
owner was obligated to pay.It was the staff's opinion that there
would not be any conflict in the future.
Ronald Winebrenner -RZ-91-15:
Mr.Lung summarized the Commission's option on this particular case
regarding the change and mistake rule.Mr.Moser made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners the disapproval of RZ-91-15 for
Ronald Winebrenner based on there being lack of evidence.Seconded by
Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Zombro and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
C.William Hetzer -RZ-91-16:
Mr.Goodrich said that during the hearing Commission members had
expressed concern for the 1M zoning remaining on this property after
the mining operation were through if this request was approved.In
the text of the 1M zone in the Zoning Ordinance,there is a provision
that allows the County Commissioners to return the land to its
original zoning after reclamation of the property.This action will
require written request from the property owner to the Commissioners.
Commission members expressed concerns regarding the inadequate roads
to serve this site for a mining operation and the flow of traffic
through the Town of Williamsport.It was suggested to obtain comments
from the County Engineer,Maryland State Highway Administration and
Town of Williamsport on the adequacy or inadequacy of the roads in the
area (Ridge Road and Maryland Route 68).After a discussion Mrs.
106
Johnson made a motion to require the applicant to submit specific
traffic routes to the County Engineer for determination of adequacy
and have that information brought back to the Planning Commission
prior to action being taken on the rezoning request.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Mr.Zombro and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Caleb C.Ewing,Jr.-RZ-91-17:
Mr.Iseminger stepped down as Chairman at this time and Mrs.Johnson
chaired the meeting for the Ewing rezoning request.
Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
the approval of RZ-91-17 for Caleb C.Ewing since the property is
within the adopted Urban Growth Area,it's a down zoning from
Industrial General to Business General,and even though the staff has
indicated that the BG zone could be incompatible with existing
residential development in the area,the existing IG zone could be the
same;and the mistake issue was to be correct.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Mr.Iseminger,Mr.Zombro,and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Board of County Commissioners -RZ-91-18:
The purpose of the proposed text amendment is to modify the
requirements regarding the type of water and sewerage facilities
specified under the 'BL'Business Local,'BG'Business General,and
'BT'Business Transitional zoning districts.In addition,the
amendment proposes to delete from the same 'purpose'clause of the
'BL'(Section 11.0),'BG'(Section 12.0)and 'BT'(Section 110.0)
districts'wording that currently describe part of the design or
function of the districts,Commission members expressed concern that
this proposed amendment was not consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.Those zoning districts as they are written
function to encourage growth in the adopted Growth Area where
facilities are available and by delineating requirements for water and
sewer would remove the intent of the original zoning.It was
suggested to assign a new classification of zoning to allow less
intense business uses in the rural areas.After a discussion,Mr.
Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners not to
adopt the text amendment for RZ-91-18.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.
Zombro and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend that the Commissioners
instruct the Planning Commission to look into the possibility of
creating a business district not needing public facilities.Mr.Moser
seconded.So ordered.
Board of County Commissioners -RZ-91-19:
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the
approval of RZ-91-19.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Zombro and Mr.
Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Board of County Commissioners -RZ-91-20:
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners the
approval of RZ-91-20.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Zombro and Mr.
Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Water and Sewerage Plan Amendment:
Bruce N.Hoffman and Sons -WS-91-8:
A discussion was held regarding the availability of public water to
the site due to health problems in the area and whether existing
residents should be required to hook on to public water service.The
Commission had concerns regarding the increased density for this
proposed development once public water is provided.Mr.Spickler made
a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Water and
Sewerage plan amendment for Bruce N.Hoffman and Sons be approved with
the condition that no increase in density be permitted over what is
,."'.'
107
allowed under the current zoning classification without public water.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Zombro and Mr.Bowers abstained.
Independent Cement Corporation Public Hearing:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that the public hearing with the
Board of Zoning Appeals will be held on December 4,1991 to hear
testimony from Independent Cement Corporation.
Workshop Meeting:
The Planning Commission will hold a workshop meeting on Monday,
November 25,1991 at 5:30 P.M.to discuss the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance concerns with the County Engineer and County
Attorney.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.co..q-
.,.-
CI)
z
~
'Ir)fl'~l/~~"
Donald E.airman
108
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING -NOVEMBER 25,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting
on Monday,November 25,1991 in the third floor conference room
of the County Administration Building.This workshop meeting was
held to discuss the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger,Carol Johnson,Bernard Moser,and Donald
Spickler.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;
Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;James P.Brittain,
Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Edward Schreiber and Eric
Seifarth,Assistant Planner;John Gudmundson,and Secretary,
Janet L.Walkley.Absent were Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers and
Steven West.Also present were Russ Townsley with FOx and
Associates,Merle Holsinger and Rodney Tissue with Associated
Engineering Sciences,Fred Frederick with Frederick,Seibert and
Associates,and Jerry Cump with Gerald A.Cump Associates.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:30 P.M.
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that he developed an agenda for
this evening's meeting regarding the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.He explained that the agenda was broken down into
~hree sections.The first deals with the action taken by the
Planning Commission regarding River Bend Farms and the impact
that decision will have on other developments.The second
section deals with administration of the Ordinance.The third
section deals with alternative policy and criteria for additional
guidelines.The agenda was distributed.
Mr.Arch reiterated the County Attorney's position as stated in
his memo that there is no grandfathering provision within the
Ordinance.He reminded the Commission that also in his memo was
a list of items that the Planning Commission should utilize
during their review of road adequacy;ie.existing traffic,
traffic expected to be generated by the development,traffic
generated/projected to be generated by other approved but not yet
constructed developments,improvements scheduled or approved and
funded in the Washington County Capital Improvements Program,
approvals scheduled in the Maryland Department of Transportation
Consolidated Transportation Program,traffic studies which may be
required by the County Engineer and any other information that
may reasonably be required by the County Engineer or Planning
Commission to effectively evaluate the road network or
information supplied by the developer.
Mr.Arch stated that during the Planning Commission's last
meeting,the Commission tabled four APFO determinations.He
informed the Commission that one of those requests has been
withdrawn.The staff and the County Engineer have concerns on
how to proceed due to the action taken on Riverbend Farms.The
decision the Planning Commission made on Riverbend Farms
referenced approval of a previous preliminary consultation on a
specific number of lots.That differs from how the Ordinance may
be interpreted,however,in regard to design criteria;it
references mainly new design criteria.He stated that the
Commission and County Engineer have been considering development
of other design criteria with regard to existing roads.Mr.Arch
said that most of the denials on the road adequacy determinations
are caused due to the inability to meet geometric design criteria
on an existing road.
c.o..q-
.,..-
OJz
:2:
Mr.Moser asked Mr.McGee what his opinion was of the Planning
Commission's action on Riverbend Farms.Mr.McGee stated that in
his opinion he believes the Commission's action was contradictory
to what the Ordinance states.The Ordinance states that
preliminary consultation comments should not be considered;it is
preliminary plat submittal only.The Ordinance states that
determination of roadway adequacy is based solely on current
County design standards.Section II of Riverbend Farms should
have been required to comply with the Ordinance.Mr.McGee
stated that there have been occasions where designs have changed
on concept plans and additional consultations are held.He added
that during the second consultation he informed the developer
that previous comments made prior to December 1,1990 regarding
road adequacy no longer apply.He also informed the developer of
the current regulations.Mr.McGee informed the Commission that
prior to the adoption of the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance,the County had no legal ability to require off-site
improvements nor were there legal standings to prevent
development on substandard roadways.That is why the Ordinance
was adopted;to prevent development where facilities were
inadequate to support it.
Mr.McGee added that a traffic impact study was prepared by the
developer for Riverbend Farms with no written direction from
Glenn Dull requiring the traffic impact study for Dam No.4 Road.
He added that his staff reviewed the traffic study and there are
two errors;1)traffic counts taken in July stated that no
recreational vehicles were included and 2)the traffic study
used a highway capacity manual for level of service.The highway
capacity manual assumes you meet certain minimum geometric
criteria which Dam No.4 Road does not meet.The highway
capacity manual also indicated that for two lane,low volume
rural roads,the highway capacity manual is not particularly
applicable;it was not intended for that.There are serious
sight distance deficiencies on Dam No.4 Road.There are some
curves in the road that you cannot see another vehicle coming in
time to stop safely.
Mr.Spickler stated that Mr.France's letter is extremely
important.The Commission acknowledged that there would be a
"learning period"after the Ordinance was adopted.The
Commission decided it would concur with the County Engineer's
decision on the adequacy of public roadways.The County
Attorney's decision regarding Riverbend Farms stated that the
Planning Commission may evaluate the adequacy of the road.Mr.
Spickler added that the Commission does not have the ability to
make deals with developers on whether they will improve or not
improve the County roads.Mr.Spickler stated that items A
through G in Mr.France's memo are the basis on which the
Commission should be looking at all requests that come in for
road adequacy determinations.
The Planning Commission is receiving mixed signals regarding
design criteria as they relate to old roads.He added that the
different signals are that the Commission is not sure if the
existing criteria ought to be applied to all the existing roads
in the County.From this point on,the Commission either needs
to take the set of criteria established by the Ordinance or make
other changes to it.
Mr.Iseminger stated that he agrees with Mr.Spickler.He added
that the County Engineer is reviewing road adequacy from a safety
standpoint and in his opinion,overrides anything else that is
listed on the County Attorney's memo.If it's determined to be
inadequate for the motoring public,it doesn't matter what the
existing traffic is or the generated proposed traffic;if the
road cannot handle it you might as well stop there.He added
that the Planning Commission,in good conscience,should not
approve development on a road that is not going to be safe for
the public.Mr.Arch stated that he agrees that the County has
an obligation to the citizen who travel those roadways everyday
to make some sort of improvements to the roads to bring them up
109
110
to current standards.
Mr.Iseminger stated that he likes the flexibility that is in the
Ordinance.The Ordinance should not get into two many specifics
as long as it's fairly administered.He added that he would.like
comments from the consultants regarding this matter.Mr.Fred
Frederick said he has concerns on how the Commission can approve
one subdivision and disapprove another that is similar;ie.size
of development and adequacy of roadway.He added that the
consultants are looking for consistency in the Planning
Commission's decisions.Mr.Frederick added that at this time,
the County is making some very vital improvements to the
Leitersburg/Smithsburg Road.However,after those improvements
are complete,it will still not meet the 235 foot stopping sight
distance requirement.The County is spending $300,000+to
improve a road which will still not meet the current criteria
which,in his opinion,is a major problem.Mr.Frederick
suggested having the County Engineer develop another set of
design criteria for existing roads.
Mr.McGee stated that the Leitersburg/Smithsburg Road is $350,000
construction project to correct some obvious safety deficiencies
in an area which did have an accident history.In order to bring
that road up to anyone's design standards,you'd be spending in
excess of $2 million including acquisition to relocate
individuals'houses.Mr.McGee added that his department is
reviewing development of criteria for existing roadways in the
County.Additional research has found that the "six inch eye"is
not a published ASHTO standards.That is a research figure only
presented by the National Highway Transportation Highway Research
Institute.The proposed criteria needs to be adopted by the
County Commissioners with public input during a public hearing.
Mr.McGee added that he would like the initial draft out for
public comment within the next two months.Mr.Iseminger
suggested that the staff inform individuals that they can
challenge the existing criteria to determine road adequacy or
they can be informed that new criteria are being established and
they can wait until it's adopted.
Mr.Russ Townsley stated that he has problems with the Ordinance
because Mr.McGee stated that when it was first adopted,his
staff would drive the road in question and if it appeared safe,
the proposed development would be approved.Now there are small
developments on those same roads that the County Engineer is
disapproving under the APFO.It's Mr.Townsley's opinion that a
standard should be adopted so there is consistency.He added
that there are a great deal of inconsistencies which make it
difficult for one and two lot subdivisions to be approved.Mr.
Moser added that in his opinion,the Commission was consistent
with approvals until the Riverbend Farms subdivision was granted.
Mr.McGee stated that after further review and investigation of
policies in other Counties,the Engineering Department realized
that some of its first decisions made under the APFO were failing
to identify certain significant road deficiencies such as
vertical curves and sight distance requirements.Mr.Iseminger
stated that the inconsistency was in the way the County Engineer
was determining adequacy,not the Planning Commission's action.
Mr.Spickler stated that according to the County Attorney's memo,
there are certain items that the.Planning Commission must
consider prior to approving or disapproving subdivisions.Mr.
McGee said that the items the County Attorney has listed are
items that he considers prior to approving or disapproving plats.
He added that he can also provide back up material indicating the
direction of travel,new traffic being generated and all other
deficiencies of that road to the Commission if the Commission
wants it.Mr.Moser stated he would like to have a more
definitive statement from the staff regarding the road adequacy
determinations and then have the Commission make a decision
whether to approve or deny the request.
After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger suggested that the Planning
CD
~,.-
c:cz
:2:
Director draft a letter to the County Commissioners indicating
that the County Engineer's priorities be revised to include
developing new criteria upon which to evaluate existing roads in
administration of the APFO.By consensus of the Commission
members it was agreed that the Planning Director draft a letter
to the Commissioners.
Next Meeting:
The Commission will hold another workshop meeting regarding the
APFO on December 16,1991 at 5:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at
7:00 P.M.
;J
111
112
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 2,1991
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular
monthly meeting on Monday,December 2,1991 in the first floor
conference room of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Donald E.Zombro,Vice-Chairman;
Bertrand L.Iseminger,EX-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Bernard
Moser,Donald Spickler and Steven West.Staff:Director;Robert
C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;
James P.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,and Edward
Schreiber,Assistant Planner;John Gudmundson,and Secretary,
Janet L.Walkley.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES:
Mr.West made a motion to adopt the minutes of the
November 4,1991 regular meeting as written.Seconded by Mr.
Spickler.So ordered.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
South Pointe PUD:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that Davis,Renn and Associates
is requesting that the South Pointe PUD be added to the agenda in
order to request a six month extension of time for the submittal
of the Final Development Plan.Mr.Bowers made a motion to add
South Pointe PUD to the agenda under Other Business.Seconded by
Mr.Spickler.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Frank Kipe:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that a request has been received
to add the preliminary and final subdivision plat for Frank and
Mary Kipe to the agenda.All agency approvals have been received
with the exception of a conditional approval from the County
Engineer for road widening.Mr.Moser made a motion to add the
Frank Kipe subdivision plat to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.
Iseminger.So ordered.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Kia Younq Variance Request:
Mr.Gudmundson presented the variance request for Kia Young.The
site is located along the west side of Mt.Briar Road,1/4 mile
north of Marble Quarry Road.He reminded the Commission that
this request was tabled from the November meeting.The applicant
is requesting to subdivide a 3 acre lot from her 52 acre
property.Access to the lot is via a panhandle to Mt.Briar
Road.During the November meeting,Ms.Young requested to
subdivide a lot without the required 25 feet of public road
frontage.This request is to create a new lot having a panhandle
width of 20 feet and length of 520 feet.The remaining lands'
panhandle will be 20 feet wide and BOO±long.Mr.Iseminger made
a motion to grant the variance request conditional on no further
subdivision of the original parcel.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
<
CD
"""",....
al
Z
~
NEW BUSINESS:
Variance:
John Swope:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for John Swope.The
site is located along the west side of Big Spring Road,400 feet
south of 1-70.The applicant is proposing to create a 1 acre lot
without the required 25 feet of public road frontage.The
remaining lands would consist of 1.75 acres with an existing
house and lane.Access to the proposed lot will be via the
existing lane to Big Spring Road.After a discussion,Mr.
Spickler made a motion to deny the variance request since there
was no demonstrated hardship and the lane is over 500 feet long.
Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Mrs.Carol Johnson arrived at 7:15 P.M.
Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for the
Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation.The site is
located at the intersection of Breezehill and Citicorp Drives.
Breezehill Drive is a public road and Citicorp Drive is a private
road.The proposed 3.2 acre lot will be conveyed to Diversified
Construction Services.Access to the lot will be via Breezehill
Drive.There is an existing barn on the lot which will remain
?nd be used for offices.The remaining lands will access onto
Citicorp Drive.The variance is being requested from the Section
405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that all newly
subdivided lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet of public road
frontage.It was suggested to the consultant to utilize a
panhandle to Breezehill Drive,however,due to the steep
topography,it was not feasible.Questions were raised regarding
whether the existing barn was listed on the Historic Sites
Survey.After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant
the variance conditional on review and approval by the Historic
District Commission.Seconded by Mr.West.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Riverbend Farms:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat
for Riverbend Farms,Section II,lots 1 through 39.The subject
site is located in the northeast corner of Dam No.4 and Shaefer
Roads.Zoning is Agricultural.The applicant is proposing to
develop 39 single-family lots on 123 acres.Proposed lot sizes
will range between 2 and 6 acres.The lots will be served by
individual wells and septic systems.Access to the lots will be
via Dam No.4 Road or two proposed new streets.The Health
Department has issued its approval.The County Engineer
submitted a memo (December 2,1991)regarding conditions that
must be met prior to final approval.Mr.West made a motion to
grant preliminary and final plat approval conditional on the
comments expressed by the County Engineer in his memo dated
December 2,1991.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.On a call for the
motion,Mrs.Johnson voted 'nay',Mr.Bowers,Mr.Zombro,Mr.
Spickler and Mr.West voted 'aye'and Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Moser
abstained.So ordered.
Hartman Subdivision:
Mr.Schreiber informed the Commission that this subdivision
request has been withdrawn from this evening'S agenda.
113
114
'.:11'•.;~
Ronald Huntsberry:
Mr.Schreiber informed the Commission that this subdivision
request has been withdrawn from this evening's agenda.
Frank Kipe:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final subdivision plat
for Frank and Mary Kipe.The subject site is located along Rowe
Road just northeast of its intersection with Maryland Route 64.
A preliminary consultation was held in October 1991.The owner
is proposing to create 5 single-family lots with sizes ranging
from 1.6 to 1.9 acres.The lots will be served by individual
wells and septic systems.The Health Department has issued its
approval.The County Engineer has not issued his approval due to
the required widening of Rowe Road.Once Rowe Road is widened to
18 feet,approval will be granted.After a discussion,Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat
approval conditional on the road improvements being made and
fl~al approval be issued by the County Engineer.Seconded by
Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance Determinations:
Orchard Heights:
Mrs.Pietro presented the road adequacy determination for Orchard
Heights,lots 1 through 5.The subject site is located along the
east side of Bain Road just east of White Oak Ridge Road.A
preliminary consultation was held in October 1989 which proposed
61 residential lots.The subdivision plat was submitted but
withdrawn due to perculation areas not being obtained for the 61
lots.At this time,the developer is proposing to create 20 lots
on 17.5 acres with lots ranging in size from 2 to 7 acres.
Remaining lands consist of 125 acres.The site will be served by
individual wells and septic systems.Lot 3 has an existing
dwelling which will remain.A 50 foot strip is proposed between
lots 4 and 5 to provide access to the remaining lands.The
County Engineer has disapproved this subdivision request due to
vertical curves on Bain and White Oak Ridge Roads.Mr.Arch
reminded the Commission that during a workshop meeting with the
County Engineer,the Planning Commission requested information
regarding the elements used to determined if a road is adequate
or inadequate.He added that there are four deficiencies in the
geometric design for this particular development.However,if
the proposed criteria is established,there is only one
deficiency with a horizontal curve on White Oak Ridge Road which
will need an embankment cut back.
Mr.Spickler stated that under the exemption requirements in
Section 4.1,the Planning Commission may exempt subdivisions of
an original tract of land used for agricultural purposes into no
more than four lots provided that the original tract of land has
twenty-five acres per each lot subdivided and that the road width
in front of each lot is no less than 16 feet.He asked if the
Commission has the authority to approve a five lot subdivision
under those requirements.Mr.Zombro suggested that the
developer reduce the lot size to four lots.Mr.walter Prichard,
owner/developer,stated that he's willing to compromise with the
Commission and reduce the size of the development by one lot.
Mr.Iseminger stated that since the number of lots have been
reduced,does the Planning Commission have the ability to approve
the four lots under the requirements of the APFO or does the road
determination still need to be made by the County Engineer.Mrs.
Pietro stated that it will still eventually need to be made when
the fifth lot is proposed.Mr.Zombro suggested waiting until
the new criteria is approved and wait to include the fifth lot
with another section of the development.After a discussion,Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant approval of four lots
conditional on the County Engineer reviewing and approval of the
revised four lot subdivision.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
CD
"'¢
,.-
CO
Z
~
David Mowen:
Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that this Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance determination has been withdrawn from the
agenda.
Dharl Wilfong:
Mr.Schreiber presented the road adequacy determination for Dharl
Wilfong.The site is located along the east side of Paradise
Church Road,1/2 mile north of its intersection with Longmeadow
Road.In 1974 a simplified plat for acquisition purposes only
was approved for conveyance of this parcel from Mr.Hurst to Mr.
Leo Martin.Since a simplified plat does not permit development,
this parcel must be approved as a development plat.The
conversion of the simplified plat to a development plat would
need to meet the requirements of the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.The County Engineer has denied this subdivision
request due to poor sight distance.This site would not fall
under any of the exemption requirements of the APFO.Mr.
Iseminger stated that he's not prepared to overrule the County
Engineer's judgement on whether or not Paradise Church Road is
adequate,however,it's his opinion that this lot was originally
created to be used as a building lot.After a discussion,Mr.
Spickler made a motion stating that the APFO,in this case,is
not applicable to this lot.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.
Mr.West stated that in his opinion even if this were not a lot
qf record,the APFO should not apply to this lot.He added that
he doesn't have any problem disagreeing with the County
Engineer's ruling that this road is inadequate to add one more
single-family dwelling to.
On a call for the question of the motion,Mr.Moser voted 'nay'.
So ordered.
Steve Bushey:
Mr.Brittain presented the road adequacy determination for Steve
Bushey.The site is located along Kemps Mill Road with access
being via a panhandle to Kemps Mill Road.The County Engineer is
stating by using the access off Kemps Mill Road,the anticipated
direction of travel would be either Kemps Mill Road to Rock Hill
Road north to Maryland Route 63 or Kemps Mill Road south to
Maryland Route 63.The affected portion of Rock Hill Road has
two vertical curves with inadequate sight distance and the
affected portion of Kemps Mill Road south to Maryland Route 63
has on vertical and one horizontal curve with inadequate sight
distance.The County Engineer is withholding approval for this
lot until the necessary road improvements for either direction of
travel are completed.Mr.Bushey explained to the Commission
different directions of travel that can be used.Mr.Frederick
stated that using the proposed criteria,there would still be a
horizontal curve in front of the new rubble landfill that would
not be adequate.Mr.Iseminger stated that until the
requirements are changed in the Ordinance,current requirements
must be met.After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
table this request until the January meeting so the County
Engineer can review the various routes of travel and re-examine
the inadequacies with the consultant.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
Mr.Iseminger stated that until the new requirements are
finalized,the Commission needs to decide if action should be
taken on determinations relating to Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.Mr.Zombro added that the Commission should advise
the staff to inform the consultants that the Planning Commission
will not discuss the APFO determinations until the new criteria
is adopted.Mr.Brittain informed the Commission that the staff
has tried to discourage consultants in requesting these items for
the agenda until the new criteria is adopted.If the consultants
insist that the item be placed on the agenda,the staff does not
115
116
l~~'.~::~
have the right to deny them.Mr.West said in his opinion the
APFO should be placed in a moratorium until guidelines and
implementation methodologies are developed that are workable.
Mr.Moser said he strongly disagrees with suspending the
Ordinance.After a discussion,it was decided that an Workshop
Session be held to discuss this matter during the
December 16,1991 workshop meeting.Mr.Iseminger suggested that
Mr.Arch hand deliver their letter regarding requirements for
existing roads to the Commissioners during their regular Tuesday
meeting to express the concerns of the Planning Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Cross Creek:
Mrs.Pietro informed the Commission that a letter was received
from Bruce Cubbage with Interstate 70 Investment properties,
owner/developer of Cross Creek,requesting that the tennis courts
and swimming pool be removed from the approved concept plan for
Cross Creek.The basis for this request is so Interstate 70
"Investment Properties can apply for funding through Farmers Home
for low to moderate income levels.Farmers Home will not loan
monies for these types of amenities (swimming pool and tennis
court).Mrs.Pietro stated that she spoke with a representative
from Farmers Home who concurred with the applicant's statement.
The owner/developer did not propose anything in place of the pool
and tennis court.The staff suggested additional open space for
these areas.Mr.Cubbage presented the Commission with pictures
of the proposed housing units to be used in the Cross Creek
development and explained the reason behind using Farmers Home
for financing.During a discussion,the Planning Commission
suggested a multi-purpose field or picnic area for these areas.
Mr.Cubbage agreed with the suggestion.It was determined,by
consensus,that the applicant bring back a revised concept plan
showing the proposed recreational amenities for this development.
Recycling Considerations for New Developments:
Mr.Goodrich stated that a few meetings ago,the Commission
approved a site plan for a campground with provisions that the
developer provide some sort of facilities for recycling.The
staff noted its concern for being certain that site plan
conditions regarding recycling be consistent with the County's
entire Recycling Program which has not been completed yet.Mr.
Goodrich introduced Harvey Hoch,the County's Recycling
Coordinator,and explained to the Commission that he will discuss
the County's Recycling program.
Mr.Hoch briefly explained the County's Recycling Program.He
added that the County is encouraging recycling activity
throughout the County,for residential and commercial,but the
County cannot afford to supply containers to everyone.Most of
that would rely upon the haulers in the region to provide the
service;whether trash pick-up or recycling.Problems on the
recycling side occur in the industrial,commercial uses where
there isn't enough space for trash pick-up dumpsters and
recycling containers.Mr.Hoch suggested that in the future,
developments (residential and commercial)should be encouraged to
set aside a space for recycling containers.Mr.Iseminger stated
that as well as setting aside space for the containers,a program
should be established for the individual businesses in the
community to recycle properly.After a discussion,Mr.Spickler
made a motion to change the action taken on the site plan for Mt.
Roundtop Campground to state that the space should be provided
for future recycling activity and not specifically state
recycling bins be provided.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So
ordered.Mr.Goodrich added that the developer did agree to
provide space for future recycling activity.
Mr ..Goodrich informed the Commission that if they are in
agreement to require space for recycling in new developments,a
text amendment can be drafted for a public hearing to be held in
{O
..q
0r-
al
Z
~
March 1992.Mr.Moser made a motion to direct the staff to
prepare a text amendment to require that all new developments
provide space for recycling.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So
ordered.
South Pointe PUD:
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that a request has been received
from Robert Johnson with Davis,Renn and Associates requesting a
six month extension of time for the submittal of the Final
Development Plan for South Pointe PUD.Mr.Moser made a motion
to grant the six month extension.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So
ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at
9:30 P.M.
J~l)/"~
Donald E.Zombr
117