Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 MinutesWASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 4,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,January 4,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,EX-Officio; Ronald L.Bowers,Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler and Robert E. Ernst,II.Carol Johnson arrived late.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners; Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Edward Schreiber and Secretary, Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Donald Zombro. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 P.M. MINUTES: 227 Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of December 7,1992. Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered. Mr.Arch referred to an item sent out separately,the Islamic Temple of Western Maryland,which should have been on the agenda. It is for a set back determination for a site plan in an HI district.Mr.Arch asked that it be added to tonight's agenda under Other Business.Mr.Moser moved to add the item to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. CD ~,.- fJJ Z ~ Mr.Moser moved Special Meeting. to approve the minutes of November 17, Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. 1992, UNFINISHED BUSINESS: RZ-92-14 Richard McCleary: Mr.Iseminger referred to the staff report and comments from the public regarding this rezoning request.He asked if this area was included in the water and sewer plan,when the zoning came into existence 20 years ago.The answer was no.Mr.Spickler stated that the applicant made some unique arguments in the mistake of the original zoning,but felt they were not convincing enough to support a mistake in the zoning.He stated they also did not mention anything about a change in the neighborhood.Mr.Iseminger stated that development in that area and the Urban Growth Area has occurred as was originally envisioned.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the Board of Commissioners due to the following reasons:the applicant failed to establish a mistake in the original zoning;the current zoning is still compatible with the neighborhood and changing it may conflict with the other uses that are there now;and the staff report. Seconded by Mr.Moser.All in favor.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance Determination: Independence Road: Mr.Arch stated that it has been requested to be postponed until the February meeting. 228 Subdivisions: Millyyille,Lots 5-7 preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Schreiber presented the Preliminary/Final Plat and referred to the previous Preliminary Consultation and variance requests.The total acreage is 3 acres.The property will be divided into three I acre lots with approximately 88.5 acres remaining.One panhandle will be used with all 3 utilizing a common drive to access U.S.Rt. 40.The zoning is Agricultural and is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Agricultural.The site is located on the south side of U.S.Rt.40,.5 miles west of Ashton Road.The property will be served by individual well and septic systems.The site will utilize Clear Spring Elementary,Middle and High Schools. All written agency approvals have been received with the exception of the Health Department who has verbally approved the plan.Mr. Schreiber stated that the subdivision does meet the requirements of the ordinance.Mr.Iseminger referred to the letter in the packet from the adjacent property owner regarding the location of the septic area and well.Mr.Schreiber explained the location of the proposed septic areas and the location of the adjoiner's well and stated that the adjoiner is concerned with possible contamination. Mr.Mills,the adjoiner spoke to the Planning Commission explaining his concerns.Mr.Iseminger had a question regarding the location of the septic areas.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler had a question regarding future development.Mr.Schreiber stated that the owner does not have any plans for the remaining lands.There was a discussion regarding the increase of water crossing Rt.40. Mr.Iseminger stated he was not comfortable with the septic situation and was hesitant in approving the subdivision without something further from the Health Department.Mr.Rod Weinbrenner from Associated Engineering spoke.He stated he spoke to Terry Mayhew of the Health Department and they do have verbal approval. Mr.Bowers stated that prior to making a decision there should be a site meeting with the developer,consultant,Mr.Schreiber, Health Department,the County Engineer and Mr.Mills to look at the drainage and septic issue.Mr.Iseminger stated that it is the consensus of the Planning Commission to have a meeting arranged between Engineering and Health Department and the appropriate parties prior to the February meeting and put this subdivision on the February agenda.Mr.Bowers moved to postpone action until the next meeting.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Myers Subdivision,Lots 5-9 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the Preliminary/Final plat.She stated that the Planning Commission dealt with the Concept Plan and variance request at the November 1992 meeting.The site is located on the south side of Rt.56.The zoning is Conservation.The developer is proposing to create 5 residential lots.The total acreage of the site is 17.3 acres with 85 acres remaining.All lots will be served by private wells and septic.Mrs.Pietro referred to the plat and indicated the access point for the lots.Mrs.Pietro stated that at the time the variance was approved,there was a condition to set aside a right-of-way to serve subject lots 6,8 and 9 and any future development.She stated the owner was willing to do that and there is a note on the plat.Mr.Iseminger had a question regarding the right-of-way.All approvals have been received.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission's motion at the November meeting was to grant approval conditional on setting aside the right-of-way and if future development was to occur,that the road would be built to County standards.Mr.Moser moved to approve the Preliminary/Final plat.Seconded by Mr. Bowers.So ordered. 229 Site Plan: Technical Innovation Center Addition,HJC (SP-92-l6): Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan which is an addition to the existing technical center.The site is located on the northwest side of Robinwood Drive.It is in the Urban Growth area.Mr. Schreiber explained the site plan and the location of the building, parking area and additional landscaping.Additional storm water management will be provided.Lighting will be provided by pole and building mounted lights.Parking is adequate.A discussion followed with the consultant,Mr.Dan Matonak of Regan-Matonak Associates.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: H.&G.Barkdoll's Corner: Mr.Moser had a question regarding the road adequacy.Mr.Lung stated that the road adequacy determination is not required until a subdivision plat is submitted and one has not yet been submitted. He proceeded to explain the County Engineer's new policy on road adequacy.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that his major concern is with the road adequacy and development in the rural areas of the County.Mr.Lung stated that the site is not within a growth area.Mr.Iseminger asked about bridges in the area and if there would be a problem.Discussion followed.Mr. Spickler asked about Lot 3.Mr.Lung stated it is a one lot subdivision,and a plat has been received for approval.He stated since it is considered a minor subdivision,there are different requirements regarding road adequacy for only one lot.Mr.Lung stated that the last thing he heard from the consultant was that Mr.Barkdoll is reconsidering his plans for the six lot subdivision and has put everything on hold except for the one lot.Mr. Spickler asked about the Forest Conservation Act and it's affect on this development.A discussion followed regarding the GIS system. Other Business: Demolition Permit -Shaool: Mr.Goodrich referred to the permit application,survey form and copies of the pictures in the agenda packet.He explained that the application was presented to the Historic District Commission at it's December meeting and a recommendation was approved to oppose demolition based on the information presented at the meeting.The building appeared to be occupied at the time and the Historic District Commission felt demolition of the building was inconsistent with the current growth area policies.Following that meeting,Mr.Goodrich spoke to the Engineering Department and was informed that the house needed to come down because it was in the path of the re-construction of Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Goodrich then contacted Mr.Shaool,the owner,who agreed to waive the 60 day review period in order to give the Historic District Commission a second chance to review the application with this additional information.Since that time,it has been determined that the house does not need to be removed for the reconstruction of Mt. Aetna Road.Mr.Goodrich handed out a drawing to each Planning Commission member and explained the location of the new right-of- way and the building.He stated that Mr.Shaool still wanted to demolish the building and provided him the opportunity to speak this evening and at the next Historic District Commission meeting. 230 Mr.Iseminger asked what the recommendation from the Historic District Commission is and asked if they felt it was a historic property.Mr.Goodrich stated the Historic Commission is opposed to the demolition,because they did not have any information showing them that the property needed to be taken down and referred to the description of the property in the survey as an indication of its significance.Mr.Shaool stated he has not given right-of- way to the County and when he does,he feels the house will be too close to the road.Mr.Shaool stated that the house has not been preserved and has no historic significance.He stated that he has put money in the main house.He feels he is beautifying the area by taking it down and feels it is an eyesore.Mr.Iseminger asked if land has been set aside for the main house.Mr.Shaool stated he has set aside 4 acres.The house in question is also on the 4 acres and he feels this house is too close to the main house.A discussion followed. Mr.Arch stated that since the building is existing,the resulting setback after new road construction would be sufficient.He also summarized several Commission members comments that since there appeared to be no compelling argument for or against the need for demolition,the proper action may be to defer to the Historic District Commission for a determination of historical significance. Mr.Goodrich stated that in the Preliminary Consultation this building was set aside on a separate lot and at that time it was stated that the house would not be taken down.Discussion followed.He noted that part of the Historic District Commission's position in opposition to the demolition is that there may be other parties interested in rehabilitating the building.If it is torn down,that opportunity is lost before it is investigated.Mr. Spickler made a motion that the Planning Commission will defer action on this permit to the Historic District Commission and will support the action taken by them.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Islamic Society of Western Maryland: Mr.Arch presented the site plan.He stated it is in the HI district and before the site plan can be presented for final approval the Planning Commission must make a decision on whether or not they want to make the set backs any greater.Mr.Arch stated that the property is located on Day Road and proceeded to explain the site plan and the current set backs.Mr.Arch stated that the question before the Planning Commission this evening is,do they want to increase the set backs.Mr.Spickler asked if there was any reason why they should be increased.Mr.Arch stated no.A discussion followed regarding future development.Bonnie Lewis of Fox and Associates was present.She stated that they have received written approvals from Soil Conservation Service,the County Engineer and verbal approval from the Health Department. Therefore,they would like to go ahead and obtain a grading permit. They are not looking for site plan approval this evening,but would like a contingency so that the staff can make the final approval. A discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion not to increase the set back above and beyond what is normally required in an HI district,with staff having the authority to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. (0 ~,.- coz ~ Rezoning Recommendation for Recycling Amendment -RZ-92-6: Mr.Goodrich passed out the Staff Report Analysis Following the Public Hearing.He stated that there was no additional testimony and no written comments following the hearing and referred to the modifications to the proposed amendment and stated that he felt they addressed the concerns of the Commissioners.He stated that this proposal was also acceptable to the Recycling Coordinator and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee.Mr.Iseminger stated that these modifications will fall under minor changes to the text and asked that an additional change be made by removing "and its size" from the first paragraph and adding "and of sufficient size to accomodate the collection and storage of recyclable materials." Mr.Spickler moved to make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to adopt RZ-92-6 with the minor changes as outlined by the Chairman.Seconded by Carol Johnson.All in favor.So ordered. Long Range Work Program: Mr.Arch asked if this item could be deferred until the February 1993 meeting. Group I of the Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Arch referred to the book which was handed out.He stated that qnly 2 of the groups were in the book and that the third one would be forwarded this week.He stated that the public informational meeting will be held on January 25th.Mr.Arch explained that residents in the HI district will be notified,there will be an advertisement and signs will be posted.Mr.Arch explained what the steps are that are involved in the public meeting.A discussion followed. Solid Waste Management Plan: Mr.Arch referred to the copy each member received and stated that nothing needs to be done at this time.He stated that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee will be meeting on January 7 and he will be giving a presentation to the Board of Commissioners on January 12.The next step after comments come back from the Solid Waste Advisory Board will be to hold a public hearing. APFO -Text Amendments: Mr.Arch discussed the minor changes that would be made to the ordinance and reviewed the three items.He stated they will come up with some recommendations for this cycle. Zoning Text Amendments: Mr.Arch stated there are two other text amendments for the Planning Commission to review.One is for a site plan for temporary and seasonal operations and the other would be a zoning text amendment to adjust setbacks on corner lots.Mr.Arch stated he would like the Planning Commission's go ahead for the planning staff to prepare these recommendations for their review at the February meeting. 231 232 Hagerstown Comprehensive Development Plan Amendment: Mr.Arch referred to the letter and the amendment pertaining to Historic Preservation,contained in the agenda packet.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked if our Historic District Commission reviewed a copy of it.Mr.Goodrich stated they had not as of yet but he would send them a copy of it. Board of Appeals: Mr.Arch stated that this item is for information purposes and referred to the Fairbourn property in Sharpsburg.The owners have submitted a proposal to expand their bed and breakfast inn.Mr. Arch stated he has received some calls concerning this case.This case is before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing,the deadline has been extended an additional 10 days to receive further testimony.There is not a requirement that a site plan be submitted for review.He stated that the property is within the County and the Town limits.Mr.Iseminger suggested sending a note that some concerns have been raised that if they do decide to grant variances that a condition be to submit a site plan to the Planning Commission for approval.All members were in agreement. Clean Rock: Mr.Arch stated that Paul Prodonovich advised him that he has ~eceived an application from Clean Rock for the additional building to be built.He will probably be issuing a permit shortly because it is in accordance with the site plan that was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Delegation Meeting: Mr.Arch stated that on Wednesday,January 6,1993 the Delegation will be holding a hearing regarding the Forest Conservation Act at 10:00 A.M. Hancock Public Hearing: Mr.Arch stated that Hancock is holding a public hearing regarding sludge on Thursday,January 7,1993 at 2:00 P.M.Discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked if they can send a letter to the Department of Environment requesting that a public information hearing will be held when a permit is applied for.Discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Arch if he would express the Planning Commission's concern at that meeting.Mr.Arch stated he will draft a letter to the Solid Waste Committee. Ag Certification: Mr.Iseminger stated that the Ag Certification is underway and should be retroactive as of December. Woodbridge Section B: Mr.Iseminger stated that one of the Planning Commission's conditions was that dumpsters should be provided and asked Mr. Goodrich if that has been done.Mr.Goodrich stated that he will check on it and will advise at the next meeting. Forest Conservation Requirements: Mr.Goodrich stated he was informed by the State that in the absence of a local program being adopted,the State plan goes into effect and all plans must be sent down to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources for review.A discussion followed regarding procedures and how this act will affect the County.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.France has been in contact with the State regarding variance procedures and is working on getting a clarification.Mr. Iseminger stated that they will get a staff analysis of the public meetings,the Planning Commission will review the draft again and then they will submit their recommendation to the Board of Commissioners and in the meantime plans submitted hereon will be sent to the State for review,except those that the staff feels are exempt.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: 233 ~ c.o ~,- a:l Z :2: There being no 234 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING -JANUARY 25,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public information meeting on the Highway Interchange Study on Monday,January 25, 1993 in Court Room No.1 of the Court House,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Donald Zombro,Bernard Moser,and Robert Ernst,II.Ronald Bowers arrived late.Donald Spickler and Carol Johnson were absent.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Edward Schreiber and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. Mr.Iseminger explained to the audience that this was the first of five public information meetings,which will be followed by a public hearing with the ultimate purpose of achieving a comprehensive rezoning of the 17 interchanges in Washington County.Mr.Iseminger stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide the findings by the Planning Staff to Group I and proceeded to read the presiding officer statement. Mr.Arch presented the study and explained that the County received a grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission on the 17 highway interchanges.He stated that tonight they would be reviewing the first three interchanges which consists of approximately 300 parcels.Mr.Arch stated that the Zoning Ordinance was established in 1973,which determined the Highway Interchange district and referred to the maps depicting each interchange.He stated that Group I consists of Interstate 70 and MD 65;Interstate 70 and U.S. 40;and Interstate 70 and MD 66.The Zoning Ordinance also indicated that the Planning Commission will undertake additional detailed studies to generate additional requirements for development in a HI district.In 1988 there were two zoning text amendments which created an HI-1 and HI-2 classification and proceeded to explain each classification.He stated that with this study they are applying these classifications to the boundaries and in this process they are looking at the current boundaries and where they should be.The purpose of this study is to review the current boundaries of the HI district with regard to policies identified in the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinance, Specific Facilities Plans,and acceptable planning principles in order to make adjustments to the current boundaries and assign the HI-1 and HI-2 designations.Mr.Arch reviewed the Goals and Policies and referred to the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, which were used in formulating the recommendation.He stated that of particular interest are the goals and policies which differentiate between development inside and outside of the Urban Growth Area.He referred to the map showing the interchange for I-70 and MD 66.He stated that the interchange does not include any area which would be associated with the Urban Growth Area.He stated that the other two interchanges will be considered as associated with the Urban Growth Area.A Highway Interchange Policy Statement,which is based on work accomplished in 1986 and 1987 and referencing the need for specific development controls was referenced as being used in the analysis.The Zoning Ordinance amendments which created the HI-1 and HI-2 classifications were an outgrowth of the Highway Interchange Policy Statement. Mr.Schreiber explained the HI-l and HI-2 classifications.He stated that the HI-1 classification is for more intense commercial/industrial uses and proceeded to read its definition from the text.HI-l district is established for those uses allowed in BL,BG,PB and IR districts.This district is intended to include those lands located closest to the interchange.This (0 ~,- CCl Z ~ classification includes strip shopping centers,malls,light industrial use,etc.He stated that any development in the area would have to go through site plan evaluation and approval by the Planning Commission. Mr.Schreiber stated that HI-2 zoning is more of a transitional type zoning and proceeded to identify that it provides for less intense commercial/industrial land use and instead focuses on residential development.Including those uses in BT,RM,PUD,IT, RR,RS and RU districts.The classification allows residential uses from 1 acre lots to apartments and business uses that are transitional and not incompatible with residential development - doctors,dentists office and small scale businesses. Mr.Arch referred to the Interchange planning and Management Handbook,which was used in this study.He explained how this was used in determining location development patterns.He stated that a work schedule for reviewing all the interchanges was developed. Mr.Schreiber proceeded to review the overlays for each of the interchanges.He stated he used 21 different sources in this study to find out what is on each property.He then proceeded to review the five different maps.The first one is a land use map,which was prepared from existing data,aerial photos and site inspections;he then explained the color coding.He stated that the environmental part of the study was the most time consuming. The first thing they looked at were the poor soils.This includes areas with high water table,steep slopes,and rock outcrops.The next overlay shows the tree covering,flood plain,wetlands and historic resources in the area. The next item they looked at was utilities.Mr.Schreiber stated that one of the major factors affecting development is the ability to service a site with public water and sewer.Based on the Water and Sewer Plan only certain areas are projected to have public water and sewer service. Mr.Arch proceeded to show slides of the three interchanges and explained the locations and what was represented on each slide. A discussion followed. Recommendations: 1-70 and MD 66: Mr.Arch stated that this interchange encompasses the Beaver Creek area.He stated they looked at all the limitations and noted that the interchange is located outside of the Urban Growth area.Based on the Comprehensive Plan,utilities will not be extended there. There are no agricultural districts in this interchange,but there is one adjacent to it.He stated they are recommending a classification of C -Conservation,except for where the mining operation currently exists.That area would be classified as Conservation with an 1M -Industrial Mining overlay.The Conservation District provides for 3 acre single family lots.He stated there are certain commercial uses allowed such as grocery stores,gas stations and resort type uses.A discussion followed. 1-70 and U.S.40: Mr.Arch stated that there are not as many environmental limitations with this interchange as with MD 66.He stated that all current land uses appear to be allowed by the HI-1 and HI-2 classification.There are few environmental factors,few historical sites and no Agricultural Preservation Districts that would preclude development.Public utilities could be extended to service all sections of the development area.Mr.Arch referred to the map,explaining which sections they are recommending to be HI-1 and HI-2 and why.A discussion followed. 1-70 and MD 65: 235 236 1-70 and MD 65: Mr.Arch stated that this interchange is located within the Urban Growth Area.He stated that there were not as many historical and environmental considerations.There is an Agricul tural Preservation District adjacent to this area.He reviewed the current land uses and stated that they would be allowed in the HI-l and HI-2 districts.Public utilities could be extended to service all sections of the interchange area.Mr.Arch explained which sections would be HI-l and HI-2 and why. Mr.Iseminger asked if they considered looking at the natural boundaries to expand the Highway Interchange district.Mr.Arch stated no and explained that they primarily looked at what was currently within the HI zoning district boundary. At this point questions were taken from the audience,one interchange at a time. 1-70 and MD 66: Roger Worthington had a question about the zoning for the quarry being changed from HI to 1M and how that would affect the quarry. Mr.Arch stated that currently it should be considered as a nonconforming use.By going to an 1M it would be allowed as a use by right.A discussion followed. Tom Eaton asked what the difference was between a floating zone and overlay.Mr.Arch stated that the floating zone can be located anywhere in the County where minerals are found.Several questions followed regarding the floating zone and nonconforming use. Roger Schlossberg asked about the Conservation designation in the Beaver Creek Area.A discussion followed. 1-70 and U.S.40: There was a question regarding the setback restrictions residential lots already in the HI district will have to follow.Mr.Iseminger stated that something would have to be put in place where the residences would have the same restrictions they have now.A discussion followed.A question followed regarding how the transitional rezoning will affect the taxes.Both Mr.Schreiber and Mr.Arch stated there would not be much of an affect.Several more questions followed regarding designation of U.S.40 as part of the National Highway System,the HI-l and HI-2 zoning,buffering and AG preservation districts. 1-70 and MD 65: Mrs.Hulch had a question regarding the reasoning for a 200 foot set back and why sewer is being put around Rt.65 but not servicing Rt.65 residents.Mr.Schreiber explained that it is not really a 200 foot setback,but where the staff recommending commercial development to occur.A discussion followed regarding sewer hook up,residential development,location of mail boxes and zoning designations. A question followed regarding the general procedures involved.Mr. Iseminger stated that they will hold the record open for 10 days for written testimony.He stated that they will take everything presented this evening into consideration when they make their recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Iseminger stated that the next step is for the Planning Commission to take their recommendations to the Board of Commissioners and then there will be a public hearing. ADJOURNMENT: 237 CD ~,..... OJ Z ~ There being no further business the meeting B at 9:45 P.M. 238 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 1,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,February 1,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Zombro,Ex-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Bernard Moser,and Robert E.Ernst,II.Donald Spickler and Carol Johnson arrived late.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly pietro,Edward Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung, Eric Seifarth,Jim Brittain and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: ..Mr.Iseminger referred to page 1 of the minutes of January 4,1993, under RZ-92-14 after "development in that area"and stated that "and the Urban Growth Area"should be added.He also stated that in the same paragraph after Mr.Spickler made the motion to add "having the staff report included as part of the recommendations." Mr.Bowers moved to approve the minutes of January 4,1993 as amended.Seconded by Mr.Moser. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Millyyille,Lots 5-7 preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Schreiber stated that he did not have anything else to add except what was in the agenda packet.He stated that a site inspection was held with State Highway,the Health Department and the Engineering Department.He stated that Rod MacRae of the Health Department explained how a septic system functions to the adjacent property owner,Mr.Mills,which satisfied his concerns. Mr.Schreiber stated that all agency approvals have been received. Mr.Iseminger asked about the drainage problem discussed at the January 4,1993 meeting.Mr.Schreiber stated that Mr.Mills was not as concerned with the surface runoff as he was with the subsurface runoff.Mr.Moser moved to grant Preliminary/Final Plat approval.Seconded by Robert Ernst.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Determination: Independence Road: Mrs.Pietro stated that the lot in question is 1.5 acres which is to be conveyed to a family member.She referred to the County Engineer's memo,which stated that this lot does not qualify for an exemption under the APFO or the Road Adequacy Policy.Mrs.Pietro stated that in order to be exempt,under section 4.12 of the APFO, one of the criteria must be that the lot be used for Agricultural purposes.The lot in question is a section of a lot that was created several years ago.Mr.Iseminger asked Mrs.Pietro about the exemption under the AFPFO that pertains to a family member. Mrs.Pietro stated that this property does not fit the criteria, with one being that the land must have been used for Agricultural use.Mr.Iseminger asked about the procedure of the APFO if the request was denied.Mr.Arch stated the Planning Commission's decision can be taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mrs.TidIer, owner,stated that this request is due to illness.She stated that her parents currently live across the street,but due to her mother's medical bills they are forced to sell the house.They would like to build a less expensive home on Mrs.Tidler's property for her parents and grandfather to reside in so that she can help take care of them.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Board of Appeals has more leeway in granting variances co ~ ~ CDz ::?E than the Planning Conunission.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger suggested that Mrs.TidIer should take her request to the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Ernst made a motion to deny the request.Seconded by Carol Johnson.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger stated that a motion was on the floor to reconunend denial and that it should be taken to the Board of Appeals.A vote was taken.Bernard Moser,Robert Ernst and Carol Johnson voted in favor of denial.Ronald Bowers,Donald Zombro and Donald Spickler were opposed.Mr.Iseminger voted in favor of the denial to break the tie.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the next step would be for the applicant to take this to the Board of Zoning Appeals.A discussion followed. Variances: Mark Hauver (SV-93-001): Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Mark Hauver.The site is located on the west side of Maryland Route 64, approximately .5 miles south of its intersection with Rowe Road. Maryland Route 64 is classified as a minor arterial.The variance is being requested from Section 405.11.G of the Subdivision Ordinance.The request if to create a third tier lot with a panhandle length of approximately 823 feet.The number of lots involved is one,which is 8.69 acres.The lot will be conveyed to an inunediate family member.Mr.Schreiber stated that the property had been subdivided for lots for family members in the past and referred to the plat.He stated that this proposal is for Lots 4 ~nd 5.Mr.Schreiber stated that the Hauvers decided instead of using an existing lane,which would create lots without road frontage that they should utilize the road frontage while they could.Mr.Schreiber stated that the proposal is to have the 823 foot panhandle and to create the third tier lot.He stated that the Hauvers are willing to keep the 10 year inunediate family statement on the subdivision plat.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler moved to grant the variance with the 10 year inunediate family member statement on the plat.Seconded by Mr.Zombro.So ordered. Ronald and Barbara Keister (SV-93-002): Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Ronald and Barbara Keister.The site is located along the east side of Crystal Falls Drive,approximately 1300 feet south of Maryland Route 64.Crystal Falls Drive is a local road.The number of lots involved is one which consists of 8.6 acres.The lot is to be conveyed to a family member.Mr.Schreiber stated that the same restrictions will apply to this request as in the last one,in which a third tier lot with a panhandle over 400 feet is being created.Mr.Schreiber referred to the plat and stated that the original parcel had been previously subdivided.Mr.Schreiber stated that when Lot 3 was created in 1989,the 400 foot panhandle lot rule was not in place at that time.A discussion followed.Mr.Zombro moved to approve the variance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Subdivisions: Agape Harvester Church Preliminary/Final Plat &Site Plan: Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat and site plan for Agape Harvester Church.The site is located on the northeast side of Maryland Route 68,Lappans Road,and 800 feet west of Tender Lane.The zoning is Agriculture and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Urban Growth.The subdivision will be served by private well and septic systems.He stated that the 25 acre lot was originally approved in 1984 as a simplified plat.The reason for this plat is to turn it into a developable piece of ground. He stated the reason it is being presented as a site plan is because in the Ag zone only single family lots are exempt from needing site plan approval.Mr.Schreiber reviewed the site plan, explaining the topography,proposed building and parking.He stated that 50 spaces are required but 68 are provided.Loading 239 240 space is adequate.Building and pole mounted lights will be used for the parking and walkway up to the structure.He stated that more than adequate landscaping and foundation plantings are provided.There will be a dumpster on the site enclosed by a 6 foot fence and there will be a storm water management retention pond.Mr.Iseminger referred to the zoning text amendment regarding the recycling amendment.Mr.Schreiber stated that the amendment has been approved but does not apply in this case,since site plans are not required in the AG zone according to the zoning ordinance.It is the Subdivision Ordinance which requires a site plan for a non-single family dwelling.He also noted that this plat was submitted prior to the zoning text amendment approval. A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan. Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Schreiber stated that the approval should be for preliminary/final plat and site plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to approve the preliminary/final plat and site plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Meadow Rock Estates,Lots 1-4 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Meadow Rock Estates Lots 1-4.The zoning is Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 4 single family lots in sizes ranging from 3 to 6 acres.The total acreage of the site is 15.5 acres with 87.5 acres remaining.All of the lots will be served by wells and individual septic systems and all lots will have frontage onto Meadow Rock Drive.Mrs.Pietro stated as part of the requirement for engineering approval,the developer will need to upgrade and extend Meadow Rock Drive and referred to Terry McGee's letter in the packet.All approvals have been received.Mr.Spickler had a question concerning the size of the remaining lands.Mrs.Pietro stated the remaining lands may be put in an Agricultural Preservation District.Mr.Zombro moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval based on the developer complying with the Engineering Department's requirements.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. A discussion followed. John Benisek,Lots 1-7 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for John Benisek, Lots 1-7.The property is located on the west side of Virginia Avenue and south side of Nursery Road.Zoning is RU.the developer is proposing to create 7 lots.Four lots will be single family and 3 will be duplex units.Mrs.Pietro referred to the Preliminary Consultation.Total acreage of the site is 1.61 acres. All lots will be served with public water and sewer.Lots 4 - 7 will access onto Nursery Road,which is a local County road.Lots 1 - 3 will have access onto Virginia Avenue.Mrs.Pietro stated that in September of 1992 the Planning Commission granted a variance allowing for a combined entrance for lots 2 and 3,which has been done.A variance was granted by the Board of Appeals in December allowing a 25 foot rear setback on Lot 7.All approvals have been received.Mr.Spickler had a question regarding the common wall on the duplex.A discussion followed.Mrs.Johnson moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr. Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Hap Park: Mr.Lung stated that a correction had been made to the Engineering Department's comments and proceeded to review them.Mr.Iseminger stated he agreed with the requirement for the sanitary sewer to serve the development.He asked if there will be sufficient capacity if this development hooks up to the existing water line or if improvements would have to be made.Mr.Lung stated that the line near this development was sized for future connections and that the Water Department had no problems with serving the development.A discussion followed.All Planning Commission members were in consensus with the staff's recommendations. 241 Agricultural Land Preservation District ApPlication: Daniel A.Rohrer,Jr.AD-92-11: Before proceeding with the Agricultural Preservation application, Mr.Iseminger reviewed Mr.Seifarth's letter from the Maryland Office of Planning regarding certification.Mr.Seifarth stated that Washington County has approval as of February 1,1993. Mr.Seifarth presented the application for Daniel Rohrer.This is a dairy operation located on Wheeler Road,between Boonsboro and Keedysville consisting of 123.80 acres.Zoning is Agriculture with qualifying soils 95 percent I,II and III.Mr.Seifarth stated that the property is located outside of the growth area.He stated that everything complies and that the Advisory Board gave its approval.Mrs.Johnson moved to recommend approval of AD-92-11 to the Commissioners.Seconded by Mr.Moser.A discussion followed regarding applicants. Other Business: Long Range Work Program: Mr.Iseminger stated that they were not ready to at this time.A discussion followed Husbandry/Waste Management. APFO -Amendments: discuss this issue regarding Animal Mr.Arch referred to the report he handed out,which covers the last 6 month period.Mr.Arch asked that the Commission take action on the report,which would be to maintain the APFO.He explained that the report would be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Arch reviewed the report and pointed out that Smithsburg High School is getting close to its capacity. Mr.Brittain reviewed the proposed wording and explained the reasoning behind the amendments to Section 2.3.1 Agricultural Purposes;2.3 .13 New Development;2 . 3 .16 . 1 Remaining Lands and additional language to be added to Sections 4.1.1 and 5.3.1.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler suggested under Section 4.1.1 that the word "solely"be deleted since it may no longer have a purpose.The staff will review the proposed amendments,in light of the Commission'S comments prior to their presentation to the County Commissioners.Mr.Iseminger asked when these amendments will be presented.Mr.Arch stated they would be presented in the current rezoning cycle.Mr.Spickler had a question concerning the use of the term "remaining lands"in Section 4.1.1.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger suggested that between now and the public hearing,that they review the APFO.Mr.Moser stated that the Planning Commission should go on record again about the impact fees.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the proposed wording and that the Commissioners revisit the issue of impact and/or other user fees or mechanisms.Seconded by Carol Johnson.A discussion followed.So ordered. Zoning Text Amendments: Mr.Arch presented two text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the March 8th meeting.The first amendment is for lot area,lot width and yard requirements and affects Sections 6.5, 7.5,8.5,9.5 and 28.38 of the Zoning Ordinance. The second amendment is for temporary or seasonal retail uses, which would be added to Section 4.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.Mr. Arch stated that the purpose of this amendment is to require a simplified site plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Bowers stated he wanted to review this proposed amendment with the Board of County Commissioners at their next meeting.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger stated that they would wait until Mr.Bowers spoke to the Board of Commissioners on Tuesday.A discussion followed. 242 Workshop Meeting with the Ag Board: A workshop meeting with the Ag Board was tentatively scheduled for Monday,March 22,1993 at 7:00 P.M. Mr.and Mrs.Smith: Mr.Arch referred to the letter and proposed text amendment request from Mr.and Mrs.Smith asking that the Planning Commission endorse it he had forwarded to the Commission members.Mr.Zombro moved that they do not endorse the amendment and that if Mr.and Mrs. Smith want the amendment that they should do it themselves. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Forest Conservation Ordinance: Mr.Arch stated that the Board of Commissioners would be approving the ordinance at their meeting tomorrow and that some changes were made.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.France felt that these changes were minor and did not require them to go before a public hearing and proceeded to review the changes.Mr.Arch stated that it is the intent of the Board of Commissioners to pass the ordinance in order to give control back to the County.He stated that there are several bills before the legislature proposing to amend the bill. Solid Waste Plan: Mr.Arch stated that a hearing should be held by the County commissioners at the end of the month regarding the Solid Waste Plan. Clean Rock: Mr.Arch stated that an appeal has been filed by attorney Jim Stone and reviewed some of the points made in the appeal.A discussion followed. Site Plans: Mr.Arch stated that a section should be added to the Site Plan section of the zoning Ordinance requiring that all site plans be signed off either by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission.Mr.Spickler referred to a site plan in Clear Spring that was not built according to the site plan the Planning Commission approved.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger requested that this issue be put on the March agenda and have Mr. Prodonovich at the meeting with the approved site plan. Ralph France Memo: Mr.Arch referred to a memo they received from Ralph France regarding a court case in Baltimore County and a decision made by the Board of Zoning Appeals and asked if this applies to our County.Mr.Arch stated that he would get a clarification on it. Shaool Demolition Permit: Mr.Iseminger reviewed at the down. asked about last meeting. the Shaool Demolition permit they Mr.Bowers stated that it was turned Sharpsburg Bed and Breakfast: Mr.Iseminger stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the request for the Sharpsburg bed and breakfast.Mr.Arch stated that the approval contains a site plan review requirement and stated that he had a meeting with the developer and advised them to find out if the Forest Conservation Ordinance would affect it.The next step would be for the developer to go before the Historic District Commission. co ~.,.- coz :::2: Clean Rock: Mr.Iseminger asked if the issue was ever resolved regarding Mr. Prodonovich approving the site plan without the Planning Commission signing off on the site plan.Mr.Arch stated no. Highway Interchange: Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission should have a workshop meeting to review the Highway Interchange study in order to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Moser stated he would like the staff's input on the residential concerns brought up at the hearing.A discussion followed.A workshop meeting was scheduled for Monday,February 22,1993 at 5:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. 243 244 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -FEBRUARY 22,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,February 22,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Zombro,Bernard Moser and Donald Spickler.Carol Johnson arrived late.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Edward Schreiber and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were Robert E.Ernst,II and Ronald L.Bowers,who was attending a Social Services meeting. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:05 P.M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Highway Interchange Zoning Amendments: Mr.Arch stated that at the public information meeting,several questions came up concerning what would be the effect on an existing residence once the zoning is changed to HI-1.These questions were reviewed with Paul Prodonovich with the following zoning text amendments being recommended (copies were given to each Commission member). The first question was,would these structures be considered as nonconforming uses and if so would they be allowed to expand?He stated that no action is required to address this issue due to Section 4.3A. The second question asked what setback requirements would existing residential dwellings utilize in the future.Mr.Arch proceeded to read the proposed wording to be added to Section 4.3A to address this issue. The third question deals with undeveloped lots subdivided for residential development in the past and would they still be allowed to be developed as residential.Mr.Arch proceeded to read the proposed text amendment wording. The fourth question dealt with what setback would commercial development abutting a residential dwelling be required to maintain?Mr.Arch proposed an amendment to Section 19.A.b.a. Buffer Yards,under the new regulations for HI-1 to address this issue.Mr.Iseminger suggested changing the wording as follows "this buffer requirement shall also apply where residential dwellings existed prior to designation".A discussion followed. Mr.Arch stated that the last proposed amendment pertains to mobile homes and mobile home parks in HI districts.He stated that individual mobile homes would be considered the same as single family home for expansion purposes.Even though a nonconforming use,the mobile home would be allowed unlimited expansion.A text amendment was proposed to address the expansion of mobile home parks which are limited to a 35 percent expansion as nonconforming uses.Mr.Arch stated that the proposed amendment eliminates the 75 percent restriction and is similar to what is now in the A,C and DL districts but would contain certain guidelines and criteria. Mr.Moser stated that he was in agreement to go with the changes and amendments.Mr.Arch stated that there is one change that needs to be made in the original recommendations.He stated the 1M floating zone in MD 66 must be removed.He stated in reviewing the applicability of floating zones in a comprehensive rezoning with the County Attorney,they found there are court cases which indicate that the Planning Commission does not have ability during the comprehensive rezoning to designate a piece of property with a floating zone.The only way in which a floating zone can be placed (0 ..q ,-- OJ Z .~ on piece of property is through the initiative of the property owner.He stated at this point the staff would be recommending just C,but if the owners wanted the IM zoning based on the study, that the staff would look favorably upon it.A discussion followed. Mr.Spickler had some questions regarding the boundaries of the Highway Interchange.Mr.Schreiber reviewed the maps and explained where the boundaries were.Mr.Iseminger had a question regarding MD 65 and the natural boundaries.A discussion followed. Mr.Iseminger referred to the old store and antique shop in Beaver Creek and asked if they would be considered nonconforming uses and if they would be able to expand.Mr.Arch stated that they would not necessarily be nonconforming uses since some commercial uses are allowed under the Conservation zoning classification.A discussion followed. Mr.Moser made a motion to proceed with the public hearing and incorporate the text changes as recommended by the staff.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.All in favor.So ordered.A discussion followed . Seasonal or Temporary Site Plan Text Amendment: Mr.Arch stated at the last regular meeting he presented a proposed text amendment for site plan review for seasonal or temporary operations.He stated the Commission decided to hold off on taking 9ction until Mr.Bowers spoke to the Board of Commissioners.Mr. Arch asked if they still want to hold off on taking action.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger recommended to put it on Monday's agenda and give a copy to Mr.Bowers.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the mee~i~g 245 246 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 1,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,March 1,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Zombro,Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch, Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,Edward Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung,Jim Brittain and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Director of Permits and Inspections,Paul Prodonovich was also present.Absent was Ex- Officio Ronald L.Bowers. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: Mr.Iseminger stated on page 2,Variances -Mark Hauver,he wanted to be sure the motion to grant variance approval included the stipulation that the 10 year immediate family member statement be on the plat.Mr.Iseminger asked if the motion made for Agape Harvester Church for Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan approval, page 3,was correct.Mr.Schreiber stated yes.Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of February 1,1993 as amended.Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Village Shopping Center -Site Plan: Mr.Arch reminded the Planning Commission that at the last meeting there was a question regarding whether or not the village Shopping Center was constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. He stated that paul Prodonovich inspected the site and was here to review his findings.Mr.Prodonovich stated he inspected the facility,found 14 items outstanding and proceeded to review them. He stated that the footprint of the facility is in keeping with the approved site plan.He did not see anything major that would affect the traffic flow.Mr.Moser stated the purpose of the inspection was to check on pedestrian traffic.Mr.Spickler said site plan approval had been delayed in order to get parking on the side of the facility where the shop and dentist office are located so that customers would not have to cross two lanes of traffic. Mr.Prodonovich stated that would not work.The biggest mistake he did find in the site plan is with the do not enter sign.He referred to the proposed do not enter sign on the plat,and referenced that the arrows do not mirror current traffic flow. The way the project has developed,there is nothing to prevent traffic from going both ways.His staff suggested widening the sidewalk.Mr.Spickler stated his concern is with pedestrian safety and hoped the owner would be willing to add a pedestrian crosswalk.Mr.Prodonovich asked for direction from the Planning Commission on how they wanted to handle the sign.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission is concerned with safety.He suggested Mr.Prodonovich meet with Terry McGee to decide what makes sense to correct the situation.Mr.Prodonovich stated that the property owner has not yet been notified,since he has been out of the Country.He stated he will be in touch with him in the next few days. CD ~,.... CO Z ~ NEW BUSINESS: Hagerstown Table Corporation,Lot 1 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat,Lot 1 for Hagerstown Table Corporation.The lot is in BL zoning,which requires any subdivision to be approved by the Planning Commission. The site is located at Piper Lane and Heisterboro Road and is in the Urban Growth Area.The proposed use is for a Fraternal Organization (masonic lodge).It is located on 1.37 acres with 4.2 acres remaining.The property will be served by public water and sewer.It is to utilize Heisterboro Road for ingress and egress to Virginia Avenue.Mr.Schreiber stated they are not to use Piper Lane at all.All agency approvals have been received.A note is on the plat stating that no permit shall be issued on the site until a site plan has been approved by the Washington County Planning Commission.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked what is to stop the new owners from using Piper Lane.Mr. Schreiber stated nothing,but that Terry McGee stated in his memo if the land use deviates from what was originally proposed,his approval will not be acknowledged.Mr.Schreiber stated that Piper Lane is not an adequate road.He stated that Mr.McGee feels that Heisterboro Road will be the most frequently traveled ingress and egress.Mr.Moser questioned BL zoning in that area and the fact that they are channeling the traffic into residential areas.Mr. Schreiber stated that this property is part of a rezoning in 1988. Mr.Frederick,consultant,stated this is the last parcel to be developed and explained why he felt Heisterboro Road would be used. ~he Masonic Lodge is aware they are to use Heisterboro Road and not Piper Lane.Mr.Frederick stated that due to the size of the lodge they do not foresee a traffic problem.Mr.Jim Elliot of the Masonic Lodge spoke.The proposed lodge will be a one story building,36'x 96'.The organization has 17 members,most of whom live in the Halfway area.Their meetings are held the first and third Friday of the month and must end by midnight.No large functions will be held at this site.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr. Elliot if he had a problem putting a sign at the entrance prohibiting right hand turns onto Piper Lane.Mr.Elliot stated he did not have a problem with that.Mr.Iseminger asked if this subdivision is contingent on a Masonic Lodge being put on the property.Mr.Schreiber stated,the Engineering Department's approval is contingent on a fraternal organization or something that does not deviate too far from that type of organization.He stated that Mr.McGee based his figures on the information provided by the Masonic Lodge.Mr.Spickler stated that if the subdivision is approved and this deal does not go through,then it is still a subdivided piece of property that could be used for another use. Mr.Schreiber stated that is correct,unless the Planning Commission puts a condition in their approval.Mr.Frederick suggested putting the sign at the end of the driveway,as Mr. Iseminger previously mentioned and questioned the legality of a condi tional note on the plat.A discussion followed regarding legal interpretation.Mr.Schreiber stated that there are several letters which are not legal documents,and are not recorded along with the plat,however they carry conditions.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler stated if the condition was put in the letter and the site plan was submitted in a different scope,then they would have a reason to say the site plan does not fit.Mr. Iseminger stated he wants a stipulation on the site plan.Mr. Moser moved to make a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat for Hagerstown Table Corporation contingent on the use being a Fraternal Organization.Seconded by Don Spickler.So ordered. GUy Mummert,preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for Guy Mummert. The property is located on the east side of MD 68 (Mill Street) approximately 200 feet south of South Hawbaker Circle.He stated there are two existing structures on the property.The old Chevron station and the Tastee Freeze.He stated in addition to creating a lot,this is a property line adjustment.He pointed to the corporate boundary line dividing the Town of Clear Spring from the 247 248 County.He stated these are two existing lots,which were subdivided a number of years ago.Both were approved by the County and the town of Clear spring.He stated the owner has proposed taking some land that is in the County and adding it to the existing lot,Parcell.The large lot would be referred to as Lot 1 and the remaining lands.He stated that at this time no new uses are proposed.Lot 1 will still be a gas station.Both lots would maintain their existing accesses.Water and sewer are available to the entire site.The developer is proposing to install a 6"water line to go back out into Rt.68 and serve the property across the area.The property is in the Highway Interchange zoning district. Mr.Schreiber reiterated that they are creating a lot around an existing use and adding some land to an existing lot in the area. Mr.Spickler asked if both lots were owned by the same owner.Mr. Schreiber stated yes.Mr.Iseminger asked if what was being proposed was a realignment of the lot lines and creation of a third access point.A discussion followed regarding road frontage.Mr. Schreiber stated this is in the HI zone so a site plan would be required.He stated that Clear Spring verbally approved the plat today but he has not received anything in writing.All other agency approvals except Health Department,have been received.The Health Department had not yet heard from the Town of Clear Spring. Mr.Schreiber spoke to Rod MacRea of the Health Department today and was told he did not see a problem.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary/final approval contingent on receiving written approvals from the town of Clear Spring and the Health Department. Seconded by Don Spickler.So ordered. Taylors Orchard,Section C,Lots 1-6 Preliminary/Final: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Section C, Lots 1-6 Taylors Orchard.The property is located north of Dry Run Road and west of Mercersburg Road.Lots 5 and 6 are zoned Agriculture.Lots 1-4 are zoned Conservation.The developer is proposing to create 6 lots ranging in size from 3.5 acres to 9 acres.The total site is 31.5 acres.The property will be served by wells and septics.All lots will access onto Dry Run Road. Mrs.Pietro stated that Lots 4,5 and 6 contain large ponds,which are classified as nontidal wetlands.She referred to a letter from Mr.Radcliffe of the Nontidal wetlands Division to the owner.In his letter,Mr.Radcliffe stated that he made an on site inspection of the property and that all the development will be outside of the wetland area and the buffer.Mrs.Pietro stated the property also has flood plain,but development is outside of it.There are notes on the plat stating that if the nontidal wetlands and/or flood plain areas are disturbed,that the owner would have to go through the proper procedures.Mrs.Pietro stated she has all agency approvals except the County Engineer's.She stated the County Engineer has given preliminary approval only.Final approval will be granted once either a performance bond for the road widening of Dry Run Road is provided or the work is completed.She stated that tonight's approval would be contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval.Mr.Spickler asked how wide Dry Run Road is.Mrs. Pietro stated that it varies and referred to the approved road widening plan in the file.Mr.Iseminger asked if any problems would be created by Lots 4 and 5 splitting the pond.A discussion followed regarding the ponds and the responsibilities of maintenance.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Cump,the consultant,if they considered rearranging the lot lines on Lot 4 to not include the pond.Mr.Cump stated he placed the lines where the owner requested.The owner,Taylor Oliver,was not present.Mr. Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission should consult Mr. France regarding splitting the ponds.Mr.Moser wanted to know if the Planning Commission could require fencing around the pond.Mr. Arch stated another point to consider would be maintenance of the ponds.Mr.Moser stated he felt the ponds should be a common use area instead of part of the lots.Mr.Arch stated that the liability would not be any different than that of a farm pond.Mr. Zombro moved to table their decision until the next meeting in order for Mr.France to review it and advise the Commission what they can do.Mr.Cump stated he would have the owner at the next meeting to answer any questions.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So (0 ..q- ,.-coz :2: ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated in light of the damming of the ponds,the County Engineer should also review it. Patrick Toney,Lot I Preliminary/Final: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Patrick Toney. The property is located on the south side of Kaedle Road.Mrs. Pietro stated the reason this one lot subdivision is being presented is that there is a 10,000 square foot septic reserve easement on the remaining lands and not the proposed lot.The proposed remaining lands also contain a mobile home with its own septic reserve area,a garage and a driveway easement.She stated she spoke to Dave Barnhart of the Health Department.He does not have a problem with this layout.Mrs.pietro stated the Toneys have worked out this layout with the Health Department over the past few months.Mr.Toney explained to the Commission the reason for the reserve easement is that the lot being created does not perc.He stated the reserve area they are requesting was preapproved when they purchased the lot.The reason for the subdivision is that they want to buy the house in back of the proposed remaining lands and sell their present home with the 3+ acres.He stated their reason not to include the septic reserve on the lot being created,is that they want to keep a buffer of trees around the property.Mr.Spickler stated he wanted to see the Tonyes reconsider and put the septic system en the proposed lot. He felt they may have problems in the future.Mr.Frederick stated that the Toneys were told by the Health Department there would not be any problems.He stated this reserve area is existing.The reserve area will be described with metes and bounds and be staked out.He further stated that the lots are heavily wooded and that the Toneys want to keep the trees that are in that area.Mr.Moser asked if they were getting mixed signals from the Health Department.He understands that they do not have problems with this particular request but they have had problems with similar ones in the past.Mr.Frederick stated that to his knowledge the Health Department does not discourage percing on land behind an existing lot.Mr.Spickler stated with the size of the remainder, the Toneys could subdivide again.Mr.Frederick stated the soils are poor and they did try percing allover the property.Mr.Moser had a question regarding the access to the property.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked the Toneys if they would have a problem with a note on the plat stating no further subdivision. They said they would not have a problem with it.Mr.Ernst moved to grant approval with the stipulation there would be no future subdivision on the remaining lands.Seconded by Carol Johnson. Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated this approval is based on no future subdivision of the remaining lands, granting the septic easement and the right-of-way for the existing land. Black Rock Estates,Section A-l Preliminary/Final: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Black Rock Estates,Section A-l.The property is located on the north side of Mt.Aetna Road,across from Black Rock Golf Course.He stated that Section A,74 lots was approved in the fall of 1992.This section consists of 5 lots.The lots range in size from .8 to 1+acres. The property is zoned Agricultural and is located in the Urban Growth area.There is public water and sewer available.Approvals have been received from the service providing agencies.He stated that this section of Black Rock Estates includes .94 acres of right-of-way dedication to Washington County for future relocation of Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Lung stated that only Lot 100 will directly access Mt.Aetna Road.The other four lots will be served internally.He stated that an existing lane will be relocated and used as a shared access by Lot 100 and the existing buildings on the remaining lands.The County Engineer has given his approval. Written approval from the Health Department has not been received. This subdivision is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it was submitted in November 1992.A discussion followed. Mr.Zombro moved to approve the preliminary/final plat contingent on receiving all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So 249 250 ordered.A discussion followed. Preliminary Consultation: Homer Bivens -PC-93-02: Mr.Brittain stated he did not have any further remarks to add to his written summary.He stated the issue was brought up to expand the use of public water outside of the Urban Growth area.This property is 1 to 2 miles west of the northern portion of the Urban Growth area.The property owner has been made aware of what the Comprehensive Plan policies state regarding extension of public utilities.Mr.Frederick stated this general area experienced problems in the past,which was why public water was extended there.He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider providing water to this property not to increase density but to allow one acre lots with good potable water.He stated the Sanitary District does not have any problem with this.Mr. Spickler stated according to the soil conservation survey,the soils are classified from moderate to severe for septic fields.He felt if public water is added and not sewer,the amount of water going into the septic fields will be increased.He feels this will create a problem.Mr.Frederick stated depending on the perc tests,they may not have the number of lots they are proposing. Mr.Arch stated that the last time the County amended the water and Sewer Plan for something like this,the State was not in support. Other Business: MLD Limited Partnership -PUD Request: Mr.Arch stated this request is being presented to get the Planning Commission's opinion on how it should be handled.Mr.Lung explained that an application for a PUD came in during the last rezoning cycle.The property was originally zoned Agriculture and was rezoned to IG.The applicant's consultant stated they are having difficulty marketing the property as an industrial site and they thought it would lend itself to a PUD.Mr.Lung stated that a PUD is not allowed in the Industrial General zoning district. The Owner wants to request a rezoning to a classification that would allow a PUD and at the same time request the PUD zoning.The staff feels the rezoning and PUD zoning should be done separately. Mr.Iseminger suggested the PUD application be returned to the owner and that he be informed the current zoning is not appropriate.Mr.Arch stated the planning staff will take care of it and notify the developer. Forest Conservation Ordinance: Mr.Goodrich referred to the adopted ordinance and memo he sent out with the agenda.He stated the ordinance was adopted on February 2,1993.At this point 12 to 18 applications have been received and all except one have been exempted.In the future there will be more forms and a training seminar for consultants and staff.Mr. Goodrich pointed out the Planning Commission's responsibility.He stated the most important decision the Planning Commission will have to make is whether the applicant should be permitted to pay the in lieu of fee instead of the required afforestation or reforestation.Mr.Spickler asked if any provisions for payment in lieu of had been established?Mr.Goodrich stated nothing has been set up yet but it is in the works along with other provisions. Mr.Goodrich stated his first priority is to get the forms and the staff ready and familiarize the consultants with the procedures. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the developer relegating plantings to private lands,maintenance of plantings,burden on the staff,DNR's involvement,preapproved list of planting sites,and Ralph France's involvement in the agreements and payment in lieu of.Mr.Goodrich stated the official count of forest coverage is 106,029 acres.This is 35.8 percent coverage.He stated there is a new bill proposed to exempt all counties that have 35 percent coverage or more.A discussion followed. CD..q ,- 00z ~ Solid Waste Management: Mr.Arch referred to the plan handed out.He stated that this draft will be presented to the public at the Public Hearing with the Board of Commissioners on March 15,1993. Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Arch stated that the next three interchanges are ready and will be mailed to the Planning Commission this week.Group II includes State Line,Showalter Road and Maugans Avenue.Mr.Iseminger suggested holding the public meeting in the Maugansville area.The meeting was tentatively scheduled for April 12,1993. Mr.Moser asked about the status of Group I.Mr.Arch stated that the Board may make some changes to the rezoning before it goes to public hearing.Mr.Moser suggested having a joint workshop with the Board of Commissioners to discuss the format that will be followed after the informational meeting.Mr.Arch stated he will send a letter to the Board of Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendations.He stated the letter will request scheduling a joint workshop before the public hearing date to discuss the format to be followed.A discussion followed regarding the present process.The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the process needs to be refined.Mr.Iseminger suggested holding a public meeting on April 12 to take testimony.A discussion followed regarding the joint meeting with the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Arch stated he would try to schedule the meeting for the afternoon of Tuesday,April 16,1993. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Bertrand i.. 251 CD..q- ,- OJ Z ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -MARCH 22,1993 Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Zombro,Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler,Carol Johnson,and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C. Arch,Associate Planner;Eric Seifarth and Secretary,Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Also present were members of the Agricultural Advisory Board:Steve Ernst,Bruce Barr,Jim Weddle,and Paul Reid. Charlie Wiles arrived late. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. OTHER BUSINESS: Reguest for Extension -Home Construction,Preliminary Plan Colonial Park East Subdivision: Mr.Arch stated that they are getting close to the expiration of the 2 year approval date for Colonial Park East Preliminary Plan. He stated that Mr.Byers,owner/developer,has requested a one year extension,which is provided for in the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr. Byers has also requested for possible consideration an extension of two years.Mr.Arch stated that if a two year extension was -granted,they would have to grant a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger stated the Planning Commission would prefer granting a one year extension to avoid doing the variance. Mr.Zombro moved to grant a one year extension to the Preliminary Plan for Colonial Park East Subdivision.Seconded by Mr.Moser. So ordered. Agricultural Advisory Board: Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission had requested a joint meeting with the Agricultural Advisory Board.Mr.Seifarth proceeded to introduce the members.Mr.Seifarth explained that they have been re-evaluating the Ag Land Preservation Program by looking at the immediate and long-term future of the program.He stated they have discussed how successful the program has been so far,what changes have to be made and long-term strategy.The Advisory Board feels they need to allow the present easement program to have a chance.Mr.Seifarth stated that in the last two years State funds for the program were eliminated but the State expects to have $5 million available this year to buy left over easements from 1990 and another $5 million to buy the January 1993 easements.He stated they could use 10 times that amount.The Advisory Board hopes that by July the funding will be back to normal.Mr.Spickler asked if he was referring to State funding. Mr.Seifarth stated yes.At this point the Ag Board utilizes the tax credit,easement program and the County easement purchase program.The Board feels they should give these programs a chance to work.Mr.Seifarth stated at this point they are reviewing long term issues such as Agriculture Zoning and the permitted uses. Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Seifarth if he knows approximately how much the certification will generate.Mr.Seifarth stated it depends on the year.He stated they have had as high as $400,000 to $500,000 in ag transfer tax when things were booming.He stated the Board estimates they will receive enough to buy one easement a year.Mr. Iseminger asked when the State money will be available.Mr. Seifarth stated that as of today the bonds have not yet been sold. A discussion followed regarding receiving the funds,use and the time limit for use.Mr.Spickler commented that over the years the Ag Board has developed some significant proposals,one being tax credits.He stated that the reason why the Planning Commission is anxious to speak to the Board about the Ag situa'tion in the County is that as they approve variances and subdivisions in Ag zoned areas,they find that all the permitted uses have a lot of 253 254 conflicts.They are concerned how this will affect agriculture. The Planning Conunission feels that they should look at the Ag Zoning comprehensively.Mr.Spickler stated he understands that the Ag conununity is concerned with equity and how it will be preserved.He stated if there is a comprehensive look at the Ag zoning classification,the Planning Conunission hoped that both Boards would be prepared to address ideas that would help the agricultural conununity remain viable and preserve the equity and agricultural base.He stated that it is the Planning Conunission's hope that the Ag Board would provide some insight and direction. Mr.Barr asked if what the Planning Conunission wanted to do was to narrow the scope of permitted uses in the Ag zone in order to give some protection for production agriculture from nuisance complaints.Mr.Spickler stated that was one aspect and they need to determine if that is viable.He asked the Ag Board if they felt another conunittee should be convened to look at it.Mr.Ernst stated from an economic standpoint it is important to preserve agriculture because of the dollars and jobs and costs of services. He stated the Board has discussed this previously and they do not want to be in the position where they will have to designate areas in the County that would be down zoned.The Ag Board feels that at that point their conunittee would need to expand in order to address all aspects.A discussion followed regarding Ag use and TDRs.Mr. Seifarth stated one problem they face is determining what is agriculturally significant.He stated that it appears they are saving about as much Ag land as they are losing through the Ag program.He stated they have saved 3,200 acres and have lost about 3,700 acres.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Conunission should keep in mind that there is a different perception from the standpoint of the farmer who is in an agricultural business than there is from the resident who lives in an agricultural area.He stated that if they are going to do things to preserve agriculture, they should think from the perspective of the people that are in that occupation.A discussion followed regarding the agricultural industry and development.Mr.Ernst stated that the Ag Board requested Mr.Seifarth to compile some data as to how many homes have been built in Washington County in the last 10 years.Mr. Seifarth stated he has been working with Bud Gudmundson but the figures include building permits issued for both inside and outside the growth area.A total of 3561 building permits have been issued in the last 10 years.Mr.Seifarth stated he and Mr.Gudmundson are working on breaking down the statistics for housing,permits, and the agricultural significant land lost outside of the growth area.A discussion followed regarding approved lots,down zoning, easement program and preserving equity. Mr.Seifarth stated that the Ag Board has been working with the farmers heavily in debt,where they can exclude a portion of their farm as insurance and preserve part of it.He stated they are getting a list of accountants and people who have worked with easement program for the last 5 to 10 years with the State.A discussion followed regarding zero coupon bonds and TDRs. Mr.Arch stated that the present Ag Zoning needs to be modified. He stated there are uses,review procedures and terminology that need to be addressed.There are things that do not require a site plan,that actually should.Mr.Ernst stated that the Ag Board is uncomfortable about revamping the Ag zoning.Mr.Spickler stated that the Planning Conunission wants the AG Board's input on what are some alternative,they do not want the Ag Board to make the decision.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser voiced his concern of things that are approved under the current regulations,which he feels presents a threat to the preservation of the farm conununity. He stated he would like input from the Ag conununity regarding how best to preserve their equity and the land and how best to preserve the comprehensive plan.Mr.Ernst stated that the Ag conununity generally feels there are problems that need to be addressed.A discussion followed regarding the APFO,Forest Conservation Ordinance,the effects of downzoning in other counties and clustering. Mr.Arch stated that a major step has been taken by defining the co ~,.... OJ Z ~ growth area.The next step would be fine tuning and deciding what people can live with.He stated in order to keep agriculture,you make it so that the farmer can earn a living.Care must be taken not to create unnecessary burdens and regulations.A discussion followed regarding protection for the farmer from residential complaints.Mr.Barr stated that if the farmers must give up some of their equity,then they will want protection to run their operations.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr. Seifarth how much money they would need to buy the easements that have been applied for.Mr.Seifarth stated approximately $15 million. Mr.Iseminger asked the Ag Board to go back and review what was discussed this evening and corne back with some ideas and collectively they can corne up with something.Mr.Ernst asked if the Planning Commission felt the Ag Board should get another committee involved.Mr.Zornbro stated it might be better not to have too many people involved.Mr.Iseminger asked when they could get back together.A discussion followed regarding scheduling the next meeting.It was decided that the Ag Board would get back with a report after their next meeting.A meeting will be scheduled at that time and then they will meet quarterly. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. 'I '/J,,/dr;:'Y /'-"0j-.f-,./0_/?-(0JG1 l4'~'",,'ItItW/;l'Y'i~\,\/'" /'"Ber:trand L.seminger 1"Chairman".'" 255 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 5,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,April 5,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald zombro,Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson,Robert E.Ernst,II and EX-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers. Staff present:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T. Goodrich,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: 257 Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of January 25,1993. Seconded by Mr.Zombro.So ordered. Mr.Zombro moved to approve the minutes of February 22,1993 . Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. c.o-q-,.... (Q z :2: Mr.Ernst stated that amended to show that approve the minutes. the minutes of October 19,1992 needed to he was in attendance.Mr.Moser moved Seconded by Mr.Zombro.So ordered. be to Regarding the minutes of March 1,1993,Mr.Iseminger questioned if the approval for Hagerstown Table Corporation was contingent on the subdivision being a Masonic Lodge.Mr.Arch stated it was approved on that basis.He stated that the final recorded plan has a note on it but does not specify a Masonic Lodge.Mr.France stated that it would not have been proper for the Planning Commission to restrict the use,since it is a subdivision and not a rezoning.A discussion followed.Carol Johnson moved to approve the minutes of March 1,1993.Seconded by Mr.Moser. Mr.Arch asked the Planning Commission to add the following items to the agenda:the CIP for 1994 to 1999;temporary and seasonal zoning amendment;and Charlton's Grant (expiration of subdivision). All in favor to add the three items to the agenda. NEW BUSINESS: Crosspoint,Section 4 Preliminary Plat/Site Plan: Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for Crosspoint,Section 4.He stated that a preliminary site plan for the entire development had previously been approved.This is the townhouse section.Mr.Lung pointed to the plan and explained the location of the property.The zoning is Residential Multi-Family. This section consists of 6.6 acres.There are 52 units proposed and they will be in six linear strips.There are two 3 story strips with garages and driveways.The rest consists of 2 1/2 stories with on street parking.The development is to be served by public water and sewer and conforms with the water and sewage plan.All of the townhouse lots will front and have access onto a private internal road system off of Chesterfield Drive.Mr,Lung stated that a variance was granted in October of 1992 to allow for the creation of the lots with access onto a private street.The design of the internal street system will have curb and gutter.He stated that some of the streets will also provide parking areas for the units that do not have garages and driveways.Stormwater Management will be handled by a series of storm drain pipes which will drain into a regional stormwater management facility.Mr. Lung noted that it was brought to his attention by the consultant that the County Engineer would not allow the basketball court in 258 the stormwater management area.There is an extensive pedestrian walkway system,which ties into the overall pedestrian system for Crosspoint.There are school bus waiting areas and one tot lot is provided.Outdoor lighting within this section appears to be adequate for security based on a photometric plan provided by the consultant.Based on the zoning ordinance,1.8 parking spaces are required per dwelling unit (a minimum of 94)and stated that 128 are being provided.Five handicap spaces are provided and 2 recreation vehicle spaces are also provided.Trash collection will be individual pick up.Landscaping is provided throughout the development.Written approvals have been received from Water Department and Sanitary District.Verbal approvals have been received from Engineering and Soil Conservation.The Zoning Administrator is satisfied with the plan and all of the Planning Staff's comments have been addressed.Mr.Lung stated that Homeowners Association documents must be submitted for review and approval prior to any final subdivision approvals.Mr.Lung stated that the consultant is present and that they are requesting Preliminary subdivision Plat and Final Site Plan approval conditional upon the receipt of written approvals of Engineering and Soil Conservation.Mr.Lung asked the Commission if the Planning Staff should bring the final plat back or if it can be approved in house.Discussion followed regarding trash collection and the private road.Mr.Iseminger asked about the homeowners association documents.Mr.Lung stated that the homeowners documents had not yet been received.Mr.Belcher of Fox and Associates explained the distinction between the public and private streets.He stated that all of the streets are public:Massey, -Chesterfield,Savannah and Lafayette,everything else being parking lots will be subject to the homeowners association.He stated that Section 9 has been approved and that the parking lots are private. Mr.Bowers stated that the parking lots and access lanes had previously been described as private streets.Mr.Bowers questioned whether or not the County should be approving multi- family developments on private roads.He asked Mr.Belcher if the area in question is a parking area for the townhouses.Mr.Belcher stated yes.Mr.Lung stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that townhouse lots have frontage and access onto a public street.He stated that was the reason for the variance.A discussion followed regarding the parking areas,the Zoning Ordinance and internal traffic.Mr.Bowers stated that the ordinance needs to be addressed according to the issue that is being dealt with.A discussion followed regarding the homeowners association.Mr.Arch stated that the homeowners association documents will be sent to Mr.France for his review.Mr.Moser stated that the County should have a criteria to follow regarding homeowners associations.Mr.Bowers expressed his concern with only one entrance in case of an accident.Mr.Shrader of Fox and Associates stated that the County Engineer would allow only one access point onto Cole Road.He stated he did not have a problem with adding a second access point.Mr.Iseminger stated that as part of County Engineer's review he should be able to determine whether or not fire equipment can get in and out safely.Mr. Belcher stated that Mr.Lung was not aware but as of 4:00 p.m. today both the County Engineer and Soil Conservation signed off on the plans.The Fire Marshall has also approved the plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant Preliminary Plat and Final Site Plan approval contingent on agency approvals.Final approval will be contingent upon review of the homeowners documents.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Sadegh Hashempour,PC-93-03: Mrs.Pietro stated this Preliminary Consultation was being presented because of the scope of the project and its location. She stated it is the Beckley property and is located along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike,just north of Lappans Crossroads.The developer is proposing 137 residential lots on 199 acres to be served by individual wells and septics.Zoning is Agricultural. She stated there is one entrance from Sharpsburg Pike.The site is CD-q- ,.- COz :2: located outside of the Urban Growth Area.No public facilities are proposed at this time.Several agencies have stated that they would like to see it have public facilities.The Health Department is requesting a hydrogeologic study and strongly encourages public facilities.She stated that the Sanitary District is currently designing the St.James wastewater facility and a pumping station on Rockland (adjacent subdivision)and would like to see this subdivision tied in.The Water Department has stated since this property is located outside of the UGA that water is not available at this time.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the three options presented to the developer at the consultation.State Highway has requested a traffic study.The County Engineer also recommended a traffic study.The developer is aware that he must comply with the tree bill.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger referred to the letters from the Sanitary District and the Health Department and stated that he agrees with them.He stated that the Urban Growth Area boundary had already been extended once and at that time it was stated that the boundary would not go any further.Without extending the Urban Growth Area in order to supply water and sewer, Mr.Iseminger does not see how the site can be developed using well and septic.All members were in agreement. Other Business: UGA Determination -Artz: Mr.Lung presented a zoning map of the subject area showing the growth area boundary,location of proposed water and sewer lines and subdistrict boundaries.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Iseminger asked him to check with the County Attorney about the Planning Commission's powers with the UGA.He stated that since the Urban Growth Area is not a fixed line,the Planning Commission does have the ability to make interpretations of this location without an amendment being made to the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Artz is asking for a determination of whether or not his property falls within the realm of the Urban Growth area.Mr.Lung proceeded to explain the location of the property,which consists of approximately 200 acres.Mr.Artz presented the Urban Growth Area Boundary Map.He stated that with the location of the proposed water and sewer lines,he feels it leaves his property half in and half out of the UGA.Mr.Iseminger stated they just received a letter this evening from the Sanitary District concerning the proposed sewer line.It was stated in the letter that the line has gone outside of the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Arch stated that the Board of Commissioners took action last year to okay the placement of the water line.He stated that the Board of Commissioners will review the sewer line location based on the letter from the Sanitary District.He stated that the line will not have the ability to extend laterals to tap into adjacent properties.Mr. Artz and his brother both stated that was not what they were told by the Sanitary District.Mr.Moser suggested that the Sanitary District should come to the next meeting.A discussion followed. Mr.Artz stated that an easement has been negotiated with the Sanitary District for a pumping station.A discussion followed. Mr.Iseminger stated that he understands their concern with the water and sewer line going through the property.He feels that the Sanitary District should be at the next meeting to clarify the situation.Mr.Ernst moved to table the UGA determination until the May 3rd meeting so that Lynn Palmer of Sanitary District may attend.Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered.A discussion followed. Mr.Arch stated that the third item under Other Business, Continental Investment,has been withdrawn at this time. 259 260 Potomac Edison: Mr.Moser stated that he would abstain.Mr.Goodrich referred to the letter from Potomac Edison dated March 18,1993.He stated that Potomac Edison has requested that their Planned Industrial zoning,which they received in 1989,be given the same exempt status from the Forest Conservation Ordinance as the PUD zones. Mr.Goodrich referred to the pages of the ordinance pertaining to the PUD zones.He stated that Potomac Edison feels that the PI zoning is similar to the PUD.Mr.Goodrich stated that the staff could agree that the PI and PUD are very similar.The staff did not intentionally exclude the PI zoning in the exemptions.Mr. Goodrich said he did not recall discussion of the subject during development of the local Forest Conservation Ordinance.He stated that the PI zoning and official development plan were approved and signed by the Planning Commission on November 7,1990.Mr.Troxell and Mr.McLaughlin from Potomac Edison were present.After a brief discussion it was concluded that if the Commission felt that the PB and PI zones should be considered the same as the PUD,then the F.C.O.should be formally amended.The staff will prepare wording for the proposed amendment which will be heard during a special joint public hearing to be scheduled in the near future. Revised Site Plan -McCleary: Mrs.Pietro presented the revised site plan.She stated that in 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed a site plan for Lot #2 in the Huyett Business Park.A revised site plan is now being submitted -for that lot.The site is located on the west side of Route 63, adjacent to the rezoning site.The zoning is Highway Interchange. Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the site plan and the location of the structures.The previous approval was for an office warehouse. The new proposed use is for an office,warehouse and truck terminal.It is located on a 39 acre parcel but may be subdivided into a 10 acre parcel in the future.She stated that the building location and size is generally the same as before,however the office location and parking are now proposed to the side instead of the front.She referred to the proposed warehouse and future expansion and the three bay area dock.The total area of the building is 1700 sq.feet.Loading and unloading will be done in the rear.There will be 8 employees in the office,2 in the shop and 25 drivers.The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday.Thirty-nine parking spaces are provided,which is over the minimum requirement.The projected daily use is 70 vehicles per day.Public water and sewer will be used.She stated that the use of the proposed site plan has changed from office warehouse to truck terminal.Mr.Arch stated that the main difference between this footprint and the original site plan,is the docks,which is a reason why the site plan has been brought back for additional approval by the Planning Commission.Mrs.Pietro stated that the road is owned by Mr. McCleary and that the upkeep is his responsibility.This road would also serve the entire proposed rezoning site.A discussion followed regarding the road and truck traffic.Mr.Iseminger asked why there are two accesses onto the road.Mr.Davis stated that is what the owner wanted.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern with the co-mingling of the trucks and cars.He felt that if the rezoning is approved,the road will be a major thoroughfare leading to the development.He would like to limit the number of access points onto that road.He also stated he would encourage separating truck traffic from the private vehicles.Mr.Iseminger asked where the parking areas are located.Mrs.Pietro explained the locations while referring to the site plan.Mr.Bowers suggested flipping the parking to the west side of the building and keep the docks where they are shown on the plan.Mr.Iseminger stated he is concerned that,if the rezoning is approved along with the proposed future building expansion,that the access area around the building would still remain gravel.He asked if there are plans to pave the access area around the buildings.A discussion followed regarding the entrances.Mr.Bowers asked Mr.Davis if he could move the parking to the other side of the building.Mr.Davis stated he could do that.Mrs.Pietro suggested adding signs for the truck CD ~,..... enz ::2: entranc43.Mr.Iseminger stated that future development of the site would require the access area around the building to be upgraded. Mr.Iseminger asked if there is any expansion,would the plan come back to the Planning Commission,since if it goes to 12 bays,the access area would have to be paved.Mrs.Pietro stated she would notify Paul Prodonovich,since he is the lead agency.Mr.Ernst moved to grant approval contingent on flipping the parking to the west side,future expansion of over 3 bays would require paving, and directional signs at the truck entrance.Seconded by Mr. Bowers.So ordered. Rezoning Text Amendment and Map Amendment: Mr.Arch stated that the staff reports for the text and map amendments were passed out for their review.Action would be taken at another meeting. Letter from Roger Schlossberg: Mr.Arch stated that he reviewed this letter with the County Attorney.He stated Mr.France feels that the action taken by the Planning Commission was fine and he recommended the Planning Commission take no further action on attorney Schlossberg's request. Trend Lines Cabinets: Mr.Goodrich stated he had been contacted by Mr.Thompson,Owner of Trend Lines Cabinets.The company is located in the business park on Governor Lane Boulevard and is planning a major expansion to accommodate a large and rapid increase in demand for their product. He stated there is a need to go as quickly as possible.Mr. Thompson is asking that the planning staff be given the authority to approve the plan as soon as it is ready instead of waiting for a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.Mr.Iseminger stated he did not want to put the responsibility on the Planning Staff.He suggested the alternative of the Planning Commission calling a special meeting to review the site plan when it was ready.He stated that this should be the general policy.All members were in agreement with this suggestion. Charlton Grant: Mr.Frederick requested a one year extension of the Preliminary subdivision plat retroactive to February 2,1991.Mr.Zombro moved to grant a one year extension of the preliminary subdivision plat retroactive to February 2,1991.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Schedule for Highway Interchange Zoning Hearing: Mr.Arch stated that April 26 is available for a Highway Interchange hearing.He stated it was his understanding that the Board of Commissioners are interested in changing the proposed Rt. 66 zoning to Agricultural instead of Conservation as presented at the HI public meeting.He stated he did not receive a formal request,but understood the Board of Commissioners wanted to present the Agricultural zoning at the public hearing on Group I. He wanted to know what the Planning Commission wanted to do.He stated the other option would be for the Planning Commission to hold its own meeting.A discussion followed regarding their recommendations to the Commissioners,holding a Group II public meeting and the change in recommended zoning of the Rt.66 interchange.Mr.Iseminger stated that they should proceed with the public hearing with their original recommendations on April 26th.Group II will go to the Commissioners for their review before it goes to a public meeting.Mr.Moser moved to proceed with a public hearing with their original recommendations for Group I on April 26,1993.Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. 261 26z' Temporary and Seasonal Site Plans: Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission had previously reviewed the proposed text for Temporary and Seasonal Site Plans and asked if the Planning Commission was in agreement.Mr. Iseminger stated yes. CIP 1994 -1999: Mr.Arch presented the CIP.He stated he needs an action from the Planning Commission accepting the CIP and acknowledging that the projects are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.He stated that most of the items are renovations,reconstruction of roads, and equipment purchases.Mr.Bowers stated that if the CIP is approved,it should be with reservations to insure that there is maximum usage of utilities at the Rt.40 interchange.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved that the proposed CIP is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Iseminger stated that there is an upcoming meeting on April 12th with the Board of Commissioners and the joint hearing on April 13,1993.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Iseminger is chairing the Citizens Planning Organization on April 22nd. Mr.Iseminger stated that Mr.Zombro submitted his letter of "resignation,effective May 1,1993,since he will be retiring to Florida.Mr.Spickler thanked Mr.Zombro on behalf of the Planning Commission for his service to the County and the Planning Commission and wished him well. ADJOURNMENT: Vv rman P.M. Iseminger ,UCha \./S~~ /Be'l;'trand L. \ the meeting adjourned at 9:00 "")/.....,--, _"C:~vvvvGt;;rf--=- There being no further business, 263 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 26,1993 Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Donald Spickler,Carol Johnson and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director; Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers,Bernard Moser and Donald Zombro. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. OTHER BUSINESS: McCleary Site Plan,Lot #2,Huyett Business Park: Mr.Arch stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission approved the McCleary Site Plan for Lot #2,Huyetts Business Park. He stated that in 1991 a site plan was approved for a warehouse and office for this lot.The revised site plan is a different footprint.The revised footprint shows a series of loading bays and adds a truck terminal as a principle use.The revised site plan was approved at the April meeting with three conditions:the .parking lot on the right hand side of the building was to be flipped to the left,signs were to be added at the points of ingress and egress to mark the traffic flow pattern and when additional bays were added,the remaining property would be paved. Mr.Arch stated since the April meeting,Mr.McCleary,the owner, and Mr.Baer,the developer,notified the Planning Department that they wished to discuss these conditions with the Planning Commission,since they were not able to be at the last meeting. Mr.Arch stated that regarding the flipping of the parking spaces, the developer wants to keep them on the right hand site due to the layout of the building footprint.He stated that the Planning Commission had concerns at the last meeting with trucks co-mingling with the cars.The owner has advised that will not be a problem since the parking will be at a different elevation than the bays. The second issue dealt with the demarcation of the traffic flow. Mr.Arch stated that the developer has revised the plan accordingly to show one way in and one way out.He also added some additional paving to the plan.Mr.Iseminger asked if this revision has been reviewed by Permits and Engineering.Mr.Arch stated that Permits has seen it and does not have a problem.He was not sure if Terry McGee had a chance to review the plan.Mr.Baer stated that Terry McGee had previously approved the plan.Mr.Iseminger asked if they were complying with everything as far as the traffic flow was concerned.Mr.Baer stated yes.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Baer was concerned with the condition requiring pavement of the remainder of the property once an additional bay was added to the structure.He stated it is Mr.Baer's intention at some point in time to pave that area,but he is concerned that the addition of the next bay will require him to do so at that time.Mr.Baer stated they made the changes and asked that the entire project be approved this evening instead of coming back again,since the plan had been previously approved by Terry McGee.A discussion followed regarding paving,expansion of the bays and approving the entire project without coming back again.Mr.Arch stated if the Planning Commission is considering approving the entire site plan, then the plan should be revised showing the entire building instead of future expansion.That way the developer would not have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval again.A discussion followed with the owner regarding paving.Mr.Johnson of Davis, Renn and Associates referred to the site plan showing what areas would be paved.He indicated where the blacktop sections are located,including the entrance and parking area.A discussion followed regarding the grade differentials and the type of business that would be done at this site.Mr.Baer stated they are asking 264 to deal with the paving as was originally intended and would like a clarification of "delineated"paving.They are willing to pave as the expansion requires.A discussion followed regarding time frames for building,paving and adding a stipulation to the plat. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the site plan revised to show the entire area built (no future expansion),adding a note to the plat stipulating in 10 years or upon build out,whichever comes first,an apron would be paved;and contingent upon Terry McGee's review of the final revised plan.Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. MLD Rezoning Reguest: Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Department did not receive any rezonings for this cycle by the cutoff date,April 14th.He stated that Bob Johnson of Davis,Renn and Associates called the next day regarding the MLD Limited Partnership.A PUD request had previously been submitted in January but had been returned due to a technical error.The rezoning request is to change from Industrial General to Residential Multi-Family.The property is located off of Hopewell Road.He stated that this would be the only rezoning for this cycle.Mr.Davis stated that the plat was not submitted before the deadline due to an oversight on his part and that he was out of town on the 14th.Since it was already in the system,he is requesting to have it included in this cycle. All members were in agreement to add this to the June 14th joint hearing.Mr.Arch stated he would verify the hearing date with the Commissioners. Rod MacRae,Washington County Health Department: Rod MacRae of the Health Department was present to address the questions and concerns of the Planning Commission with septic systems and subdivisions that do not have public water and sewer. Mr.Iseminger stated he had a concern with stand alone septic systems.He is concerned with the cumulative affect the septic systems of subdivisions of 20 lots or more may have and wanted to know if that is something the Health Department factors in.Mr. MacRae stated that they do not.He stated that they follow the various criteria in the County Ordinance.Mr.MacRae stated his concern is with the septic systems combined with the private water supplies because it is basically a recirculation situation. Anything put into the septic system is discharged into the groundwater.He stated that the Health Department does their best to minimize the impact.There is concern with groundwater quality parameters that are not necessarily found in routine sampling.He stated with a large concentration of people,in addition to the bacteriological contaminants,there are also cleaners and solvents entering the system,which may have more cumulative affect than bacteriological contaminants.He explained the process the Health Department goes through when testing a private water supply.He stated they have found that if they go back over a period of time and sample,the wells are flipping back and forth.The Health Department is concerned with their ability to guarantee people that the supply is good.Mr.Iseminger asked what he thought was the cause.Mr.MacRae responded that it is a function of the geology and proceeded to explain how it works.A discussion followed regarding subdivisions with septics and public water,using the criteria for community supplies for the larger subdivisions, testing procedures involved before a subdivision is approved,and test wells.Mr.Iseminger asked what would happen if a 50 lot subdivision that had been approved,now has all contaminated wells. Mr.MacRae stated that the Health Department at the State level could mandate that public facilities be installed at the County's expense.A discussion followed regarding density.Mr.Iseminger asked if the Health Department could use the well head protection area as criteria for larger subdivisions.Mr.MacRae stated that would be desirable and that could be done as part of the initial approval screening process.He stated he has been discussing with the State about putting disinfection on the wells,which they are (0 ~,..... coz :2: currently prohibited to do so.Mr.Iseminger asked if the Planning Commission agreed to use the well head protection criteria,what would the Health Department need.Mr.MacRae stated they would need agency support.He stated there would be more requirements for the developer at the time of plat submittal.A discussion followed regarding fees and areas involved. Mr.Spickler had a question regarding clustering in agricultural areas in order to retain the prime agricultural land.A discussion followed regarding designating marginal and prime agricultural areas.Mr.Iseminger asked if the Health Department would come back with a map of the areas in question and have the Planning Staff do an overlay that indicates the prime agricultural areas. Mr.MacRae stated they could do that.A discussion followed regarding changing the current system,clustering,package treatment plants,contamination problems and environmental impact analysis. Mr.Iseminger stated that if it is not cost prohibitive,they should proceed with utilizing criteria to protect well head recharge areas when reviewing development proposals.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated there are some things which the Planning Department may be able to do from agricultural preservation standpoint to help address this issue. Mr.Iseminger offered the opportunity to anyone who wished to comment.Mr.Davis,of Davis,Renn and Associates,commented that there are a few things that should be considered.One is that the County would be in conflict with existing regulations of other state agencies.The other thing is that the Planning Commission is assuming that all septic systems fail.He stated that septic systems are designed not to fail,though some may.The Health Department is stringent in their requirements for perc testing,and there are many lots that do not pass.He stated that groundwater pollution and recharge pollution is not being caused by septic systems that fail but by farming.Mr.MacRae stated that the Health Department is stringent in their perc testing requirements and explained the process involved.A discussion followed regarding Agriculture'S influence on groundwater pollution.Mr. Iseminger stated that they want to put safeguards in place for those who want to live in the country. Mr.Allensworth stated he agreed with Mr.Davis's comments.He stated there should be a variety of choice in the County and that they have an opportunity to do that outside of the Urban Growth Area.He feels the Health Department's goal of public water and sewer does not have relevance in providing a variety of housing. He stated that the opportunity should be given for people to be separated and disbursed and that density outside of the Urban Growth Area should be kept down. Mr.MacRae stated he would be happy to present any thing to the Commission and staff.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated they will take this up again. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. ~Be\rand L. ~. 265 CD ~,-- COz ::2: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MAY 3,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,May 3,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson,Ex-Officio Ronald L. Bowers,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich, Associate Planners;Edward Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung,James Brittain,William Stachoviak and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Before proceeding with the agenda,Mr.Iseminger introduced the new Planning Commission member,Andrew J.Bowen,IV. Mr.Arch asked to add Trend1ine Cabinets under Site Plans.A motion was made by Mrs.Johnson to add Trendline Cabinets to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. "MINUTES: Mrs.Johnson moved to approve the minutes of March 22,1993. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mrs.Johnson moved to approve the minutes of April 5,1993. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: McCleary Rezoning: Mr.Arch stated that copies of the staff report following the public hearing were passed out at the April meeting for their review.He briefly summarized the report regarding both change and mistake,reviewed the issues covered,the testimony received from the residents in the area and their concerns and the items the staff felt were important.Mr.Iseminger had a question about 95% of the property being in the Urban Growth Area.A discussion followed regarding a map of the Urban Growth Area,the area not included in the Urban Growth Area and the APFO requirements.Mr. Arch stated that this is an Agricultural area with 1 acre lots. But because of the way the Zoning Ordinance is written,an Agricultural area can go down to a 1/2 acre lot if sewer and water are available.The developer has indicated that his intentions were to put sewer and water lines in.A Residential Rural zoning provides for 1/2 acre lots.But if sewer and water are available, the lot size can go down to a third of an acre.He stated the real difference is not from an acre down,but from a half acre (20,000 square feet)to 15,000 square feet.The total overall density impact versus what they are allowed today if they are granted the rezoning are not substantially different.A discussion followed regarding the number of lots involved,current road frontage, access,HI zoning,the reason for the rezoning and the location of the property.Mr.Spickler referred to the staff report,page 7, paragraph 2 regarding the small area excluded from the UGA.He asked under what conditions would it not be allowed if the whole property is rezoned?A discussion followed regarding whether the entire property had to be rezoned.Mr.Spickler stated that there are enough complications in this case to warrant a site visit by the Planning Commission.Mr.Iseminger agreed and suggested that Terry McGee come along.A discussion followed.The consensus of the Planning Commission was to visit the site.Mr.Iseminger 267 268 stated that Terry McGee will accompany them to the site.In the meantime,the Planning Commission wants clarification on the maps regarding access.It was decided that they would meet at the site on Rt.63,on Monday,May 10th at 6:00 p.m.The Planning Commission will then hold a Special Meeting on Monday,May 17th at 6:00 p.m.to take action. Taylor's Orchard: Mr.Arch stated that the Preliminary/Final Plat for Taylor's Orchard was presented at the March meeting.At that meeting the Planning Commission expressed concern that the lake was split by Lots 4 and 5.The plan has been revised to show Lot 5 as the sole owner of the lake and dam.Mr.Oliver,owner/developer, stated there are two notes on the plat.One states that Lot 5 is the owner of the lake and is solely responsible for the water level,maintenance of the pond and maintenance of the dam.The other states that the owner of Lot 5 must contact the Department of the Environment concerning the dam.A discussion followed.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Spickler moved to grant Preliminary plat approval with Final approval contingent upon Terry McGee's agreement to the widening of the road.Seconded by Mr. Bowers.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Arch stated that the Artz UGA determination has been postponed tintil the June meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: William and Nancy Kercheval ISV-9l-018l: Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for William and Nancy Kercheval.He stated that it was previously prepared in 1991 and was withdrawn prior to the meeting.The site is located approximately 700 feet north of Stevenson Road,which is 1300 feet west of MD Rt.64.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.l1.1B,which states that all lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage.In this case they want to create a lot without public road frontage.He stated this lot was originally created in 1975 without public road frontage through a letter from the Planning Director at the time that said they could do that,which created this lot.He stated the house is the one the Kerchevals have lived in for quite some time.They built another house two years ago without subdividing the land.The Kerchevals want to create a 3 acre lot around the older home so it can be sold.He stated Mr.and Mrs.Kercheval were present.The lane is partially paved and there are 5 or 6 other lots that are served by the Lane.Mr.Kercheval stated he has letters of support from his neighbors and referred to a plat.There would not be any additional development on the property.A discussion followed. Mr.Iseminger stated that something needs to be on the plat stating that all the owners can use the lane once the property has been transferred and asked how a building permit was issued.Mr. Schreiber stated that is up to the Zoning Administrator.More than one principle use can be put on the property as long as the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met.There is nothing in the ordinance precluding it.Mr Iseminger feels they need to eliminate this process in the future.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger asked if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have something changed in the Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated they discussed this at another meeting and it is becoming compounded with the Forest Conservation Ordinance and the APFO and referred to a previous case.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Secondbd by Carol Johnson.So ordered.Mr. Iseminger asked Mr.Arch to look into amending the ordinance.Mr. Arch stated they will amend it. (0 """,- coz ::2: Stockslager.The site is located west of Old Forge Road,which is classified as local.This request is from Section 405.11 B(l), which states that lots subdivided for immediate family members need to front on a lane that existed at the time the current owners purchase the property.This request is to create a lot for an immediate family member that does not front on an existing lane or right-of-way.The lane does not exist currently.He pointed to the plat and explained they would be creating a lot for an immediate family member,however it does not front on the existing lane.The lane will be in the middle of a field.The proposed lot is approximately 3 acres.There is a 16 foot wide right-of-way, approximately 1600 feet long.There was no driveway entrance onto Old Forge Road 6 months ago.Mr.Stockslager stated the 16 foot lane in question was the lane used years ago to access the orchard. He explained the lane went back to the packing house for the orchard.This site was picked in order to avoid the prime farming area.Mr.Iseminger asked where the parcel fronts.Mr.Schreiber stated this is the only access onto Old Forge Road and that the plat would carry the family member statement.A discussion followed.Mr.Bowers moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated there will be a 10 year family member stipulation on the plat and there will be no further subdivision. Hagerstown Junior College ISV-93-005): Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for Hagerstown Junior College.He referred to the plan in the agenda packet and stated that the college is requesting to create a lo.t without public road frontage and without an easement drainage and utility easements. Their desire is to create a lot with boundaries equal to the proposed addition to the Advanced Technology Center.The college is funding the addition and does not wish to tie up the entire site.The new lot will be the same size as the building, approximately 10,000 square feet,and he referred to the plan of the campus in explaining the location of the proposed addition. Mike Day,attorney for the college,stated that the main tract of the Junior College is on 147 acres.The Junior College as part of a grant to build the Advance Technology Center,is required to give a mortgage to the Federal Government for that grant.The grant requires that the college comply with various federal laws during the period of useful life of the building.Since they have to have a mortgage and since the college is on 147 acres and will be going for other grants in the future,and they do not want to tie up the entire campus.The government has accepted their mortgage and description.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked if at the end of the 25 years could they unencumber their books by taking the subdivision off.Mr.Arch stated they could do that with a simplified plat.Mr.Day stated he did not see a problem with that but did not know how his client felt.Mr.Iseminger suggested that they approve the variance with the condition that at the end of the obligation with the Federal Government that a simplified plat be filed to revert it back to its original state.Mrs.Johnson moved grant the variance with the condition that a note be added to the plat stating at the end of the obligation with the Federal Government,that a simplified plat will be filed to revert the property back to its original state.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. 269 270 Subdivisions: Jim Ebersole,Preliminary/Final: Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for Jim Ebersole.It is a proposed 3 lot subdivision located on the south side of Showalter Road,west of I-81.The zoning is Rural Residential and is associated with the Urban Growth Area.Each lot will contain a duplex,with a total of 6 units on 1 acre of ground. Each lot consists of approximately 15,000 square feet.There was a Board of Zoning Appeals variance granted for the lot width from 85 feet down to 75 feet in November of 1992.Water and sewer will be public (Sanitary Subdistrict 15).Each lot will have its own access onto Showalter Road.There is potential for further subdivision but that would require another variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.A discussion followed regarding parking, location and the embankment.All agency approvals have been received.Mrs.Johnson moved to grant preliminary/final subdivision plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Crosspoint,Section 3,preliminary Plat/Site Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary Subdivision Plat and Final Site Plan for Crosspoint,Section 3.The subject property is located on the south side of Cole Road,northwest of Route 11.Mr.Lung stated that the townhouse section was given conditional approval last month and previous to that an apartment section was granted approval.The property is zoned residential multi-family and is in the Urban Growth Area.Section 3 consists of 46 lots designed for semi-detached dwellings.He stated that the buildings are subdividable in that they are separated by a party wall.Each dwelling unit will be sold separately.The total area is over 8 acres,and includes 2.1 acres of open space.Mr.Lung explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance in February 1993 for a reduction in the minimum lot area,and rear and side yard setbacks.Variances were also granted for reduction in minimum lot area from 5,000 square feet down to 3,040 square feet for some of the lots.Public water and sewer is provided and the reviewing agencies have issued approvals except for the Water Department.The development will have a closed section street design,which utilizes curb and gutter with storm drains. Sidewalks will be provided.Mr.Lung stated that each unit will have its own driveway.There are additional pedestrian paths leading to the tot lot as well as other sections of the Crosspoint development.Extensive landscaping is being provided.Storm water management will be handled at a regional facility that the developer will be constructing for the entire project. Written approvals have been received from all agencies except the Water and Health Departments.The Home Owners Association documents have been received.A discussion followed.He stated that the developer is requesting approval of the preliminary subdivision plat and final site plan contingent on written approvals from the Water and Health Departments.A discussion followed regarding the overall concept plan and roads to be completed.Mr.Iseminger asked the consultant to summarize all they have done at this point and where they are heading.Mr.James Belcher of Fox and Associates,consultant for the developer, briefly reviewed what they have done so far.Mr.Iseminger asked if there is something they can do to get the Massey Boulevard connection through.Mr.Belcher stated there is only a retaining wall they are working on.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary subdivision plat and final site plan approval for Section 3, contingent on receiving written approvals from the Water and Health Departments.Seconded by Robert Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed. c.o """'v-eez :2: Site Plan: Clear Spring Fire Company: Mr.Ernst stated that he would abstain.Mr.Lung presented the site plan for a new activities building for the Clear Spring Volunteer Fire Department.The proposed structure is a 120'x 100' building to be used for activities,special events and as a training facility.It is located on a parcel consisting of approximately 6.5 acres and is zoned Highway Interchange.He explained there are existing carnival buildings used seasonally near the front of the property and they will remain.The stone entrance will be upgraded and stone parking areas are provided for 150 vehicles.Public water and sewer are available from the town of Clear Spring.Minimal landscaping is provided.A row of white pines will be added along the south property line,which is a requirement for screening in the HI zone.The standard 50 foot and 75 foot buffer yards are provided along Clear Spring/Big Spring Road and the south property line.The Permits Department has received approval from the County Engineer and the Soil Conservation District.Approvals from the Town of Clear Spring and the Health Department are outstanding.The Town has sent comments to the developer.He stated the Clear Spring Utilities Commission has agreed to serve the site,but some engineering items need to be worked out and they do not anticipate any problems.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon receipt of Clear Spring Utilities and Health Department approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Trendline Cabinets: Mr.Lung stated that this application was received in Permits and Inspections today.There was a request at the April Planning Commission meeting to give the staff the authority to approve the site plan once it came in.He stated that the Planning Commission indicated they wanted to see the plan even if it would require a special meeting.He stated that the site plan is for Trendlines Inc.and that the site is located on the corner of Governor Lane Boulevard and Rt.68 near the I-81 Interchange near Williamsport. The site plan is for the expansion of the existing building.The owner wants to double the size of the building by adding a 145'x 400'addition for their manufacturing facilities.The property is zoned Planned Industrial and contains 14 acres.They will be doubling the number of employees on two shifts;increasing their parking area and adding a new parking area.The County Engineer and Soil Conservation District have approved the plan.He stated that he and the Zoning Administrator have reviewed the plan and have some concerns regarding parking,handicap facilities along with normal site plan data.They do not have a problem with the layout of the buildings.He stated that the plan has been routed to the Water Department and Sanitary District.He stated that the developer is requesting site plan approval conditional on the staff working out the items that need to be included on the site plan with the developers consultant.A discussion followed regarding the storm water management facility,and compliance with the recycling provision in the Zoning Ordinance.Mrs.Johnson moved to approve the site plan conditional on agency approvals.Seconded by Robert Ernst.So ordered. New Business: Land Preservation and Recreation Plan: Mr.Stachoviak briefly reviewed the Land Preservation and Recreation Plan,which is scheduled to be presented at public meetings on May 11,12 and 13.This plan is the 5 year update, which is divided into two parts:Land Preservation and Parks,Open Space and Recreational Facilities.Mr.Stachoviak stated that he would like the Planning Commission's concurrence.It will go to the Public Meetings,then it will come back to the Planning 271 272 Commission,who will then make their recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.A discussion followed.The consensus of the Planning Commission was to present this plan as it is at the public meetings. Demolition Permit: Mr.Goodrich explained the County Commissioner's policy of 1989 regarding the review of demolition permit applications.Mr. Goodrich stated that the application being presented tonight is on the Historic District Commission's Site Survey and has been reviewed by the Historic District Commission. 93-1495 -Adrian Carpenter (applicant),Lauren Wolfe property situated on wls of Sharpsburg Pike.The Historic District Commission has recommended that the developer give consideration to the entire complex of buildings,knowing that the easements for the sewer lines for this property have been laid out and secured sometime ago and that the engineering of the sewer lines require that they be in this location.The Historic District Commission made this remark in case the bUildings are not required to come down.A discussion followed regarding the family cemetery.Mr. Iseminger asked if the topography dictated the two buildings to come down for the design of the sanitary sewer lines.Mr.Davis stated yes.The two buildings required to be taken down consist of one that is a fairly recent building and the other in a state of disrepair.He stated the redeeming quality of the site is the fact .that it is a complete complex.A discussion followed with Jim Bishop of Sanitary District regarding the location of the easements.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission has no objections to the demolition permit.Mr.Ernst moved 'they do not have any objections to the demolition permit.Seconded by Mr. Bowers.Mrs.Johnson opposed.So ordered. Rockland -variance Request: Mr.Goodrich referred to the enclosures in the agenda material which included the applicant's letter requesting the variance for the remainder of the Rockland development from the Forest Conservation Ordinance and copies of Article 15.Mr.Davis distributed copies of a drawing of the entire development,a chronology of activities to date and a completed Forest Conservation Worksheet. Mr.Davis said that meeting the requirements of the Ordinance for the remainder of the development posed a hardship for the developer.The worksheet indicated that 92.6 acres of reforestation would be required through one of the four options:1) retention and reforestation on site 2)reforestation on site 3) reforestation off site and 4)payment of the "in lieu of"fee.The first two options are unacceptable to the developer because the reforested area would use area now dedicated to the 170 acre golf course.Mr.Davis claimed a $10,000/acre cost for off site reforestation not including land acquisition and engineering costs. He also mentioned that if the existing forest cover of approximately 32 acres was retained it would mean that only 28 acres would have to be replanted but it would eliminate the ability to provide the golf course.He noted that there will be trees planted throughout the new development,including the golf course, but that they would not meet the definition of forest from the Ordinance. CD ~,.- COz::z: Chairman Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission must aoide by the requirements of Article 15 and noted Section 15.1 B which states that no variance shall be granted except upon a finding that it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and it will not adversely affect water quality. Mr.Goodrich noted that DNR had received notice of the variance request but that no response had been received to date. Mr.Bishop with the Washington County Sanitary District said that the District is under contract to the Maryland Environmental Service to design a new waterline to the Correctional complex.The line will also serve,and runs through,the Rockland development. February '94 is the proposed completion date.Changes to the design of the development may require design changes to the waterline. A discussion developed regarding the amount of time the development has been under review.Mr.Davis said the developer has been working on it for 4 years.He also said that the preliminary plat for the entire project and a preliminary and final for Phase I have been submitted for approval.The staff disagreed.Mr.Goodrich said that a preliminary and final plat for Phase I,submitted in September of 1992,is still under review by agencies and is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it was submitted before the effective date.A preliminary plat for the entire development was not submitted in September with the drawings for Phase I and no fee was paid for such a review.The staff received one copy of a preliminary plan for the whole site in February with a request for review and comment.Staff responded in a timely manner with a request for additional information.No fee was paid at that time.The review took into consideration Planning Commission Policy #9 which allows submittal of Preliminary plans without complete engineering drawings for road and utility construction.The drawing was still incomplete and needed revision. Mr.Adrian Carpenter of Continental Investment Corporation,the developer,spoke regarding the Preliminary Plat procedures,the history of the project,sewer lines,the two dimensional plan and Planning Commission Policy #9.A discussion followed regarding Preliminary Plat regulations.Mr.Carpenter stated that the plat they submitted was according to their interpretation of policy 9 and was not acceptable to the Staff.He stated he felt they are within the spirit of the ordinance with respect to the huge amount of filings,governmental involvement and approvals they have on the project,their financial contribution regarding the sewer and the public aspect of the golf course. Mr.Spickler reviewed the conditions under which a variance could be granted which are being consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and no negative impact on water quality.He noted the intention of the developer to plant trees as part of the golf course which addressed the spirit.He said the intent is to preserve existing forest and create new forested areas which he doesn't believe the developer can comply with.However he also acknowledged the fact the Commission has been aware of the development plans for quite some time and that consideration should be given to the fact that the Ordinance did not become effective until well after the project had begun.Mr.Spickler said that the final item was whether water quality would be adversely affected if the trees were not planted and asked if there was an estimate of the amount of forest cover that now exists.Mr.Davis responded that approximately 40 acres of trees are now on the site.Mr. Spickler noted that if the variance is granted the Commission could place conditions on that action and suggested that they be strict in order to satisfy DNR. A discussion developed regarding DNR's review of the variance request,the fact that they had not yet commented,whether the Commission should wait for their comments before acting and action they might take if they are dissatisfied with the Commission's 273 274 decision.The discussion also included debate on whether the Commission should grant a variance with conditions and a requirement for submittal of additional documentation of the hardship and water quality effects or require the additional information before action is taken on the variance. Mr.Ernst moved,and Mr.Spickler seconded a motion to approve the variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance on the basis that the relief is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and the condition that the consultant provide a study of water quality and the effects of not providing forest cover in compliance with the Ordinance,a description of the trees and areas that will be planted and a schedule for the completion of the golf course.All members voted in favor except Mr.Moser who voted No. So ordered.The applicant is to provide the information to the Commission during a special meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m.on May 17,1993. Request for Extension -Potomac Manor Preliminary Plan: Mr.Arch stated that the developer is close to the two year approval for the preliminary approval to run out.The developer is requesting a one year extension.Mr.Spickler moved to grant a one year extension for the Potomac Manor Preliminary Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. ~ockland -UGA Determination: Mr.Arch referred to the letter from Adrian Carpenter to Richard Roulette,which is asking for a clarification of the Urban Growth Area.He stated there was an additional follow-up letter from Adrian Carpenter and an agreement from the Sanitary District,both of which were passed on to the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch asked Mr.Bishop of the Sanitary District to be present this evening to explain the agreement.Mr.Spickler asked what is the responsibility and authority of the Planning Commission to move the boundary of the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Arch stated they cannot move the boundary.It would take an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to do that.Since the boundary is not a fixed point,the Planning Commission does have the ability to review properties in and near the boundary and make a determination of whether or not the Planning Commission feels that a piece of property should or not be associated with the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Arch stated they need to determine if the characteristics of this piece of ground are such that the development taking place should be associated with the Urban Growth Area. Mr.Carpenter stated that this has been in the approval process, the actions that have been taken could not have been taken unless the property was considered in the Urban Growth Area.He stated that the Maryland Department of the Environment says that this development is consistent with the master plan.He stated that Steve Goodrich in his memorandum to John Chapman states that it is within the Urban Growth Area.He stated that they have everything except the governmental body of authority stating that this is the Urban Growth Area.He is concerned of being shut down in the future. A discussion followed regarding subdistrict 16,the UGA line and St.James area with Mr.Bishop. Mr.Iseminger took a moment to asked Mr.Bishop about the Artz property.Mr.Bishop explained what was involved.He stated they are proposing to build their main force main house out of the Urban Growth Area.Therefore he needed someone to amend the sewer and water plan and tell him they could build the sewer pipe.Part of Mr.Artz's property is in the UGA and the area to the west and south of Rench Road is out of the UGA.He stated they can service them if the Artz's are given the sewer classification,but they cannot connect unless Mr.Artz builds pumping station. CD ~,- OJz :2: Mr.Iseminger stated they were back to Rockland,Urban Growth Determination.Mr.Moser moved to approve that Rockland is inside the UGA boundary.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Arch suggested wording the motion to be that the Planning Commission takes action to confirm previous and past actions which associated the Rockland Development with the UGA.All in favor.So ordered. APFO Amendment: Mr.Brittain briefly reviewed his report.Some minor changes were made per the Commissioners'and Planning Commission's request as a result of discussions from the public hearing.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt the APFO amendment.Seconded by Robert Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated that they should elect a new Vice-Chairman. Mr.Arch suggested they take nomination since they will reorganize at next month's regular meeting.The general consensus of the members was to wait until then. Mr.Iseminger asked about the Sharpsburg Bed and Breakfast if it was still on the books to come before them.Mr.Arch stated yes. Mr.Iseminger asked about Roger Schlossburg's appeal of the variance.Mr.Arch stated that the 10 day period that the judge put forth is over,so they can start processing the subdivision. He stated they have not done that yet because they have received additional information and Ralph has asked that they respond to it. He stated Mr.Renner has indicated that he never had any intention to build on the property. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. 275 (0 ~,.... coz ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -MAY 17,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,May 17,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Donald Spickler,Carol Johnson,Bernard Moser,EX-Officio Ronald L. Bowers,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich, Associate Planner;Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S. Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:10 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: RZ-93-1 -McCleary: Mr.Iseminger stated since the Planning Commission's site inspection on May 10,1993,Mr.Bowers requested that the Commission members be provided with a topographic map showing the areas to be rezoned.A discussion followed regarding compliance -wi th the Forest Conservation Act and wetlands on the property.Mr. Bowers asked regarding the Highway Interchange study how does the staff determine if a property is rezoned HI-lor HI-2.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Staff looks at the current land uses and development characteristics for the Highway Interchange district and then makes a recommendation of HI-lor HI-2 or if they believe that a property should not be in a Highway Interchange classification,they may recommend other zoning.He stated that the HI-1 is predominantly commercial light industrial and HI-2 is predominantly residential wi th very light industrial and commercial.Mr.Iseminger stated he does not want to rezone anything straight Highway Interchange and that they should decide if the property should be HI-I,HI-2 or another more appropriate zoning.He stated that the applicant did not make a sufficient case to rezone the property to Highway Interchange and stated that there is sufficient Highway Interchange zoning in that area.In referring to the topographic map,Mr.Iseminger noted that anything on Route 63 is already commercial and Highway Interchange;and anything on the other side is currently Agricultural or Residential and he felt that makes perfect sense for that to be the dividing line for HI zoning.Mr.Iseminger stated there is no evidence to compel them to add additional property to the Highway Interchange classification.He agreed that the upgrade of the road and the installation of the sewer line can make a case for a change of character in the neighborhood,but does not feel that rezoning to Highway Interchange would be appropriate and logical for the subject property.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated as part of a recommendation they could recommend a more appropriate zoning.A discussion followed regarding Agricultural,Rural Residential zoning and density with HI zoning.Mr.Iseminger stated there are other properties in that area that are zoned Agricultural that lie between Walnut Point Road and Route 40 that could have access to sewer.He stated at some point in time those property owners may look towards developing,and that is something the Planning Commission should consider in dealing with this rezoning request.A discussion followed. Mr.Moser stated he felt a case was made for the residential rezoning,but questioned why the developer would want to change the zoning since there will be added financial obligations for only a few additional lots.He stated that he felt a case was not made for the Highway Interchange zoning request.A discussion followed regarding the motion to be made.Mr.Iseminger stated they could recommend the area the developer wants to rezone to Highway 277 278 Interchange also be rezoned to Rural Residential.Mr.Arch stated that the application before the Planning Commission is for a Highway Interchange classification.He stated what the Planning Commission is basically saying is that after analyzing all the facts,the Commission's recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is not to consider changing the zoning to Highway Interchange.Due to the fact that they believe some change is shown,it may warrant consideration for Rural Residential zoning in this area.Mr.Bowers asked what the difference was between the allowed uses in Agricultural versus Rural Residential.Mr.Arch stated there is more flexibility in the Agricultural zoning than in the Rural Residential.Rural Residential will eliminate a lot of nonresidential type uses which Agricultural does allow.Mr.Arch stated in the staff analysis of the Highway Interchange study they have rezoned things Residential instead of Agricultural in order to protect the integrity of the residential area.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners the disapproval of the request of the 27 acres to Highway Interchange citing that the Planning Commission does not believe there was a substantial argument for a mistake,though they believe the applicant made a strong case for a change in the neighborhood.However they do not believe that changing the 27 acres to Highway Interchange is appropriate and logical for the area.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they change the remaining parcel of 106 acres from Agricultural to Rural Residential even though the Planning Commission does not "believe there was convincing evidence that a mistake was made, the Planning Commission believes that the definition of a neighborhood is acceptable and the changes that have occurred are substantial enough to warrant that there is a change in character.He stated that they believe that the Rural Residential zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan in this particular area,that it is appropriate and logical and recommends that the staff report be included as a part of the recommendation.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Ernst moved to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners that the 27 acres be rezoned to Rural Residential in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.Seconded by Mrs. Johnson.So ordered. Mr.Spickler suggested that they consider the location of the Urban Growth Area.He referred to the staff report which indicates there was a possibility on the outside of the Urban Growth Area that the densi ty and size of the lots could be smaller.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch asked if what Mr.Spickler was saying is that the Planning Commission realizes that they are recommending the entire tract be rezoned Rural Residential.Therefore the density will pick up and carry that designation past the growth area. Consequently,since the growth area is still there and feathers out towards Walnut Point,the Planning Commission would like to see a lesser density.Mr.Arch suggested waiting until a site plan was submitted in the future.A discussion followed. Rockland Variance Request: Mr.Goodrich stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting a variance was granted to Rockland from the Forest Conservation Ordinance contingent upon receipt of a water quality stUdy indicating the effects of not reforesting the area,a planting plan and a schedule for the completion of the golf course.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission also had questions about DNR's input.He stated that DNR has concerns about the decision.Jon Chapman of DNR and Andy Smoger,County Forester are present.A discussion followed regarding the Planning Commission's decision and DNR's concerns.Mr.Chapman stated it was not clear from what was presented to him that adequate evidence showed a particular hardship which would warrant a blanket variance from the Ordinance. He stated his purpose in attending this evening's meeting is to CD ~,..- CDz :2E observe and hear the evidence presented to the Planning Commiss,ion. A discussion followed regarding the exemption granted to the first phase of the subdivision,the ordinance in general and DNR's authority. Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission is comfortable with its decision on the variance because it follows guidance from the Ordinance and requires the provision of supporting documentation. Mr.Davis made his presentation.He stated it was his understanding that there are four questions for them to deal with: tree coverage,tree schedule,golf course construction and water quality.He stated that his environmental scientist,Mr.Galusky, was present and would address the water quality issue.Mr.Davis presented a plan noting 42 acres of forest planted in the development as part of the golf course.He passed out a copy of a letter from his consulting forester and proceeded to explain the breakdown of the types of trees and their location.He stated that the developer also wanted to allocate two trees per lot.Mr. Davis said that golf course construction would begin in two years unless phases IA and B sold out immediately which would cause it to be built sooner.He also said that no other phase would be built before golf course construction.Mr.Iseminger stated that the County Attorney would have to review the mechanism guaranteeing construction of the golf course.Mr.Davis said that part of Phase 1 will include the 10 acres of trees planted out front. -Mr.Iseminger asked if there are any areas on the property that are wetlands,steep slopes,etc.Mr.Davis stated he would let his environmental scientist address that.Mr.Iseminger had a question regarding Mr.Davis's calculations of the afforestation and reforestation requirements and if that would still be 92 acres. Mr.Davis stated the Ordinance would require approximately 85 acres of afforestation and reforestation rather than the 92 acres previously stated.He stated that a forest stand delineation plan has been completed.Mr.Moser suggested that the plan be submitted to the staff.Mr.Moser asked Mr.Goodrich about the fact that there is no maintenance provision in the County Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Goodrich stated that maintenance provisions are addressed in the Forest Conservation Ordinance rather than the Subdivision Ordinance.A discussion followed regarding maintenance. Mr.Davis introduced Peter Galusky,Senior Soil Scientist with Davis,Renn &Associates and stated that he would address the water quality questions.He briefly reviewed a letter addressed to Mr. Iseminger which was submitted.The site consists of approximately 443 acres.About 300 acres are currently being used in high intensity no-till cropland and approximately 82 acres are in intense use pasture.The proposed development will have approximately 170 acres in golf course,and approximately 258 acres in residential lots.There is no gross erosion on the site.He stated it is his opinion that no till agriculture involves a lot of pesticides and nutrients and proceeded to explain the affect they may have.Mr.Spickler disagreed because 1)Mr.Galusky did not have any data supporting his opinion and if Mr.Galusky was going to make a report to the Commission he should do so and 2)Davis, Renn and Associates should give the Planning Commission the information based on the difference between water quality as perceived from forested areas as opposed to developing,rather than developing to agriculture.Mr.Galusky said there is no storm water control on the property at this time.The 17·0 acres in golf course will be comparable to high intensity cropping with regard to pesticides.The rest of the lots will have small amounts of pesticides.He said this is equivalent to trading 350 acres of cropland for 170 acres of cropland.With the development of the site they will have storm water management ponds in key locations that will provide the function of detaining runoff which,in turn, will provide nutrient and pesticide absorption and detoxification, which does not exist at this time.He pointed out that the development of the site as proposed will enable much more careful 279 280 and intense management of the site than is affordable under agricultural use.An integrated pest and nutrient management plan will be developed,which will minimize the use of nutrients and pesticides.Mr.Galusky stated once the development is established,there will be virtually no soil erosion and, therefore,he feels there will be an increase in the water quality. He stated based on those considerations,it is his best professional judgement from the standpoint of water quality that the development proposed is preferable to the present land use. Mr.Iseminger asked if there are any areas on the site that are considered sensitive such as habitat,steep slopes or wetlands. Mr.Galusky stated there are no steep slopes or streams.Mr. Moser asked about the spring fed stream that crosses Rt.68.Mr. Galusky indicated the area on the plan and said the stream is the only surface feature that is carrying water now.He stated there is a band of wetlands associated with this perennial stream.Mr. Chapman had questions regarding the species mix,if there were intermittent streams and wetlands,and if a forest stand exists on the property.Mr.Galusky stated that most of the forest on the property is on the edge.He referred to the plat and explained the topography.He stated all together there is about 40 acres of forest,13 of which is larger trees.The property is over 85 percent unwooded.A discussion followed regarding retaining some of the trees. In summarizing,Mr.Iseminger stated that the developer should provide information that compares the water quality from the site "developed according to Forest Conservation Ordinance guidelines and developed as proposed by the applicant (90 acres forested versus 42 acres forested).He suggested that Mr.Davis meet with Mr. Carpenter and Mr.Arch to discuss the golf course bonding issue. Once the plan has been prepared,it should be routed to the staff for review so it can be rescheduled for the Planning Commission to act on.Mr.Chapman stated he was impressed with how this case was handled. There being no further business,the meeting at 8:00 p.m. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 7,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,June 7,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Donald Spickler,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen, IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T. Goodrich,Edward Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung,James Brittain, William Stachoviak and secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were ex-officio Ronald L.Bowers and Carol Johnson. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: ~Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of April 26,1993.Seconded ~by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. ,=- CIl Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of May 3,1993.Seconded by ~Mr.Spickler.So ordered. ~ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr.Moser made a motion to nominate Bertrand Iseminger as Chairman of the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Moser made a motion to close the nominations for Chairman. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Moser made a motion to nominate Donald Spickler as Vice- Chairman of the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Moser made a motion to close the nominations for Vice-Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Spickler will be Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission beginning July 1, 1993. Before proceeding,Mr.Arch stated under Unfinished Business,the Artz UGA determination has been withdrawn;under Subdivisions, Michael Development had been withdrawn and under Other Business, Item 10,Highway Interchange Rezoning Recommendation Group I is not ready. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Mr.Iseminger stated that the re-zoning hearing for MLD Limited Partnership scheduled for June 8,1993 has been canceled since the application has been withdrawn. Rockland: Mr.Goodrich stated that several meetings ago a variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance for the Rockland development was granted conditional upon receipt of additional information.Mr. Goodrich stated that at last month's meeting a plan was presented showing how the site would be developed and proposed planting areas.He stated that the Commission still wanted a comparison of the water quality if the development was in compliance with the Ordinance and the water quality resulting from the development as proposed.He referred to the letter from Peter Galusky,Soil Scientist with Davis,Renn &Associates,Inc.,which the members received copies of,wherein he discussed the water quality and stated there would not be any difference. 281 282 Mr.Goodrich stated a Forest Stand Delineation Plan has also been provided.He presented the plan and stated that Mr.Davis would not be arriving until later in the meeting.Mr.Goodrich explained the plan.The site contains 443 acres and is located on the Sharpsburg Pike.He stated that the green areas indicate the existing forests on the site and cover 35.1 acres.He stated according to the developer's presentation that they were not able to save any of the existing forest cover and that the 40 acres they referred to would be new installation.Mr.Goodrich requested clarification of several of the conditions attached to the variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance for the Rockland development. 1)The Commission stated that it was satisfied that there would be no appreciable difference in water quality between the proposed 40 acres of forest and the 92+acres that would have been required by the Ordinance.This was addressed by additional correspondence from Mr.Galusky. 2)The Commission indicated that the variance applied to the amount of forest to be planted.It still wants a detailed forest planting plan guiding planting to priority areas (stream buffers, wetlands,steep slopes,critical habitat)and including a maintenance plan to insure survivability.Although Section 1 has been exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance,the Commission still wants to know the details of trees that will be provided in that section. _3)The Commission wants a proposal from the developer or consultant that indicates the number of phases and the number of lots in each phase,the timing of the phases and the appropriate phase for golf course construction.The issue of bonding or some other mechanism to insure completion of the development and the golf course should also be addressed. Mr.Iseminger stated that the developer will have to come back when they have completed those items and make their presentation.Mr. Iseminger stated formal action will not be required this evening. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Harry Bruce Hendershot ISV-93-009): Mr.Brittain presented the variance request for Harry Bruce Hendershot.He stated that Mr.Hendershot was not able to attend the meeting this evening.The site is located on the west side of Mountain Road immediately adjacent to the MD -PA state line.The applicable restriction is from Section 11.B.l,which requires that any new lot conveyed to immediate family members must front onto an existing road and referred to the hardship outlined in the variance application.The proposed lot will be located at the rear of the property and contains approximately 10 acres in a semi wooded area with access from an existing lane that serves the residence.Mr. Brittain referred to the plat indicating the area of new construction of I-68 and stated that the State Highway Administration relocated Mountain Road and purchased land from the Hendershots.He stated that there is only access into the property,which consists of 2 parcels (one containing 42 acres,the other containing 66.56 acres).Mr.Brittain stated that James Hendershot's Will calls for 40 acres to be sold with the house with the proceeds going to the family.He stated that one son lives at the front end of the property adjacent to Mountain Road.The land along the existing lane is clear and has potential agricultural use and,therefore if the proposed lot was located along the existing lane it would break up this acreage that has agricultural potential.Since the conveyance of land to State Highway Administration and construction of I-68,all access to the property is via the existing lane due to the steep fill slopes and the State Highway Administration right-of-way lines.Mr.Brittain stated CD "'-f',- COz :2E that the staff feels there are extenuating circumstances in this case and cited the Will,State Highway Administration purchases and the agricultural area.The only negative aspect would be the need to construct an approximately 1500 foot long lane.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. April Lynn Shepherd ISV-93-0061: Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for April Lynn Shepherd.The property is located on the south side of U.S.Route 40,approximately a half mile east of the Conochocheague Creek. U.S.Route 40 is classified as a minor arterial.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.2.A of the Subdivision Ordinance, which states that new access onto U.S.40 needs to be at least 300 feet from any other existing access.Mr.Schrieber referred to the plat and explained that the property owner,who is the grandmother, lives in the existing house.The property contains 1.84 acres. Both the proposed lot and the remainder will contain .92 acres each,which is the minimum required in the zoning district.There are two existing driveways on the remaining lands.State Highway Administration indicated that the safest sight distance location is only 10 -15 feet away from one of the existing driveways,which would require the variance from that as well as a reduction in the dedication along U.S.40 because if they were to dedicate they would fall under the .92 acres.Mr.Schreiber referred to the letter from State Highway Administration which stated they did not have a problem with the reduction of dedication from 50 feet to 38 feet off centerline.They do not have any plans within the next 20 years to do any type of construction.The request is for a reduction in access spacing from the required 300 feet to 10 feet and reduce the dedication from 50 feet off centerline to 38 feet off centerline.Mr.Iseminger asked if the lot was going to an immediate family member and if so did they have a problem with putting the 10 year family member statement on the plat.Mr. Schreiber stated they did not have a problem with that.Mr. Spickler moved to grant the variance for safety and topographic reasons,contingent upon the family member statement be included on the plat.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A discussion followed. H.Lehman Toms (SV-93-007): Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for H.Lehman Toms.The property is located on the northeast side of Toms Road, approximately 3/4 of a mile southeast of Alternate 40.Toms Road is classified as a local road.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.11B and G 5,which states that each lot shall have at least 25 feet of public road frontage;panhandles shall not exceed 400 feet in length.Mr.Schreiber explained that the property as it exists today does not have any road frontage and referred to the plat showing what they own,which consists of approximately 140 acres.Mr.Schreiber referred to a 42 foot wide strip of land fronting Toms Road.He explained that no one holds title to it and that Mr.Toms is in the process of obtaining title.In referring to the plat he stated that Mr.and Mrs.Toms intend to subdivide only as far back as the stream,which consists of approximately 10 acres.They would like to create 2 lots and split the access strip in half.They are proposing to have each panhandle lot approximately 650 feet long and 21 feet wide.The zoning is Agricultural.Mr.Schreiber explained the driveway for the lot. There would be one entrance onto Toms Road instead of two.The lots are not for immediate family members and Mr.and Mrs.Toms are aware of the Forest Conservation Act.Mr.Schreiber stated that one lot may be owned by a family member and that development potential is limited because of the lack of road frontage.A discussion followed regarding the farm and its access.Mr.Toms passed out a map of the property to each of the Commission members. He stated there are five different residences that use the lane on the opposite side of the farm and that the lane is the only access to the farm.A discussion followed regarding the proposed 42 foot wide access strip.Mr.Iseminger suggested that a note be place on the plat stating that there would be no further subdivision.Mr. 283 284 Spickler moved to grant the variance with the stipulation that access be limited to the two lots,no further subdivision. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Karen L.Kline (SV-93-008): Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Karen L.Kline. The property is located on the northeast side of Foxville Road (MD 77),approximately 500 feet west of Hopkins Lane.MD 77 is classified as a major collector.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.2 .A,which states that access along a major collector shall not be less than 300 feet.Mr.Schreiber pointed to the plat and explained the location of the existing driveway. He stated that the future in-laws of Karen Kline are proposing to subdivide the property and create a lot with 25 feet of public access onto Foxville Road and their own driveway onto Foxville Road.By doing that they will be less than 300 feet from an existing access.Mr.Schreiber referred to State Highway Administration's letter wherein they stated the proposed driveway location would be the safest location along Foxville Road.Mr. Ernst asked if the property is currently one lot.Mr.Schreiber stated no,pointed to the plat and explained the property line.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler asked if it was safety reasons that they were asking for the variance.Mr.Schreiber stated yes. Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Melvin Gladhill for Robert Mills (SV-93-010): Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for the Mills property.The property is located 500 feet northwest of the intersection of Catholic Church Road and Hanging Rock Road.Road classification is local and the zoning is Conservation.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.11 G 5,which states that panhandles shall not exceed 400 feet in length.He stated there are some severe slopes along Catholic Church Road and indicated their location on the plat.The request is to create one 3 acre lot with panhandle approximately 538 feet in length.The lot will be conveyed to an immediate family member.Mr.Schreiber stated he felt that it would be better to have public road frontage than to access off a lane.He stated that Mr.Gladhill could not be present and that Mr.and Mrs.Mills were present.Mr.Iseminger asked why the lot was sited at that particular location.Mr.Mills explained that due to the topography and the fact that there is a grave yard on the remaining lands,this is the best location for the lot.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.So ordered. Forest Conservation Ordinance variance: St.Pauls Lutheran Church: Mr.Goodrich passed out additional information regarding the variance requ~st.He explained that this is a request from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.The property is located along Resley Road in Hancock.He referred to a letter he sent to Melvin Gladhill,consultant,which outlined the available options and a copy of the Forest Conservation Worksheet.He referred to the last line of the worksheet which indicates that the total reforestation required is .16 acres.He explained that St.Paul's Church sits on a small piece of land on Resly Road,which also contains a cemetery.The Church is proposing to acquire 5 acres from what was formerly Fairview Orchards,which is at the rear of their property. The Church does not have any plans for development,but there is a possibility of expansion of the cemetery.Since the Church wishes to keep the option open for expansion of the cemetery,it cannot be viewed as a simplified plat,which would be exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.The Church would not qualify for the real estate transfer exemption with no change of land use,because a cemetery would require approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.Goodrich stated that he could not find an exemption for this CD ~,.- OJz ~ case.He referred to the Church's letter requesting exemption and proceeded to summarize the Church's request. Mr.Larry Rollins,representing the Church,said the work began in 1990 and there are no plans to further develop the property with the exception of expanding the cemetery.He stated that 85 to 90 percent of the site is covered with a peach orchard.Seventy-five percent of the remaining property is wooded.The water quality will not change,but there will be a change of use.He stated that the hardship will be the cost of planting the .16 acres of trees and maintaining them when they are subject to deer.Mr.Rollins also stated that they are a small congregation at this time and consist of mostly older members.He stated that the cemetery is almost full to capacity and that it has been a concern of the Church to obtain additional land for possible expansion.He stated that they are landlocked on all sides.The owner of the orchard offered them the 5 acres.Mr.Rollins stated that they did have a plat ready for submittal to the Planning Commission in July or August of 1992.It was not submitted because they needed a signature from Dr.SchIer on the dedication from the corporation. He stated that the corporation was going through a merger at that time,which did not go into effect until January 1993.A discussion followed regarding the parsonage and the cemetery. Mr.Goodrich reminded the Planning Commission that they have to look at the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and the effect on water quality when considering a variance. Mr.Goodrich stated that even though the property is covered with peach trees,the Ordinance does not recognize an orchard as a forest.He stated that the ordinance requires DNR to be advised and because he is not used to dealing with these requests,he did not notify them in time for them to have a response by tonight's meeting.He stated they have been notified and suggested the Commission wait until DNR has a chance to look it over. A discussion followed suggesting several ways to revise the plat to qualify for an exemption.However any change to the plat would require approval of the owner who lives in Germany.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger suggested a condition on the variance that only 40,000 square feet can be utilized for the cemetery and the rest to be left in its current state.Mr.Rollins asked for a clarification of current state.Mr.Spickler stated that he felt that the water quality issue has been answered since there will be no actual land disturbance for a cemetery.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant the variance conditional on the change of use being limited to 40,000 square feet or less.Seconded by Mr.Spickler. So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance was granted because it is within the spirit of the Ordinance and asked Mr. Goodrich to report back with DNR's comments.Several Commission members expressed a desire for DNR's input on these variances prior to making a decision.The staff agreed to make a better effort at notification in a timely manner. Site Plans: Family Craft Store: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Family Craft Store.The application is for a new structure to be built on an existing lot with a disturbed area of less than 40,000 square feet and is therefore exempted from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.The site is located on the south side of Rt.11,Virginia Avenue,at the Conrail railroad crossing.The proposed use is a craft store on 1.37 acres.Mr.Lung stated that public water and sewer are available and that those agencies have issued their approval.Mr. Lung stated that access will be by a single entrance onto Route 11, which is a state highway and there will be an accel and decel lane. He stated that State Highway has verbally approved the entrance permit and the hydrology for the site.The storm water management is being handled by a pond and the County Engineer has approved it. 285 286 Mr.Lung stated that 16 parking spaces are provided (14 minimum) and there is landscaping around the building and the parking area as well as screening for the adjacent residential area.He referred to the comments outlined in his memo to Mr.Prodonovich, which the consultant also received.The comments have been addressed and the site plan has been revised accordingly.He stated that the white pine screen planting has been increased as well as the landscaping around the front of the building.Mr.Lung stated that due to the size and nature of the business according to the applicant,there is not enough recyclable material to necessitate a dumpster on the site and that a note will be put on the plat indicating that they intend to recycle boxes.The recycling and storage will occur inside the building.Regarding the lighting,there was concern that there would be excessive spillover from the lights onto the residential area.The consultant is proposing that the lighting will be building mounted and projected towards the parking lot.Mr.Lung stated that all Planning staff comments have been addressed,however,Mr. Prodonovich has not reviewed the revised plan.Mr.Lung recommended approval conditional on receipt of approvals from Permits and Inspections and State Highway Administration.Mr. Spickler moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon approvals from Permits and Inspections and State Highway Administration.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Barkdoll Tract: Mr.Lung stated that the written summary was not yet ready.In li.ght of the fact that this property is located in Group I of the Highway Interchange Study and the developer's desire to discuss it with the Commission,it was placed on the agenda.He proceeded to give a brief summary of the project and review of the consultation. The property is located south of Oak Ridge Drive and west of Route 65 (Sharpsburg Pike)and north of I-70,contains 58 acres and is zoned Highway Interchange.The proposal is for a mixed use development consisting of 130 single family lots with approximately 15 acres designated for commercial use.At the consultation the developer indicated that his prime interest was in developing the residential section with the commercial areas to be done in the future.Access will be provided by a 60 foot collector street off of Oak Ridge Drive.He stated there is also a 60 foot commercial street proposed off of Rt.65 to serve the commercial area, however,this street would not be constructed until after the residential section is developed.The residential area is designed with four cul-de-sacs.Water and sewer i.s available.The State Highway Administration has requested a traffic study and has indicated that improvements will be necessary to Rt.65.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer also requested a traffic study and signal warrant analysis and will require curb and gutter street design.The Forest Conservation Ordinance Delineation is complete and approved.Mr.Lung stated there are a number of items that the staff feels should be addressed:1)The Highway Interchange study proposes that this site be re-zoned to HI-1,which would not permit residential development.He stated it would have to be determined if and when this proposal would be grandfathered in under the old HI requirements.2)There is concern about the traffic impact of this development on Oak Ridge Drive.3)They are concerned about the close proximity of the residential lots to I-70 and the approach ramp to I-70 regarding noise and fumes.4)They are concerned about the use of cul-de-sac streets all feeding into one single point of access 5)He stated that at the public hearing for the HI study there was some testimony regarding compatibility of this residential development with the adjacent Review and Herald Company which is also proposed to be zoned HI-I. Mr.Lung stated that the Mr.Silverman,the developer,was present to address any questions.Mr.Arch stated that only the Forest Stand Delineation was approved.A Forest Conservation Plan has not been approved.A discussion followed regarding the Forest Conservation Ordinance,the access onto Oak Ridge Drive and the c.o ~,..... 0) z ~ Traffic Impact Study.Mr.Arch explained why the staff felt the optimum use for that area was HI-1,but also stated that if a good residential plan was presented and appeared likely of implementation then there should be no impediment to developing it as a HI-2 instead of as an HI-1 area.He reminded the Commission that at the hearing the Review and Herald requested that if this property was rezoned HI-2 then they would like part of their property also rezoned HI-2.Mr.Spickler stated that he shares the staff's concern with the residential lots being next to the access ramp and stated that a commercial development would not be as susceptible to noise and air pollution.He asked why the commercial part of the development would not be built at the same time as the residential.Mr.Silverman,the developer,stated that at this time there is not a high demand for commercial development and explained in detail.Mr.Silverman stated that the plan shows that 35 acres will be residential,10 acres forest and 15 acres will be commercial with forest.In regard to the Review and Herald's concerns he explained that he submitted his plan to the staff at the Review and Herald and stated they would get back in touch with him.Mr.Silverman stated that he contacted them on two occasions.They expressed concern with insurance liabilities with the residences backing up to their property and neighbors possibly using their ball field.Mr.Silverman stated there is a barbed wire fence around the ball field along with heavy brush and pledged his cooperation to work with the Church to address this issue.Mr. Silverman stated he contacted the Review and Herald to purchase additional ground to the north of his property so that the street would be in the center with houses on both sides,bu·t they were not interested.He stated that the traffic study is under way and that they will address all of the Planning Commission's concerns. Regarding the impact from 1-70,he feels that Mr.Davis needs to review that further.Mr.Silverman asked what their chances were for having this grandfathered in since they have been working on it for 18 months.He needs to know how the Planning Commission feels so he knows what to do.Mr.Iseminger stated that they will receive a Highway Interchange staff report in the next two weeks and will be on the July agenda for discussion.But did not know if they would take action on it.He felt they would probably have a special meeting to discuss it.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger stated they would probably have an answer by August.Mr. Arch stated possibly August or September if there would not be another meeting.Mr.Silverman stated they have to proceed with their engineering work.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser had a question about shifting the entrance down to the convenience store. Mr.Lung stated that the plan was for American Convenience to vacate their existing entrance and utilize the proposed commercial road.Mr.Iseminger stated that they have some preconceived ideas for the interchange areas.He stated he does not have a problem with what is being proposed,but wants to see the results of the traffic study and is concerned about the residential properties backing up to the interstate.He felt that would be a good area for the Forest Conservation plantings or screening.Mr.Iseminger stated regarding the street layout,the roads should be connected. He stated that the traffic study will probably require both accesses at the same time.Mr.Iseminger stated that what the developer has proposed is reasonable but the Planning Commission still must act on the rezoning.Mr.Spickler stated in light of what is presented they have to look at the interchange in total. Mr.Iseminger stated if the engineering is done and approved before the rezoning takes place they can do what is proposed because it will meet all of the current criteria.Otherwise,they will have to take a chance with the rezoning.This cannot be addressed tonight.Mr.Iseminger stated that no action needs to be taken. Mary Warrenfeltz: Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary Consultation for Mr.Schreiber. He referred to the summary and stated Mr.Schreiber did not have any additional comments to add.According to the APFO requirements there will be a road widening required in front of one of the lots. Mr.Iseminger had a question concerning when the APFO kicks in. 287 288 Mr.Iseminger stated regarding the Preliminary Consultations,the comments that the Planning Commissions makes are things that need to be addressed.He referred to the Preliminary Consultation Notification and stated that a statement needs to be added indicating that this consultation will be presented to the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting for additional comments to be made part of the record.Mr.Spickler referred to the standard paragraph in the summary which states that the presentation of the preliminary consultation to the Planning Commission is for information only.He stated that is no longer the case and needs to be changed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the statement should be in both the letter and the summary. Other Business: Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment for Temporary and Seasonal Businesses (RZ-93-4): Mr.Lung referred to the staff analysis and stated he received comments from the County Engineer.Mr.McGee is concerned about the statement that the site plan would be submitted in simplified form and not require professional preparation.He feels a professional should prepare the plan,especially for the storm water management and traffic information.Mr.Lung stated the intent of the amendment is to make the preparation of plans as simple as possible due to the small size of the sites.Mr. Iseminger stated that Mr.McGee would always have the opportunity to request additional information.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler moved that the Commissioners adopt RZ-93-4 because the Planning Commission finds it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Reguest for Extension Sterling Oaks Preliminary Plan: Mrs.Cosner of Milcar Construction requested a one year extension of the preliminary plat for Sterling Oaks subdivision and referred to her letter in the agenda packet.Mr.Moser moved to grant the extension for one year.Mr.Spickler seconded.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Demolition Permit: Mr.Goodrich explained the County Commissioner's policy of 1989 regarding the review of demolition permit applications.Mr. Goodrich stated that the application being presented is on the Historic Site Survey and has been reviewed by the Historic District Commission. Mr.Miller (applicant)of Antietam Construction has applied for the permit to demolish seven stone buildings located on property owned by the St.Lawrence Cement Co.The property is located east of Antietam Drive and north of Old Forge Road.Mr.Goodrich stated that one of buildings on the site is believed to be the first Mennonite Church in the County.Mr.Miller made arrangements with the owners to acquire the stone from the building,applied for the demolition permit and went before the Historic District Commission. Mr.Goodrich stated that the Historic District Commission is opposed to the demolition of these buildings because of their importance,but realizes that if they aren't used in this proposal they will eventually fall down from neglect and be beyond any use. The Historic District Commission suggested four items be addressed prior to the demolition.Mr.Miller has also submitted a letter stating that he will assist with those items:1)Document the site 2)Provide the Mennonite Community with the opportunity to salvage and relocate the Meeting House 3)Save the demolition of the Meeting House for last 4)Put a plaque on the wall of the Marsh Run Aqueduct indicating where the stone came from.Mr.Goodrich proceeded to pass out pictures of the site to the Planning Commission members.He stated that the main house had a fire about 10 years ago and this led to the abandonment of the site.A discussion followed regarding the use of the stones,the Mennonite Community being contacted,the buildings in general and the c.o ""'"y-eoz ~ project.Mr.Spickler mentioned that he also knew a contact in the Mennonite Community.Mr.Iseminger stated they could adopt the Historic District Commission recommendations which includes the four conditions.A discussion followed regarding the Historic District Commission's decision.Mr.Spickler made a motion that they agree with the Historic District Commission and adopt their recommendation.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Opposed by Mr.Bowen.A discussion followed regarding the permit process. Mr.Arch suggested that a workshop meeting be scheduled with the Historic District Commission. Text Amendment for Forest Conservation Ordinance (FC-93-1): Mr.Goodrich referred to the staff report and analysis and handed out additional information which included a letter from DNR stating their concerns.They are concerned with how the amendment was handled administratively,the impact of grandfathering large industrial areas from the Ordinance and they felt that the requirements from the Ordinance had been ignored.Mr.Goodrich referred to his response to DNR which stated that he could not have given them anymore advance notice.The staff provided an analysis of the amount of area that would be grandfathered.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the staff analysis.There has been no response from the May 24th letter to DNR.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they adopt FC-93-1 because it is in the spirit of the Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. ·Forest Delineation -Status: Mr.Goodrich stated that he and Mr.Stachoviak are working on a program to spend the "payment in lieu of"money 'as required by the Forest Conservation Ordinance.He stated that the other counties do not have programs set up either.Mr.Arch stated that he and Mr.Goodrich will be before the Board of County Commissioners regarding clarification on parts of the Ordinance and possible text amendments.He stated he will keep the Commission apprised. Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment for corner Lots RZ-93-3: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the proposed text amendment for corner lots.Mr.Moser moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-93-3.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Land Preservation and Recreation Plan: Mr.Stachoviak stated he held three public meetings and referred to his comments outlined in his memo.He briefly reviewed the concerns of the Agricultural community and stated that he does not have a problem with the changes they wish to make.He referred to the comments from the City of Hagerstown and noted their corrections.Mr.Stachoviak stated he received a letter from the Historic Advisory Committee requesting that they be involved in the draft of the plan instead of providing input after it has been put together.Mr.Arch stated that they are making corrections to the items noted and stated that they explained to the Historic Advisory Committee that this plan is revised every 5 years and that they will be taken into consideration the next time it is updated.Mr. Moser moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners adopt the plan pending the changes and corrections suggested.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. St.James Corporation: Mr.Arch referred to St.James Corporation's letter of May 24th and stated that they have withdrawn their request of the PUD zoning classification.Mr.Iseminger stated that they will lose their exemption to the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Work program: 289 290 Mr.Arch referred to the work program covering the next 18 months and explained that they are adopted every July.He proceeded to briefly review the special projects. Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Department is losing Grid Technician John Howard,who was a contract employee.Due to budget cuts,the Board of Commissioners did not approve his request to make the position full time.Mr.Arch stated that he is working on disbursing the house numbering duties within the staff.Mr.Arch stated that the last mailout for the gray area will be mailed this week.Mr.Iseminger stated that they need to have a special workshop meeting.Mr.Spickler stated that the work program presented a few months ago and the progress that has been made is outstanding. Mr.Iseminger referred to the statement he made at the beginning of the meeting regarding MLD's request to withdraw their rezoning scheduled for tomorrow.He stated that Mr.Davis of Davis,Renn and Associates has advised him that his client would still like to attend tomorrow's meeting.Mr.Moser stated that they officially requested to withdraw.Mr.Iseminger stated that he announced the withdrawal at the beginning of tonights meeting.Mr.Arch stated that both Mr.Davis and Mr.Urner will not be at tomorrow's meeting.He stated that both Mr.France and the Commissioner's office have received copies of the letter.Mr.Iseminger instructed Mr.Arch to tell Mr.Teach and Mr.France that the Planning Commission received a copy of the letter and that he advised everyone at the beginning of the meeting that the rezoning -had been canceled and that they would not be attending. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.•~• and L.Iseminger,~Cha~rman (0 ..q ,.- OJz :2: JOINT MEETING WASHINGTON COUNTY AND HAGERSTOWN PLANNING COMMISSIONS June 14,1993 Members present were:(Washington County)Chairman;Bertrand L. Iseminger,Donald Spickler,Carol Johnson and Robert E.Ernst II. Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T. Goodrich and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Ex- Officio Ronald L.Bowers,Bernard Moser and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. (City of Hagerstown)Chairman;Douglas Wright,Jr.,Stanley J. Brown,Jr.,Bonnie V.Lewis,Frederick Nugent,James Stone and Ex- Officio William Briechner.Staff:Susan Salvatore and Debbie Everhart.Absent were Dennis Miller and Rich Kautz. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. Before proceeding with the items on the agenda,Mr.Arch stated that the last joint meeting was held on April 13,1992 and proceeded to review the minutes. Other Business: Update on the Interchange Study: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed Group I of the Highway Interchange study, for 1-70 which includes MD 66,MD 65 and U.S.40 and explained the .hearing process involved.He stated that the initial review for Group II has been completed and that it contains the first three intersections coming from Pennsylvania on 1-81.They consist of Showalter Road,State Line and Maugans Avenue.Information for both interchanges have been sent to Rick Kautz.Mr.Arch stated that Group III will be sent out shortly,which includes Maugansville Avenue and U.S.40.A discussion followed regarding Group I covering the public hearing process,information used in the study and staff recommendations. Mr.Breichner asked what was proposed in Group III.Mr.Arch explained that for the areas adjacent to the City along 1-81 they recommended a zoning classification that is consistent with the City's classification,which is residential multi-family.He stated that the staff felt that would be the most appropriate use. A discussion followed. Urban Growth Area Including Water and Sewer Extension: Mr.Arch stated that not much has changed since their last meeting and that the Planning Department has received several requests for Urban Growth Area determinations.He discussed what they ran into in the Urban Growth Area study around 81 and stated they tried to evaluate a property based on the characteristics of the development.He stated that staff would like to eventually refine the process so they have specific criteria to follow.Mr.Arch stated that the Comprehensive Plan'S basic philosophy limits extensions outside of the UGA and that as we update the Water and Sewer Plan one of the things we are looking at is designating another classification for areas outside of the Urban Growth Area. This would be a limited access classification minimalizing potential services for lines outside of the Urban Growth Area.He stated that was suggested to them by MDE.Inside the UGA they are looking to try to classify as much of the property in order to streamline the process.A discussion followed regarding requests for sewer and water extension,services provided,the area included in the Urban Growth Area,encouraging growth within the Urban Growth Area,limiting expansion of the Urban Growth Area,looking at how it all fits together and creating a committee to take a better look at the Urban Growth Area. Mr.Arch stated the staff has plotted development for over the last 5 -10 years showing where the major development is.He stated 291 292 that a tremendous amount of property has been approved for development but has not been built out due to the economy and cited the three recent preliminary plat extensions.A discussion followed regarding road improvements and the State's projections in the increase of population.Mr.Spickler asked about the previous committee that examined the UGA and what they accomplished.He suggested creating a committee that would prepare a document that both Planning Commissions could use in their decision making process and wanted to know if that request is feasible.Mr.Arch stated that when the Planning Department prepares the update as required by the Planning Act,they will cover some of the issues mentioned and referred to the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.A discussion followed regarding expanding the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Wright stated that the Urban Growth Area has expanded due to developments that have been approved right outside or at the edge of the boundary line.A discussion followed regarding controlling expansion,smaller areas within the Urban Growth Area,development along bypasses,Continental Development in St.James area,problems both Commission's are running into, encouraging growth within the Urban Growth Area,preserving what exists,reconvening the UGA committee and 2020 legislation.Mr. Arch suggested that they prepare an outline of the items that need to be addressed.He stated there will be a need for an exchange of ideas as they review the Comprehensive Plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Breichner asked if the County intends to work the BCM report into the Washington County Water and Sewer Plan.Mr. Arch stated that the resolution adopted by the County Commissioners states they are to use the BCM report for guidance only.A discussion followed. Transportation Update: Mr.Arch stated they will be working on creating a Transportation Plan for the MPO,which must be done and in place by December of 1994.The transportation element for the Comprehensive Plan must be done by the middle of 1995.A discussion followed. Chesapeake Bay Tributary Issues: Mr.Arch suggested that they all attend the meeting this coming Wednesday at Hagerstown Junior College.A discussion followed. Mr.Arch referred to a meeting he and Mr.Goodrich attended with representatives from MDE,DNR,Department of Agriculture,the Governor's office and stated the real thrust of it will be two fold 1)the waste water treatment plants 2)Agriculture -they want to see a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen production coming off the farms.He stated the upcoming meeting will discuss options and there will be further meetings in the fall with follow-up recommendations.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated that the State informed them at the last meeting that 75 percent of the problem in the County is farm related.Mr.Spickler disagreed.A discussion followed regarding new regulations for storm water management and the upcoming meeting. Implementation of Forest Conservation Act Reguirements: Mr.Goodrich explained that the County adopted a local Ordinance and to date they have granted 90 exemptions,2 variances and have received 5 forest stand delineations,but have not yet dealt with any conservation plans.Mr.Stone stated the tree bill is a concern of his because of the requirements and additional responsibilities for the staff.The City did not adopt the Ordinance but they do have to comply with the State's requirements and send everything to the state for review.A discussion followed regarding the County's responsibilities,the amount of time required in the review process,and burden on the staff.Further discussion followed regarding the City's authority,the plats they have handled so far,the City's involvement in the approval process,the payment in lieu of program,Forest Conservation <.0 ~,.- coz ~ programs that other municipalities have and the workload of the county staff. It was decided that the City will schedule the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ~i~~. 293 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JULY 12,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,July 12,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson,Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II. Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T. Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,and Edward J. Schreiber. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: Mr.Spickler corrected the minutes of May 17,1993 as follows: Page 3,last paragraph after "Mr.Spickler disagreed"add "because, 1 )Mr.Galusky did not have any data supporting his opinion and if Mr.Galusky was going to make a report to the Commission he should do so and 2)Davis,Renn and Associates should give the Planning Commission the information based on the difference between water quali ty as correlated between forested areas and developments rather than development and agriculture."Mrs.Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger had a question regarding the minutes of June 7,1993 under unfinished business for Artz it should be stated that their request has been withdrawn instead of tabled.Mrs.Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Rockland Forest Conservation Ordinance Variance Reguest: Mr.Goodrich distributed information which included a summary of Planning Commission action on the matter to date,a June 21 letter from Mr.Galusky and a completed forest conservation worksheet.He mentioned that as of the last Planning Commission meeting items left to be addressed were a plan to guide planting to priority areas,and information on maintenance,phasing and the golf course. A June 8 letter to the Chairman attempts to address the golf course and phasing issue.The staff has not seen the letter.Mr. Galusky's letter indicates that the planting cannot be guided to priority areas because there are none on site.It also states that proper maintenance of the site will be in the owners best interest to encourage sales and use;however,no specifics are provided. The Planning Commission's concern for the planting in phase one, which is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance,will be addressed when the Commission reviews those plats prior to approval. A lengthy discussion developed regarding when the Planning Commission would receive all of the information it has requested in order to satisfy the conditions of the variance,whether the golf course bonding requirements were beyond the scope of this matter and why the subject was continually scheduled on the Commissions agenda.Staff indicated that since the Commission placed the conditions on the variance it should be the Commission's determination of whether the information submitted is sufficient. There was also discussion regarding the factor that although Rockland was granted a variance from all of the requirements of the 295 ~ 296 Forest Conservation Ordinance,the conditions that the Commission placed on the action are equal to requiring compliance with all aspects of the Ordinance except the area to be reforested. Mr.Spickler made a motion to restate the Commissions action on the variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance for the Rockland development,excluding Phase I of 74 lots,as approving a reduction in the amount of reforestation and afforestation required from 99.8 acres determined from the consultant's worksheet to approximately 42 as proposed by the consultant and developer.All other requirements for providing bonds to insure construction of the golf course are separate from the issue of Forest Conservation;however it will be addressed at a later date.Seconded by Mr.Bowers. Mrs.Johnson and Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: C.Harold Snyder Estate (SV-93-012): Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for the C.Harold Snyder Estate.The site is located on the north side of U.S.40 on the eastern limits of the Town of Clear Spring.The road classification for U.S.Route 40 is minor arterial.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.2.A.,which states that new access points along a minor arterial shall be spaced at 500 foot minimum iptervals.The request is to create an access within 170 feet of an existing access.Mr.Schreiber referred to the plat showing the proposed 2 lot subdivision and stated that there is not a defined access to the existing garage (Lot 2),but with the subdivision each lot would have its own access.Lot 2 will be in the Town of Clear Spring and Lot 1 will be in the County.Mr.Schreiber stated that this plan has been presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals over the last two years as well as the Town of Clear Spring Board of zoning Appeals.State Highway Administration has approved this concept and stated that the site distance is fine.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved that the variance be granted. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Site Plan: Masonic Temple,Hagerstown Lodge #217: Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for the Masonic Temple.The zoning is BL.The 1.37 acre site is located on Piper Lane at the end of Heisterboro Road.Mr.Schreiber stated that the subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission in March of 1993.He stated that storm water management will be provided by a proposed retention pond.Mr.Schreiber stated there was a question of whether or not Piper Lane would meet the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.He stated that the County Engineer ruled that as long as traffic would not turn right onto Piper Lane (which he anticipated would not happen)and based on the amount of trips, that there would not be a problem with Heisterboro Road.There will be a sign stating no right turns,as required by the Planning Commission.The fire and ambulance service will be provided by Halfway and Williamsport.Mr.Schreiber proceeded to explain the site plan indicating the buffers,entrance,lighting,parking and refuse collection.All agency approvals have been received.Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mrs. Johnson.Mr.Howard Gilbert,representing the adjoiner Mrs.Sine, asked the Chairman if he could express a concern.He stated that his client is concerned that the proposed entrance consumes the entrance to her property which she has used since 1965 and that according to the plan,the location of the proposed curbing will prevent Mrs.Sine from entering her property.He asked that the developer provide assurances that her driveway will not be cut off. A discussion followed regarding the location of Mrs.Sine's garage and driveway.Mr.Frederick,consultant for the developer, t: CD ~,..... aJ Z :2: suggested that his client and Mr.Gilbert meet to work things out. Mr.Iseminger asked if there is right-of-way or easement.Mr. Frederick stated no but that the entrance had been used for many years.A discussion followed with the consultant,Mr.Elliot (Lodge representative),Mr.Gilbert and the Commission regarding the curbing and the possibility of a driveway cut.Mr.Elliot stated he consulted with three of the trustees,who were present and they do not have a problem with the driveway cut but want something in writing and will work that out with Mr.Gilbert.Mr. Iseminger stated that there is a motion on the floor to grant approval.All in favor.So ordered. Other Business: Text Amendment for Animal Husbandry: Mr.Arch explained that the Board of Commissioners created a Committee consisting of the Agricultural Community;along with staff:Tim Lung,Paul Prodonovich,Jim Schlossnagle,Elmer Weibley, Don Schwartz,and himself.He stated that they developed a draft which was presented to the County Commissioners and they have okayed the draft.The draft is before the Planning Commission this evening for their review and recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.He stated if the recommendation is positive,the next step would be the public hearing process. Mr.Lung explained that the new Zoning Ordinance regulations deal ~ith all livestock,any size operation,and is triggered by an application for an intent to build an animal waste storage structure or animal housing and would require a nutrient management plan and waste management plan.There would be two levels of review based on the amount of manure produced by the operation. Mr.Lung proceeded to explain the proposed regulations in detail. He stated that for smaller operations there would be no Planning Department review of applications.The applications would be made to the Permits Office,who would determine if the applicant had a nutrient management plan and that the setbacks could be met,then they would issue the permit.He stated there could be cases where the operation is so small that a waste management plan is not required.In those cases the Soil Conservation District would issue an exemption letter,which the applicant would present to the Permits Office.He stated that for applications for large operations that exceed 6,000 tons of total annual manure production,the farmer would still need a nutrient management plan and a waste management plan and the building setbacks are increased.They would follow the same procedure in place now for intensive swine and poultry facilities where they are required to prepare a concept plan to be presented at a Preliminary Consultation to discuss the project and the approval of the Planning Commission is required.He stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to impose additional requirements based on the agency comments and they have the authority to increase building setbacks however there would be a cap. A discussion followed regarding the nutrient management plan, filing procedures,how the Ordinance relates to the Comprehensive Plan,whether or not Animal Husbandry should be under the Zoning Ordinance or a separate Ordinance,setback requirements,the review process of the ordinance,and enforcement of the requirements. Mr.Moser moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners take the plan to public hearing.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. 297 298 James Hauver -Reguest to Eliminate 10 Year Family Provision: Mr.Schreiber explained that in February of 1993 a variance was granted to create a panhandle for Lot 5.He stated that during the approval it was suggested that the immediate member statement be kept on the plat since the lots would be using an existing lane. He stated James Hauver was not present at the February meeting. His brother Mark was present and agreed to leave the 10 year family member statement on the plat even though the lots met all the requirements of the subdivision ordinance in that they have their own 25 feet of public road frontage.He referred to Mr.Hauver's letter outlining his reasons for the request.A discussion followed regarding the variance that was granted and the ownership of the lots.Mr.Bowers moved that the obligation to keep the 10 year family stipulation for Lot 4 be removed from the plat. Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Revised Site Plan for ICC: Mr.Lung presented the revised site plan for the Independent Cement Company quarry expansion.He stated that the original site plan was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9,1991 with certain conditions and proceeded to review them.Mr.Lung stated that the approval of the site plan was conditioned that it would not become effective until compliance with House Bill 499 was achieved.The planning Commission's action was appealed to the Bpard of Zoning Appeals with a hearing which was held in February of 1992.Mr.Lung stated that a 19 page opinion was rendered on March 13,1992 and proceeded to summarize the actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Lung stated what they have now is a revised site plan addressing the Planning Commission's action and the Appeals Board modifications.He stated that the revised plan has changes in regard to the location of the access road,which the staff felt should be brought to the Planning Commission's attention for their approval.Mr.Lung presented a copy of the plan which the staff color coded to show the various phases of the access road construction.He explained the location of the access road on the revised plan as opposed to what was shown on the original plan and also explained the sequence of the road construction,depending on the mining expansion.Mr.Lung stated that there is a note on the plan stating that the access road is intended for agricultural activities,farm related activities and access to the three residential properties and not to be used as a haul road for quarrying activity.A discussion followed regarding the shifting of the location of the road,an assurance that haul trucks will not be using the access road and the mining area.Further discussion followed with Mr.Batey of ICC regarding the elimination of the last phase of the sequence of road construction indicated in orange,and identified as #4 on the plan.Mr.Prodonovich,of Washington County Permits and Inspections,stated that if ICC agrees to remove the road from the site plan,a revision will be needed for the record to show what was approved.He stated it is his opinion that the plan does not have to come back before the Commission,but that it could be handled by the staff. Mr.Davis stated for the record that the road noted as #1 and shaded green and the access point for Old Forge Road were never approved by the Planning Commission.He stated that the permit was issued and wanted to have a guarantee that something like that could not happen again.A discussion followed regarding how the permit was approved. Mr.Lung asked if the orange road (#4)was eliminated and is no longer the ultimate location of the access road,then the blue road (#3)as shown would be breaching the berm at two locations.He asked if the berm should be shifted to the west of the blue road. He stated if the plan is revised to remove the orange road (#4), should it also be revised to move the berm since the plan is to reflect the ultimate reclamation of the site.A discussion followed. CD.q- ,.- OJz :2: Mr.Spickler made a motion to approve the revised site plan with the green line (#1)and blue line (#3)with the elimination of the orange line (#4).Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Rod MacRae,Washington County Health Department: Mr.MacRae stated that a Commission was established in 1981 to study the quality of groundwater in the County.In 1981 a firm from Harrisburg was hired to test the water quality.He stated that in 1991 the Health Department went back and redid the study to see if there was a difference in water quality.He stated their figures were close to the original ones.As a result of the study they determined that there are areas where they have more difficulty in getting good wells particularly in the eastern section of the County and in some cases would prefer that wells not be drilled in certain areas.Mr.MacRae stated that his initial intent this evening was to lobby the Commission to create service districts outside of the Urban Growth areas,not to encourage growth but to offer an option to people who were thinking of developing.He sited an example of a proposed 40 lot subdivision, wherein after perc tests only had 8 good lots and therefore did not proceed.His thought would be to provide service,but without increasing density.A discussion followed regarding density, discharge permits,problem areas in the County,service areas, rural village designations,problems in the permit process,limited line extensions and putting permanent treatment on wells in certain areas. Mr.Iseminger stated he would like to meet with Mr.MacRae again to discuss design criteria for septic systems and maintenance. Text Amendment -One Principle Use Per lot: Mr.Arch asked the COmmission for approval to proceed with the text amendment for One Principle Use Per Lot.Unanimously approved. Text Amendment -Simplified Plat Section of the Subdivision Ordinance -Accessory Uses: Mr.Arch asked the Commission for approval to proceed with the text amendment to the Simplified Plat section of the Ordinance under Accessory Uses and explained the proposed changes.Unanimously approved. Text Amendment -Zoning Ordinance: 299 Mr.Arch stated that the Zoning Ordinance needs to be Forest Conservation to include HI-1 and HI-2. approved.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: amended under Unanimously There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. CD..q,.... ccz ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 2,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,August 2,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Ex-officio Ronald L. Bowers,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch;Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes of June 14,1993. Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Donald A.Beaver (SV-93-013): Mr.Arch presented the variance for Donald A.Beaver.The site is located at 19112 Wood Hill Drive,Foxleigh Meadows,Parcel A, Section C.The road classification is local.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.11.B,which states that all lots created shall have a minimum 25 feet of public road frontage.The request is to create a 6 acre lot without public road frontage.A discussion followed regarding the lot,restrictions,covenants, why the property was not subdivided to begin with,the flood plain, and the possibility of creating a panhandle lot.A discussion followed regarding the right-of-way width and water resources permit.Mr.Iseminger asked if they are looking to subdivide for the purpose of one lot only.Mr.Beaver stated yes.Mr.Bowers moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Moser asked that the variance be granted with a condition that a note be added to the plat stating that there will be no further subdivision of the 6 acres.Mr.Iseminger stated that if a water resources permit is required for the driveway the owner would have to obtain it and that would also be a condition.Mr.Beaver stated that he understood.All in favor.So ordered. Charles Edward Burgan,Jr.(SV-93-014): Mr.Arch presented the variance for Charles Edward Burgan,Jr.The site is located on the west side of White Oak Ridge Road,.5 miles south of Bain Road.The road classification is local.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.11.G.5,which states that panhandles shall not exceed 400 feet in length.The request is to create a 10 acre lot with a panhandle length of approximately 1200 feet,800 feet longer than allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated it is for an immediate family member but they are asking for a variance instead of using the family member provision.A discussion followed regarding the family member statement and the panhandle.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance contingent upon the family member statement being added to the plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. 301 302 Subdivisions: Van Lear Section 15,Preliminary/Final: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Section 15 of Van Lear Manor,which consists of 25 single family lots.He stated that the site is located on the north side of Sterling Road and further explained the location by referring to the plat.The property is zoned Residential Rural and is located inside the UGA. Section 15 covers 12 acres and the lots vary in size from 15,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet each.This section involves the construction of two new public streets,Connor Drive and Bowen Court.He stated that the County Engineer has approved the construction drawings for the streets and the storm water management.Mr.Lung explained that the storm water management for this section is handled within a regional facility that was constructed and approved as part of Section 14.An accel/decel lane on Sterling Road will also be constructed.Public water and sewer is proposed and has been approved by the appropriate agencies.Mr.Lung stated that this section is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because the plat was submitted prior to February 2,1993.He stated there are approximately 22 acres of remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is requesting preliminary/final approval for Section 15.He stated that all agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Richard McCleary,Huyetts Business Park Lots 2 and 2A Preliminary/Final: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Huyetts Business Park Lots 2 and 2A.He stated that a site plan for a truck terminal on this property was approved by the Commission on April 5,1993.He explained that the plat is a subdivision to create one lot around the building and an additional lot.The site is located on the west side of MD Route 63 approximately 2000 feet north of 1-70.The zoning is Highway Interchange.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission approved the site plan in April for a proposed warehouse for U.S.Cartage Inc.,which has been constructed and is in use.He stated that this subdivision plat creates Lot 2 around the building and also creates Lot 2A which contains some grading for the adjacent site,but no development. Lot 2 is just over 6 acres and Lot 2A is just under 4 acres.There are 26.4 acres of remaining lands.The plat also contains a 1.3 acre right-of-way for access which will be constructed as a new county street called Business Parkway with access onto Route 63. All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated that lot 2A is being approved at this time without any development plans and if any development is to occur on this lot,a site plan will be required.A discussion followed regarding the lots,the road to be constructed and the site plan.Mr.Lung stated that both lots are exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance,however,if development occurs on Lot 2A the Ordinance will apply to that lot only.Mr.Moser moved to approve the preliminary/final plat. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Gilbane Properties (C.E.S.l,Preliminary/Final: Mr.Arch presented the Preliminary/Final plat for Gilbane Properties (C.E.S.),which is a single lot subdivision.He stated that the Planning Commission will not be approving the site plan this evening but will need to approve several items.The items being presented are the single lot subdivision,approval of the Forest Conservation Plan and whether additional setback requirements are needed. Mr.Arch proceeded to explain the subdivision plat.Verbal approval has been received from the Health Department,Engineering Department,City of Hagerstown Water Department,City of Hagerstown CD ""'",.- CO Z ~ Water Pollution Control,Soil Conservation,and a stormwater management plan was approved by the County Engineer.Mr.Arch stated that comments from Permits and Inspections had been received.The proposed lot contains 19.29 acres with 36.9 acres remaining.Mr.Arch explained the plat stating that it is one lot (corner lot)with frontage along U.S.40 and indicated the storm water management area,the location of the proposed water line and where the building would be located and proceeded to present several architectural sketches.Mr.Bowers asked if the storm water runoff will be able to handle another parking lot for the second building.Mr.Arch stated it was sized for the entire development.He stated there are a few items which need to be corrected and will be conditions on the approval.Mr.Arch requested a condition be added to the approval regarding the Water Commission.He explained that a water line will be run and the location may be changed.The Forest Stand Delineation has been approved by the staff.Mr.Arch stated there is approximately 6/10 of an acre of trees on the property.The site does not have any flood plain areas,wetlands,steep slopes or erodible soils.Mr. Arch stated that the developer is proposing to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements by using the Payment In Lieu of Provision and that he agrees because the site is located in an industrial park and is in the middle of an Enterprise Zone.He stated that the Ordinance would require approximately 3.5 acres of forest on the site and feels that there are better places in the County to meet the intent of the Forest Conservation Act.He stated they are looking at other areas in the County and are working on the Payment in Lieu of fee.He further stated that the ~oard of Commissioners and the County Administrator are in agreement with the payment in lieu of request in this case.A discussion followed regarding sites for planting.Mr.Arch asked the Commission for their endorsement to develop a policy to address minor subdivisions.A discussion followed regarding planting in a public area,purchasing of the trees,planting of the trees,who will handle the funds and the program being developed. Mr.Arch stated that the third item deals with placing any additional setbacks on the property since it is in the HI district. He stated that the staff are not advocating that any additional setbacks be established than what currently is required.He pointed out that there is a structure on the remaining lands which is the remnants of a residence and has not been used in many years. He stated the staff will make a recommendation in the near future for that area to be designated as an HI-l area.In addition,the property is located in an industrial park and Enterprise Zone, where commercial and not residential development is encouraged.A discussion followed. Mr.Arch stated they are looking for preliminary/final plat approval,approval of the Payment In Lieu of option for the Forest Conservation Ordinance and that there not be any additional setbacks established.Mr.Bowers moved to approve the preliminary/final plat conditional on the right-of-way of the water line being established,the Payment in Lieu of provision and to not establish any additional setbacks.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr. Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission endorse the staff to continue working on a policy with regard to the Forest Conservation Act to provide the opportunity for 1 or 2 lots to use the payment in lieu of provision.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Don Allensworth stated for the record that he is opposed to the elimination of the Forest Conservation aspect in the Enterprise Zone.He feels that trees are needed in areas where people are and feels it is not in the spirit of the Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger told Mr.Allensworth that he could forward his comments to Mr.Arch. 303 304 Site Plans: Columbia Gas Supple~ental Facility: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for the Columbia Gas Supplemental Facility.He stated it is a supplemental propane facility which will be used to feed propane directly into Columbia Gas's natural gas lines in Washington County.He explained that due to the increasing gas demand,the natural gas supplies are being depleted. Columbia Gas is proposing to have an area which will have propane gas in a series of tanks.Once they are low in the natural gas, they will mix the propane with air so that it is a compatible mixture with the natural gas and this mixture will be fed into the gas lines to supplement the natural gas supply.Mr.Arch stated that this approach is a result of the deregulations of the natural gas industry.Mr.Arch explained that the supplemental system consists of a series of tanks which will be underground.The site is located along MD 144.There will not be any employees at the site on a full time basis.A special exception was granted by the Board of Appeals for the pump house and the site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered. washington County Airport: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Washington County Airport and stated that this is for a new building to be built on the site of the old airport terminal building.The site involves the construction of a 70'x 85'hangar for aircraft repair and 25'x 90'office area in the front.Mr.Lung referred to the plan and explained the location of the new building.He stated it is new construction on the old foundation and that construction is to occur wi thin the footprint of the old terminal building.The existing parking lot is to be utilized to provide parking for the 8 to 10 employees.The new office will front on the parking lot and landscaping is provided.He stated that the only outstanding item is that the Director of Permits and Inspections requested that handicap parking be added and that details need to be worked out regarding any proposed dumpster and signs,which have not been noted on the site plan.Mr.Lung stated that approval is being requested conditional on these items.A discussion followed regarding the landscaping.Mr.Ernst moved to grant site plan approval conditional on the handicap parking,sign location,and dumpster location being addressed.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Harold Eby Intensive Swine Facility: Mr.Lung briefly reviewed the summary of the preliminary consultation meeting.He stated that the consultation was for a new intensive swine facility to be located on Mr.Harold Eby's farm.The farm covers 57.5 acres and is located off of Reiff Church Road,east of Cearfoss.The property is zoned Agricultural and is located in the Rural Agricultural area.Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Eby is proposing to construct a farrow to feeder swine building approximately 204'x 51',designed to house 280 animal uni ts,the manure storage will be under the building with a capacity of 180 days of storage.He stated that Mr.Eby has been raising swine on the farm for the past 15 years and his father ran the farm 30 years prior to that.The farm currently has approximately 250 sows producing 1200 feeder pigs.In 1984 Mr.Eby constructed a waste storage lagoon,which was approved by Soil Conservation and at that time Waste Management Plans were not required.Mr.Lung stated that the existing structures and waste pit were built prior to the Zoning Ordinance requirements and proceeded to explain how the manure application is handled.The facility is to be built south of one of the existing buildings and will be 125 feet from the right-of-way of Reiff Church Road to the CD "'d",--enz ~ west,400 feet from the property line to the north,475 feet from the property line to the east,440 feet from the property line to the south.Mr.Lung stated that the Zoning Ordinance calls for a minimum building setback of 250 feet from a road right-of-way and 300 feet from the property line.The zoning Ordinance calls for a minimum of 500 feet from any adjacent residences and therefore the proposed dwelling does not meet those requirements.Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Eby intends to apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning appeals.He stated Mr.Eby was instructed to proceed with the Preliminary Consultation first,find out if the Planning Commission imposes any additional requirements and then go to the Appeals Board in case there were any other items which needed to be appealed.He stated that Mr.Eby could meet the setbacks if he shifted the building approximately 150 feet east and south,but that was not the recommendation of Soil Conservation Service based on physical conditions of the site.Mr.Lung stated that at the Preliminary Consultation the Soil Conservation Service supported the location of the facility and stated that their engineers were reviewing the construction plans and that they anticipated approval of the plans to be forthcoming.He stated that Soil Conservation reviews these plans since the waste pit is associated with these buildings and they want to be sure they are built according to SCS standards and specifications.As part of the SCS review a Waste Management Plan must be completed.This has been approved by the Soil Conservation Service.Mr.Lung explained that this plan addresses the storage and application of the manure on the facility and gives guidelines for handling flies.He stated that the Soil Conservation Service did not make any recommendations for any addi tional requirements by the Planning Commission.Mr.Lung stated that a Nutrient Management Plan is also required and is prepared by the extension agent and proceeded to explain what it entails.He stated that the extension agent has prepared the plan and based on the size of the operation,Mr.Eby does not have enough land to utilize all of the waste and has obtained written permission to spread manure on several farms including one in Pennsylvania and referred to a map showing their locations.Mr. Lung stated that Mr.Eby would be willing to not spread on the Joe Hurst farm except as a last resort,but nothing has been received in writing.He stated according to Don Schwartz,the extension agent,the use of these farms gives him enough to utilize the manure.The extension agent did not recommend any additional requirements be imposed by the Planning Commission. Mr.Lung proceeded to review the other agency comments.The County Engineer stated that the road adequacy requirements would not apply due to the low traffic.The site entrance was checked and is adequate.The Health Department stated that a Water Appropriations Permit would be needed if a new well was drilled. A discussion followed regarding the operation of the intensive swine facility,the Waste Management and Nutrient Plans,the building setbacks and the variance required,what would happen if the variance is not granted,the times when manure should be spread,how complaints are handled,the Joe Hurst farm,the disposal of dead animals,and the relationship of the farm to the Urban Growth Area. At this point the Chairman allowed several members of the audience time to speak for and against the expansion. Mr.Lung stated since there is a variance which needs to go before the Board of Appeals,if the Planning Commission wants to recommend approval of this expansion,it would have to be conditional upon the Board of Zoning Appeals granting the variance for the setbacks. He stated that the Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to establish additional requirements based on recommendations from the reviewing agencies or they can deny the application and then Mr. Eby would have the opportunity to appeal that denial to the Board of Appeals along with his appeal for the setbacks.Mr.Iseminger asked if any approval the Planning Commission granted would be contingent on'the Waste Management and Nutrient Plans going into effect.Mr.Lung stated yes and that he is still waiting receipt 305 306 of written approval from the Soil Conservation Service,because their engineers are still reviewing some revisions to the building plans.A discussion followed regarding action to be taken.Mr. Lung stated that Mr.Eby could go to the Appeals Board first, however,he would run the chance of needing to go back to the Appeals Board if the Planning Commission imposed additional requirements that he could not meet.A discussion followed regarding the size of the operation,increase of manure,the nutrient management plan,the variance required,agricultural zoning and whether additional setbacks are needed.Mr.Iseminger stated they need to determine if additional setbacks are needed. He stated based on everything presented,he does not see any reason especially when Soil Conservation has said that the proposed location is the best location for that facility.He stated they could approve the plan as submitted contingent on receiving the variance or they can wait until Mr.Eby goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals and have him come back at that time.Mr.Moser moved to approve the plan subject to the variances being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Spickler asked if that means if the Board of Zoning Appeals does not grant the variance then Mr.Eby would have to reevaluate the location and then come back to the planning Commission.So ordered.Mr. Iseminger stated that the plan is approved subject to the variance being issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals and that the Planning Commission will not impose any additional requirements.A discussion followed regarding the disposal of dead animals. Other Business: APFO Six Month Report: Mr.Arch referred to the report for the last 6 months.Mr. Iseminger asked if there were any significant impacts.Mr.Arch stated no and that he needed action to continue it.Mr.Moser made a motion to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners to continue the Ordinance as written and amended and asked that the County Commissioners give consideration to creating a committee on impact fees.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Group I Staff Report: Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt a workshop meeting is needed to discuss Group I.A discussion followed regarding the steps involved and changes to the recommendation.Mr.Arch asked the Planning Commission if they were satisfied with the text amendments that they go ahead and approve them this evening.Mr.Ernst moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the text amendments.Seconded by Mr.Moser.The workshop meeting was tentatively scheduled for Monday,August 9,1993 at 11:00 a.m.A discussion followed. Lewis Estates: Mr.Bowers stated he was contacted by Mr.Meadows and referred to the correspondence in the agenda packet regarding mobile homes.He stated that if the owner is putting mobile homes in,it should be under the supervision of the Health Department.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Arch to look at the original subdivision and bring it to the next regular meeting and see if they are in compliance and to check with the Health Department what they have done.Mr.Arch stated he would do so. CD...q ,- COz ::2E Sanitary District: Mr.Arch stated he asked Mr.Lynn Palmer of the Sanitary District to attend a Planning Commission meeting to discuss the water and sewer plan,septic tanks,cumulative effect of large lots,and designs of septic systems.Mr.Palmer informed him he would need about two weeks to prepare for a meeting.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr. Bowers if the Board of Commissioners would want to attend.Mr. Bowers felt they should be invited.It was decided to schedule a workshop meeting at the next regular meeting. Agricultural Advisory Board: Mr.Iseminger stated that the Agricultural Advisory Board has requested another joint meeting with the Planning Commission.The members were in agreement and asked Mr.Arch to schedule it.A discussion followed. Mr.Don Allensworth asked if as a routine that the Planning Commission with variances,site plans,subdivision,and preliminary consultations allow limited comments from the developer and citizens before a decision is reached.He stated that this is not required by the law but that some counties do allow this to satisfy the needs of the citizens.Mr.Iseminger stated that they will take it under advisement.Mr.Moser asked that the staff research to see how it is handled in other counties. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjou~ed at 9:45 p.m. 307 (0 -::t or- aJ Z ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -AUGUST II,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,August 11,1993 in the third floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Edward J.Schreiber and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were Carol Johnson and Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 11:05 a.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Group I -Highway Interchange: Mr.Iseminger stated they were meeting to review Group I of the Highway Interchange study.A discussion followed regarding Conservation zoning.Mr.Iseminger referred to the staff report and stated that the staff did a good job in summarizing it.Mr. l\rch stated that Mr.France reviewed the report from a legal prospective and did not have a problem with it.Mr.Arch stated that the staff report attempted to address comments about what was proposed by the staff as well as suggested changes presented in the written and oral testimony.Mr.Spickler asked if their purpose today was to discuss the issues and make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners or will they have another meeting.Mr. Iseminger stated he felt they could go ahead and make recommendations regarding zoning for specific parcels in the interchanges with these recommendations being forwarded to the County Commissioners.He stated that the Commissioners could then decide if they wanted to accept the recommendations or make changes before going to public hearing. 1-70 and MD 65: Mr.Arch stated that testimony was presented at the hearing regarding the Barkdoll tract and referred to the area on the plat. He stated that this area is where the staff recommended HI-1 and that the developer is requesting HI-2 for part of the tract.Mr. Arch stated that the developer is already in the approval process and has submitted a Forest Stand Delineation and Preliminary Consultation.Mr.Arch stated that after reviewing the request, the staff recommends establishing an area for HI-2 as requested along with retaining the area along MD 65 as HI-1 in accordance with what was previously recommended.Mr.Arch stated that the Review and Herald requested that if part of the Barkdoll tract was zoned HI-2,then they would like 40 acres of their property to also be HI-2. Mr.Arch stated that the other area they received comments on was the Plummer tract,which is located along East Oak Ridge Drive.He stated they received recommendations from the public and the town of Funkstown to make it HI-2 in order to act as a buffer area for residential development or low intensity commercial development between the existing nearby residential housing and the higher intensity commercial or manufacturing operations permitted under the HI-1 classification.Mr.Arch stated that the staff did not entirely agree with their request.The staff felt that area has been developed as an industrial park and to make it HI-2 at this time would generate nonconforming uses,but they do feel there is some merit to having a transitional area.Mr.Arch stated that they propose the area where there are vacant lots to be IT - 309 310 Industrial Transitional.The staff felt this designation would be better than HI-2 because this would eliminate the residential element and limit impact to the adjacent properties.Mr.Arch stated that the IT designation will not take in the existing buildings because they do not want to create any nonconforming use. Mr.Arch stated that the third area of consideration is Hilton Smith's property (aka Cross Creek).He stated that Mr.Smith presented a revised plan requesting changes to the zoning after the 10 day period.Mr.Schreiber stated that a preliminary consultation and plans had been submitted,but at this time Mr. Smith wants to drop the idea of HI-1 in the northeast quadrant of MD 65 because he feels the commercial market will not push it quickly and would rather see it as residential.He stated Mr. Smith's letter requests that the east side of the railroad tracts be HI-1 down to Poffenberger Road with HI-2 sandwiched in where construction is currently underway.Mr.Arch stated that the staff does not have a problem with designating the area along I-70 as HI-1.He stated there is talk of putting a bus terminal behind McDonalds,which will necessitate changes in traffic flow patterns. He stated if that happens,staff will want to see a traffic study. Mr.Arch stated that installation of a traffic light at the entrance to the MVA building is being discussed.He stated he did not see a problem with designating the area adjacent to I-70 as HI-1 because of the visibility from I-70 but felt that the area along Poffenberger Road should be HI-2.Mr.Arch stated they want to make sure what is proposed will work and take into consideration the long term plans of a property owner.He stated that Mr.Smith is proposing that the entire area be rezoned HI-1 but staff has concerns with that request.He stated staff feels the area near Poffenberger Road should remain HI-2 and act as a transitional area.Mr.Spickler had a question about the modification in the plan and whether it was submitted in the 10 day period.Mr.Arch stated it was not submitted in the 10 day period and that the Planning Commission does not have to consider it.He stated that Mr.Smith is asking for this change because the market has changed and he wants to maximize his potential for nonresidential markets. Mr.Arch stated that just because he wants to do that does not mean they have to do that.A discussion followed regarding Mr.Smith's plans.Mr.Arch stated that the staff had problems with changing the areas adjoining the Agricultural Districts and felt they should be transitional.Mr.Iseminger stated that the area along MD 65 limi ts the type of operations permitted.He stated if they open up a huge tract of land to HI-1 they will get into uses that will generate traffic that will conflict with the residential traffic and local services that will be served along MD 65.Mr.Arch stated that this section of MD 65 is a problem area and is being studied by the State.A discussion followed regarding the master plan originally presented for Hilton Smith's property,traffic in the area,and the State's plans for the area. Mr.Moser inquired about the HI-2 requests for the Barkdoll property and the Review and Herald.He asked if that would lessen the impact on MD 65.He stated he is concerned with that area and does not feel they have the road network to handle the projected growth and is concerned with how the proposed rezoning will affect the traffic.A discussion followed regarding the traffic problem, queuing lengths,stacking lanes,HI-2 zoning,limiting density, traffic reports.Mr.Ernst asked if the reason why they are looking at HI-2 is because plans have already been submitted.Mr. Arch stated yes and that he felt they should give their request consideration.Mr.Iseminger stated he wants an independent traffic study done and that he does not have a problem with the HI- 2 zoning.He feels they will have a problem with the densities. Mr.Ernst has a problem with having a sliver of HI-2.He agrees with Mr.Moser to let the developer proceed but feels they should be made aware that they have a limited time frame to work in.A discussion followed regarding Review and Herald's request,the traffic study and timing on the interchanges.It was decided by consensus to proceed to Interchange I-70 and U.S.40 and then come back to MD 65. (0 ~,.- OJz :?£ I-70 and U.S.40: Mr.Arch stated they received a request from Kent Oliver to consider adding an additional 20.2 acre parcel to the HI-I zoning since it is a pocket area.Mr.Arch stated that Staff did not see a problem with it.A discussion followed.All members were in agreement to add it to the HI-l zoning. I-70 and MD 65: Mr.Arch went back to the Plummer tract located along East Oak Ridge Drive.Mr.Arch referred to the vacant lots and asked if they wanted to designate them as IT.A discussion followed regarding HI-I,the area in question,time limits,allowed uses in IT,and transitional zoning in the area.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission could make the recommendation to change the area as per the staff report.Mr.Spickler moved that they make the area of vacant lots IT,Industrial Transitional,in compliance with the recommendations of the staff report.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated before proceeding with the next area that the IT designation was done based on the assumption that the Commission members would agree on a delay.A discussion followed regarding the length of time they were looking at.Mr.Arch stated that the time period would be something that the Board would have to adopt and be consistent.Mr.Moser stated that he felt 2 years would be ~viable time period to work with and felt that they should not base the time frame on the market conditions.A discussion followed regarding the time frame,plat submittal,plans,2 year grace period,and the problems that may occur by allowing the 2 year grace period. Mr.Spickler stated that they are now considering the Barkdoll tract along with the Review and Herald property.A discussion followed regarding the proposed zoning,the traffic in the area and the traffic study.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend HI-2 for the Barkdoll tract as shown on the Preliminary Consultation and the 40 acres of the Review and Herald property.Seconded by Mr.Moser. So ordered. Mr.Arch asked the Commission members if they wanted to address Hilton Smith's request even though it was submitted past the 10 day time limit.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to make the upper portion of Hilton Smith's property HI-Ion the east side of the railroad tracks.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler made a motion to change the area along the I-70 corridor to HI-I as reflected in Mr.Smith's concept plan for the preliminary consultation,with the boundary line to be the northern most major access road running east and west off of MD 65.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger asked about the area in the northeast quadrant of MD 65 and Poffenberger Road and asked if that should be changed to residential.A discussion followed regarding changing it to HI-2.Mr.Iseminger asked if they make it HI-2 how would it be affected?Mr.Arch stated it would be developed as residential and that the small area along MD 65 will be HI-I,which will take some pressure off of MD 65.Mr.Spickler made a motion to change the area in the northeast quadrant of MD 65 and Poffenberger Road to HI-2.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. I-70 and MD 66: Mr.Arch stated that the only requested change recommended for approval was presented by Mr.and Mrs.Easterday.He stated they have an existing commercial business and the staff feels it is a valid point for a BL -Business Local designation for that property.Mr.Arch stated he spoke to Ralph France who did not see the need for a special public hearing to put the IM -Industrial Mineral designation as proposed by staff,since it has now been requested by the property owner.Mr.Arch reviewed the names of 311 312 the people he received testimony from and their request.He stated that except for the Easterday property the staff did not see the need for any changes.A discussion followed regarding the expansion of BE1"lter Cree.k Golf Course,allowed uses in the Conservation zoning,agricul tural requests,environmentally sensitive areas,BL designation,the water shed,the Barr property, the differences between Conservation and Agricultural zoning.Mr. Moser moved to accept the staff's recommendation to establish an 1M floating zone on the Mellott properties and to change the zoning designation for the Easterday property to Business Local with the rest remaining Conservation.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.A discussion followed regarding the Barr farm.On a call for the motion,Mr. Moser,Mr.Ernst,Mr.Bowen and Mr.Iseminger voted 'aye'.Mr. Spickler voted 'nay'.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Commission would go on record,if Mr.Barr would put the farm in Ag preservation easement,that all consideration would be given to their circumstances.A discussion followed. Lewis Estates: Mr.Arch stated he looked into Lewis Estates as requested by the Commission and that there were only 4 lots there. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch asked the Commission if they wanted to have another If,(orkshop meeting.It was decided to schedule the meeting for Wednesday,September 8,1993 at 11:00 a.m.to discuss the Water and Sewer Plan and the Forest Conservation Ordinance. A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 1:00 P.M. \JAlIM\IJ~,.,.....---..... CD-:::t,- a::l Z :2: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -SEPTEMBER 8,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday,September 8,1993 in the third floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Carol Johnson, Donald Spickler and EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers. Consultants present:Martin Tucker,Fox and Associates;Jerry Cump,Cump and Associates;Mack Davis, Davis,Renn and Associates; Rich Reichenbaugh,Associated Engineering;and Fred Frederic and Steve Zoretich of Frederick,Seibert and Associates. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 11:00 a.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Forest Conservation Ordinance: Mr.Arch stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the process involved with small subdivisions.He stated that the process of going through the Forest Stand Delineation,the creation of a Forest Conservation Plan and the cost associated with it impacts the minor subdivisions tremendously.He stated that the Planning staff would like to develop a program to provide an opportunity under the payment in lieu of provision,for the small developer.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning staff wanted a cutoff threshold which the Planning Commission would need to approve.He stated that the money would be put into a fund and trees would be planted in environmentally sensitive areas.He stated that the Planning staff feels that the intent of the Forest Conservation Act is not being complied with by the way the Act is structured to work at this time.He referred to the section in the ordinance where after two years the money must be given back if not used.He stated that staff would want to waiver that because it may take longer to package the necessary funds.Mr.Arch stated that he felt they should take an integrated planning approach utilizing what is mandated under the Forest Conservation Ordinance to meet the obligations underneath the environmental sensitive area element as well as the additional policies evolving from the development of the Maryland Tributary Strategy program.He stated that trees should be placed in the best place to do the best possible environmental job instead of having patches of trees which will not benefit the environment.He stated a program of this nature would save costs to the average property owner as well as providing a mechanism for the consultant to work with. Mr.Goodrich stated he had worked on calculations for small subdivisions and proceeded to give an example of why the staff feels the program should be modified for small developments.He referred to a plat recently received where the entire property consisted of 4.3 acres.The owner wants to subdivide one lot, approximately 3/4 of an acre.He s.tated that in doing the calculations they would be required to reserve .64 acres for afforestation or pay a fee in lieu of,of approximately $2,800.00. He stated that the Planning staff felt that this was a disproportionate burden for the creation of one lot.He stated that staff is suggesting that the program be modified so that the developer goes straight to the fee.He stated that the County will collect the fee and when they get enough,the planting will be put 313 'ii 314 Mr.Arch noted this procedure would bypass completing:the Forest Stand Delineation Plan,the Forest Conservation Plan,installation of trees,obtaining a bond,and elimination of obligations associated with a maintenance agreement and easement.It would provide a cost effective method for a developer to meet his obligations while giving the County a source of funds. At this point Mr.Iseminger gave the consultants the opportunity to speak.Steve Zoretich of Frederick,Seibert and Associates presented two examples of small subdivisions his firm is currently working on.He explained that one is a 3 lot subdivision consisting of 3 acres with old pines,which qualifies as a forest. He stated that they are required to replace the trees with 3/4 of an acre of forest.Mr.Zoretich felt that it would be better if the process was streamlined.He pointed out that if forests are created on these small subdivisions,it will be the County's responsibility to enforce the maintenance of the forest.A discussion followed regarding the costs involved in preparing the plans required by the Ordinance,planting on and off site and thresholds involved. Mr.Frederick cited an example of the cost involved with a 40,000 square foot lot that is zoned Agricultural.He stated they would be required to make 8,000 square feet a forest.He further explained that 10,000 square feet of that lot would be used for the septic area,which does not permit trees in that area.He pointed out there would be an area for the driveway,house and well,which makes it almost impossible to get 8,000 square feet on a one acre or 40,000 square foot lot.Mr.Frederick stated that many of his clients are farmers who want to subdivide one or two lots to generate cash.He stated it is not cost effective for them to plant a forest and that they have lost over 20 small projects because of the costs involved and questions if prospective buyers would want to purchase a 40,000 square foot lot with an 8,000 square foot easement that they cannot do anything with.He stated that if the payment in lieu of applied to the small subdivisions, then the farmer would only have to pay $800.00 and the forest could be put where it is needed.Mr.Moser stated that the idea has merit but he was concerned if there was a critical area on a small project and wanted to know how it would.be handled.A discussion followed regarding the critical areas and what would be eligible. Mr.Iseminger asked the consultants what size threshold they were seeking.A discussion followed regarding how other Maryland counties have been affected by the Ordinance,having the County acquire a large piece of ground for a planting area and planting in critical areas,threshold to be used and whether the threshold should be applied to minor subdivisions in Conservation zoning. Mr.Moser stated that 5 lots would be sufficient as a threshold. Jerry Cump suggested buying areas along the streams.A discussion followed regarding fees,DNR,how the payment in lieu of is to be handled,tree banking and purchasing easements. Further discussion followed regarding whether the threshold would be 5 lots or less with a cap of 2 acres or less to be planted,the review process,minor subdivisions,site plans,cost of planting trees,areas that need to be planted,having a provision for critical areas,and when a forest stand delineation must be done, and whether the entire tract needs to be shown when there is a 1-4 lot subdivision of a farm. Mr.Moser asked Mr.Goodrich to take what was presented and come back with a recommendation.Mr.Goodrich asked if the Planning Commission is agreeable to have a modified amendment for a small subdivisions.The Planning Commission members stated yes.Mr. Goodrich stated that the next step would be for the staff to put it in writing with the procedures and thresholds and then present it to the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch stated that staff will touch base with DNR to be sure that what is proposed is agreeable with them.Mr.Moser asked if there was a Forestry Board in the County and if they are receiving any input from them,if not,they should. co ""'",.-ccz ~ He also stated that he feels that tree banking has merit.Mr. Goodrich stated they will be involved in developing an inventory of sites to plant trees.A discussion followed regarding tree banks, the Forestry Board and problems that may be incurred in location surveys with legal easements. Mr.Iseminger asked staff to come back with something in writing. Discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. 315 CD ~ ~ OJz :2: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 13,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,September 13,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson,Robert E. Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C. Arch,Associate Planners:Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was ex-officio Ronald L. Bowers. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Iseminger referred to the minutes of July 12,1993,under Unfinished Business -Rockland Forest Conservation Ordinance Variance Request.He stated that Mr.Spickler clarified the motion to approve the variance reducing the total number of acres that would come under the Forest Conservation Ordinance and stated that the requirements for providing bonds to insure construction of the golf course are removed from the previous action.He asked if they still have provisions for the phasing.Mr.Arch stated that they are still subject for the first 74 lots.Mr.Spickler suggested changing the wording from "All other requirements for providing bonds to insure construction of the golf course are removed from the previous action"to "All other requirements for providing bonds to insure construction of the golf course are separate from the issue of Forest Conservation;however,it will be addressed at a later date."Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of August 2,1993. Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of August 11,1993. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: John and Marcia Emanuelson: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for John and Marcia Emanuelson. The site is located along the east side of Chestnut Grove Road and is zoned Conservation.The request is to create a 3 acre lot for an immediate family member off of an existing private lane with 7.2 acres remaining.The proposed lot is situated approximately 500 feet from Chestnut Grove Road.The variance is from Section 405.11.B1 of the Zoning Ordinance,which states that all newly created lots must have access on a private road or right-of-way existing at the time of the parcel's acquisition by the current owner.Mrs.Pietro stated that the staff does not feel that the existing access proposed meets the intent of the subdivision ordinance.She stated that her field observation concludes that the lane has been used to go to the rear of the property to cut down trees and that the only residence it serves is the one at the front of the property.A discussion followed regarding the location of the proposed lot,future development,the right-of-way and the adequacy of Chestnut Grove Road.Mr.Emanuelson agreed to add a note to the plat stating that right-of-way goes with the lot and that there will be no further subdivision of the parcel.Mr. Ernst moved to grant the variance to create the lot with the 317 318 existing lane as the right-of-way,no further subdivision and to include the 10 year family member statement on the plat.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.On a call for the motion Mr.Moser and Mrs. Johnson voted 'Nay'and Mr.Spickler,Mr.Ernst,Mr.Bowen and Mr. Iseminger voted 'Aye'.So ordered. Subdivisions: Fairway Meadows Section C -preliminary Plat: Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary plat for Fairway Meadows Section Clots 61-121.He stated that this section is located south of the already approved and partially developed section of Fairway Meadows,off of Londontowne Drive.This section consists of 62 lots on of 38 acres.The development is located inside the Urban Growth Area and the zoning is Residential Rural.The lots range in size from 15,000 square feet to over an acre.He stated the reason for the larger lots is that there is some flood plain in the area. Mr.Lung stated that this section involves the extension of Links View Drive,westminster Court and Londontowne Drive and further explained why Londontowne Drive ends in a temporary t-turn around. The connection to Landis Road cannot occur until such time that Landis Road is improved.He stated there is a deeded access strip between lots 120 and 121,for future access to the Black Rock County Park.Storm water management is being handled in three areas to be turned over to the County.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the flood plain, lot configuration,access to Landis Road,the temporary t-turn around and the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Moser asked if there could be an agreement stating at such time that Landis Road is improved,the t-turn around would be eliminated.Mr.Lung stated that could be part of the final record plat and that he would meet with the County Engineer.A discussion followed regarding the cost of the road connection.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary approval.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Site Plans: McDonalds Restaurant -Route 64/Smithsburg (Village Sguare Shopping Center: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for McDonalds Restaurant.The site is located in the Village Shopping Center off of Rt.64 in Smithsburg.The site is zoned BL -Business Local.The total area to be leased is .54 acres and the total area of the site is 5.7 acres.The building area is approximately 2,000 square feet. There will be a total of 12 parking spaces on the site,15 are required.The other three spaces will be picked up in the existing parking in front of the stores.There will be no outside storage areas and the hours will be from 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.7 days a week.There will be delivery twice a week.There is a trash enclosure.The only signage is on the building.Parking lights will be at 25 feet high.The site will be served by public water and sewer.There will be no patio furniture or play area.Mrs. Pietro explained the location of the landscaping.She stated that on the old site plan for Burger Park,the Planning Commission requested that a buffer be added to the site.The proposed buffer consists of 4 -5 foot western white pines.There is a pump station on the site,which is owned by the Sanitary District.Mrs. Pietro explained the access and exit areas and loading zone.All the approvals are in.Mr.Iseminger asked about the screening. Mrs.Pietro stated she was concerned with the white pines because they have a tendency to branch out.She stated the other vegetation was more compact,but would not have been as tall.Mr. Iseminger asked why they changed or if the developer had an objection in changing it.A discussion followed with the consultant,Bill Brennan of KCI Associates,who stated they did not have a problem in changing it if the adjacent homeowners wanted a different type of planting.Mr.Iseminger stated they should give the residents the option and asked that staff coordinate a meeting CD ~,..... COz ::::2: with the adjacent homeowners.A discussion followed regarding the parking area,traffic flow,what had been previously approved, turning radius,the pump station and the size of the proposed building. Mr.Spickler moved to grant approval of the site plan since it meets all the zoning requirements.Seconded by Carol Johnson.Mr. Grunberg of Lee Builders asked if the decision of the type of trees will hold up the site plan.Mr.Iseminger stated no and that they are to meet with the homeowners.Mr.Iseminger asked if the lighting will be directed away from the residences.Mr.Brennan stated yes and proceeded to describe the lighting.Mr.Iseminger stated that motion was on the floor.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. C.E.S.: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for C.E.S and stated that the subdivision plat had previously been approved by the Commission. He stated the site plan contains the card center and a day care facility.All agency approvals have been received.He stated that a 2 story building is being proposed with parking for approximately 600 vehicles.Mr.Arch proceeded to explain the stormwater management pond,the lighting,landscaping,traffic flow and location of the dumpster.Mr.Arch stated that the only outstanding issue is the fire hydrants.He referred to comments from the Halfway Fire Company,which requested three fire hydrants on the site.He stated that one fire hydrant is shown on the site "and that the consultant is working with the fire marshall on the hydrant question;in addition,the buildings will have sprinklers. Access will be onto Western Maryland Parkway.Documents for the water line easement have been received and have been forwarded to the City of Hagerstown Water Department for their review.A discussion followed regarding the fire hydrants,recyclables and future bus route to that area.Mr.Spickler asked about the payment in lieu of for the forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated that the developer has met his obligation.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Davis,the consultant,to have the developer submit a letter explaining how they will handle the recycling issue.Mr. Moser moved to grant site plan approval subject to agency approvals and that the recycling issue be addressed.Seconded by Mrs. Johnson.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. APFO Determination: Mike Jennings -Reed Road: Mr.Arch handed out additional information to the Commission members.He referred to Mr.Jennings letter requesting an exemption from the Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Jennings wants to create a one lot subdivision along Reed Road,which will generate a need for improvements of the road.He stated there is approximately 1,500 feet which would need to be widened approximately two feet in accordance with the APFO.Mr.Arch referred to a similar case,which the Planning Commission turned down citing that they could not grant approval according to the Ordinance and stated it went before the Board of Appeals and was approved.Mr.Arch stated that currently a lot exists that was created by the simplified plat process.The owner wants to develop the lot which would change the status of the lot and bring it under the APFO.Mr.Jennings asked if all roads through Washington County must be 16 feet.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Ordinance is very explicit for what the Planning Commission can approve.A discussion followed regarding a subdivision in the area for existing lots prior to the APFO.Mr. Iseminger stated that Mr.Jennings could go to the Board of Appeals or to the Board of Commissioners.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler had a question about the subdivision plat stating that the lot was for agricultural uses.Mr.Frederick explained the history of the property and stated that the lot is taxed as residential, 319 320 but Mr.Jennings cannot use it as residential.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser stated that Mr.Jennings made several good points but he feels they should be made before the Board of Appeals.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the APFO exemption request and stated that if this is presented to the Board of Appeals,that they take into consideration that the Planning Commission did not have any objection to the request based on the facts presented.Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered. A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission did not have an objection to the variance but they could not approve it according to their powers stated in the Ordinance. Other Business: Beaver Creek Recreation Site Plan (Information Only): Mr.Arch stated he has been informed by the consultant,Jerry Cump that the plat he has is outdated and a new plan should be ready for the Planning Commission to review soon.Mr.Arch stated the site is in the Beaver Creek area off of Stottlemyer Road next to the Family Recreation facility.The developer is proposing to put in a slide and other recreational items.He stated that Paul Prodonovich determined that it is recreational which falls under the category where no site plan is required to come before the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch stated he felt it should be brought to the Planning Commission for their information. Rowland Brandenburg (Pleasant View Heights): Mr.Arch referred to the information in the packet.He stated that this item and the next are similar.The plats were submitted prior to the Forest Conservation Act and for one reason or another the lots were withdrawn.The conditions in both cases stated that since they were submitted before the Forest Conservation Ordinance they should receive credit for those lots.The Planning staff's position is that if a uniqueness can be shown they would consider it. A discussion followed regarding Mr.Brandenburg's request.Mr. Arch stated he was concerned with setting a precedent.Mr. Frederick,the consultant,stated he spoke to Ralph France,who agreed with him and suggested that he present his request to the Planning Commission.He referred to his letter to Mr.Arch of August 10,1993 and proceeded to give a brief history of the subdivision and stated that the lots were withheld at the time because they were under negotiations with the Engineering Department.Mr.Frederick submitted additional information from the Health Department from 1990 showing that all 16 lots were satisfactorily perked.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler stated he felt that this case does have unique characteristics.Mr. Iseminger stated since the County was the one holding up the lots it should not be held against them.Mr.Ernst moved that the lots are exempt due to the unique characteristics presented.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Iseminger stated in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance as written and as in compliance with the State requirements.So ordered. Triple J Custom Builders: Mr.Arch stated this is a similar request.The plat was submitted to the Planning Commission in 1990 and they approved 8 lots contingent upon certain road improvements being made.He stated that the road improvements were made but in that process only 6 lots had good percs.Those 6 lots were recorded and have been developed.Mr.Arch stated that the developer is now asking for the other two lots to be exempt.One lot has a good perc and the other has been approved for a sand mound.Mr.Arch stated he did not have any additional information and suggested that the Planning Commission table this request until the next meeting to give the f' CD "¢ ,.- 0) z ~ developer an opportunity to speak.A discussion followed.Mr. Moser moved to table the request until they received further information on the uniqueness of the situation.Seconded by Mrs. Johnson.So ordered. Lynn Palmer,Sanitary District: Mr.Palmer stated he wanted to discuss the cost of providing sewer and water to existing subdivisions in the County.He stated that the Sanitary District has spent over $70 million in line work in the last 8 years and over $110 million in water and sewer projects. Mr.Palmer stated he is concerned when a group of people in a community request public facilities be installed versus the residents that do not want them installed.He referred to Resh Road and Spade .Road where most of the homes in that area are around 25 years in age and now their water is bad and they are demanding public water.He stated the problem is that the average cost is $14,000.00 to install a sewer collection system and $7,000.00 to install a water system after the subdivision has been built.The Sanitary District is concerned and would like the Planning Commission to give consideration to limiting the number of lots in developments inside the UGA or require that public facilities be installed.He stated he checked with the homebuilders in the area and the difference in developing a per lot cost for a subdivision with and without public utilities is $4,000.00.He feels that the facilities should be required when the subdivisions are put in the UM. Mr.Palmer referred to developments outside of the UGA, particularly the strip developments and feels there should be a limit on those properties until public facilities are available. He stated he would like to work something out with the Planning Commission and cited that there are enough approved lots to last until the year of 2010 at the current growth rate.He feels they should do something to keep this problem from happening.Mr. Iseminger stated that he agrees and that they have spoken to Rod MacRae of the Health Department concerning the problem areas in the County and that they should steer clear from them or at least increase the requirements.Mr.Palmer stated one of the problems he has is that 70 percent of the systems that fail are never corrected because they fail down and not up.He stated the real failure is when the sewage enters the underground water system and gave an example.Mr.Palmer stated that they should protect the homeowners and the taxpayers.A discussion followed regarding connecting wi thin the UGA.Mr.Palmer stated he has asked the County Commissioners for a major task force with someone representing the Planning Commission,the facilities,and major lending institutions.He stated his concern is to economically provide this service.Mr.Iseminger stated they have initiated talks with the City of Hagerstown.A discussion followed regarding keeping effluent out of the streams,and location of treatment plants.Mr.Palmer stated that the Commissioners were receptive to his request for a task force and thought it should be considered. Mr.Moser stated he feels that someone from the State should also be present.A discussion followed regarding potential problem areas,and Continental.Mr.Palmer stated that he supports the Urban Growth Area concept.A discussion followed regarding development outside of the UGA.Mr.Palmer stated that he feels there has to be some way to develop a plan to address the problems better.He asked that the Planning Commission support the Sanitary District in this request to the County Commissioners for a task force.Mr.Spickler stated he is not sure if regulations are the answer.Mr.Palmer stated that it now costs them $21,000.00 per unit to retro fit the sewer versus the $4,000.00 at the beginning of development.A discussion followed regarding what is being done about the contaminated water in Rohersville and Brownsville areas, impact fees,and density outside the UGA.Mr.Arch stated he felt that the main point Mr.Palmer wanted to make is that development inside the UGA should mandate the use of the facilities.Mr. Palmer stated he felt the problem is much larger and feels that the communi ty should get together with a task force.A discussion 321 322 followed.It was decided that Mr.Palmer would send a letter to the County Commissioners following up on his request to appoint a Task Force Committee and that the Planning Commission would also send a letter to the County Commissioners supporting that request. Workshop Meetings: A joint meeting with the Historic District Commission was tentatively scheduled for Monday,October 25,1993. A joint meeting ~'ith the Boonsboro Planning Commission was tentatively scheduled for Monday,November 22,1993. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch reminded the Planning Commission of the joint rezoning hearing on Monday,September 20,1993 at 7:00 p.m.,the workshop meeting with the Agricultural Advisory Board on Monday,September 27,1993 and the public hearing for the Animal Husbandry Ordinance on Tuesday,September 28,1993. Upcoming Projects: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the items that the staff is working on which includes update of the water and sewer plan and the recycling plan and text amendments.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated that staff is working on the transportation plan.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourn~d at 9:30 p.m. (,0 ..q- ,.-coz :2 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -SEPTEMBER 27,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,September 27,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol.Johnson and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner; Eric Seifarth and Secretary,Deborah Kirkpatrick.Absent were Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers. Agricultural Advisory Board members present:Steve Ernst,Charlie Wiles and Paul Reid. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:10 P.M. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr.Arch stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to continue the discussion the Planning Commission began with the Agricultural Advisory Board at the March 22,1993 meeting regarding yarious options for the preservation of ag land. Mr.Seifarth introduced Joe Tassone and Pat Goucher from the Maryland Office of Planning.He referred to the Planning Commission and Ag Board's previous discussions regarding preservation of ag land,how it can be achieved and funding.He presented the Ag Farm Land map and stated even though Washington County is one of the most threatened counties in losing ag land, they do not feel it is immediate.Mr.Seifarth referred to the farm land protection techniques sheet he handed out and reviewed the items that the Ag Board is currently pursuing.Of the six items available,they are doing all except down zoning and TDRs. The Ag Advisory Board is at a point of obtaining more money for easements or trying one of the options they have not yet done.A discussion followed regarding transfer of development rights (TORs).Steve Ernst pointed out if TORs are used then every acre will have to be designated as sending or receiving.The program will not work if only a portion of the county is designated and stated that the farmers do not like it because their equity is taken away.Mr.Seifarth brief ly reviewed how TORs work and proceeded to give an example and stated that Montgomery County is one of only a few counties where this program has worked.He also stated that according to a report from the Chesapeake Bay Commission studying TORs through out the country,they will not work if the entire sending area is not downzoned.He stated they would also need to have a good real estate market with steady growth.He felt that Washington County may not be ready for TORs for another 10 years.Mr.Tassone further explained TORs,sending and receiving areas,Montgomery County's TOR program,and downzoning.Mr.Arch suggested down zoning across the board inside and outside the UGA.He stated that the receiving area would be inside the UGA and the sending area would be outside the UGA.He proceeded to give an example and explained how the farmer's equity would be preserved.He stated there will never be enough money to buy all the easements to save the amount of farm land proposed for preservation.Steve Ernst stated that the County is losing farmers because they can get more equity outside of the County with less restrictions on the farmer,especially the swine industry.He stated that Mr.Arch's plan would be a viable option if the farmer's equity is maintained.A discussion followed regarding TORs,how the TOR equity would be established,land preservation, ag land,TORs in other counties,the Mennonite community and preservation of their farm land,and what is done in Frederick and Montgomery Counties. 323 324 Mr.Spickler stated that they recognize that there are problems with permitted uses in the Ag areas and want to know what can be done to preserve the equity and feels that TDRs are not the answer. A discussion followed regarding how the present Ag zoning threatens the farmer,the current ag preservation program,the sale of easements prior to downzoning,the use of impact fees to generate revenue,retaining the farmer's equity and downzoning. A discussion followed regarding 30 year easements instead of permanent ones,downzoning,the use of clustering,density outside the UGA and impact fees. Mr.Iseminger stated he felt they should meet again in a working session.Steve Ernst suggested contacting the Farm Bureau and that the ag community to explain the direction that is being taken and ask for their input.Discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Bertrand L.Iseminger, CD ~,.- COz ::2: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 4,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 4,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bert Iseminger,Vice Chairman; Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,EX-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers, Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director; Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Steve Goodrich,Associate Planners; Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Absent was Carol Johnson. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Spickler had a question regarding the minutes of September 8, 1993,which was answered by Mr.Goodrich.Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Before proceeding with old business,Mr.Arch requested that the McDonalds site plan be added to the agenda.He explained that the proposed site is in Clear Spring and that the Planning Commission would be secondary review.Mr.Spickler moved that the McDonald's site plan be added to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Bowers. OLD BUSINESS: Triple J Custom Builders Request from the Forest Conservation Ordinance: Mr.Arch stated this request was presented at the previous regular Planning Commission meeting and that the Planning Commission tabled the request in order to give the owner the opportunity to speak and to prove that his case was unique.Mr.James Welch,the developer of Clear Spring Farms stated that the subdivision had been submitted in 1991.Before proceeding with the subdivision,the road had to be widened at a cost of $50,000.He stated when the lots were perked,two lots (13A and 13b)did not pass at that time. Since that time,one lot was approved for conventional septic and the other for sand mound.Mr.Welch stated that since the Forest Conservation Ordinance came into effect while he was already in the subdivision process,he felt that the two lots should be exempted. A discussion followed.Mr.Bowers moved to grant the request for exemption from the Forest Conservation Ordinance due to the hardship presented.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed. Rockland -Cluster Setbacks: Mr.Goodrich referred to his memo which explains why this is before the Commission again.He stated that last year the developer came before the Commission for approval of the use of the cluster provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and referred to the memo of January 22,1993.Mr.Goodrich stated that during the meeting,the staff presented the request which included a reduction in the building setback lines and lot size.The developer stated that reduced setbacks would not be needed and'indicated they would use the setbacks required in the Agricultural Zoning.The developer now realizes they cannot use the Agricultural setbacks and would like to use the setbacks from the Residential Suburban zoning to go along with the reduced lot areas.Mr.Goodrich stated he felt it would be best for the Planning Commission to formally approve the 325 326 request.Mr.Goodrich stated that the developer is asking the Planning Commission to consider the reduction of the setbacks from the Agricultural zoning to Residential Suburban.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the reduction of the setbacks from Agricultural zoning to Residential Suburban zoning setbacks.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed. NEW BUSINESS: Subdivisions: Michael Development: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for Michael Development lots 17 -19.The property is located along the southeast side of Big Pool Road (Route 56).Mrs.Pietro stated that a previous subdivision for lots 1 -16 had been approved in 1991 and 1992.The zoning is Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create three single family lots in sizes ranging from 1.1 to 1.4 acres,with no remaining lands.Total acreage is 3.7. All lots will have well and septic.Lots 18 and 19 will share a combined entrance.All approvals have been received.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.So ordered. Site Plan/Development Plan: Highland Manor East (Cedar Springs): Mr.Lung presented the development plan for Highland Manor East. He stated that the name was changed to Cedar Springs and that the PUD zoning was approved in November of 1992.Prior to that,the Planning Commission approved the concept plan,which allowed the developer to proceed with the rezoning.Mr.Lung stated the plan was modified per Planning Commission comments and proceeded to review the changes.He stated what is being presented tonight is the Preliminary Development Plan,which is the first step in the overall site design of the PUD and proceeded to explain the process.He stated that comments have been received from all reviewing agencies and that there are no major redesigns required from the comments.The developer is requesting Preliminary Development Plan approval contingent upon all comments being addressed at the Final Development Plan stage.He stated that the development is on the east side of Route 63,south of Huyetts Crossroads.The development is inside the UGA and covers approximately 60 acres.There are 80 single family lots proposed, 100 duplex lots and 96 apartment units,totalling 276 units at a density of 4.9 dwelling units per acre.He stated there is also a 6 acre commercial area and 15.5 acres will be open space.Public water and sewer will be provided.Mr.Lung referred to a comment from the sanitary District regarding serving the area with sewer. He stated there is a package treatment plant located on the site that was used to serve the development across Rte.63 (Highland Manor)until the sewer line went in.The package plant is no longer in use and the Sanitary District is allowing it to be brought back on line to serve the first 80 residential units of this development.At that point the developer must construct a pumping station and sewer force main so that they can hook into the Conococheague system.Mr.Lung stated that with the current design they cannot hook into the sewer line without constructing a pumping station. Mr.Lung stated that State Highway Administration will require some intersection improvements.He stated in order to determine what needs to be done,they are asking for a traffic impact study,a signal warrant analysis and a hydraulic analysis to determine the stormwater runoff impact.Mr.Lung referred to the Zoning Administrator's comments.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the parking areas,play areas and the pedestrian system.He stated that the concept plan showed two ball fields and now there is just one.He CD ~,.-mz ::E stated that staff does not see a problem with it but felt the developer should consider replacing it with some other type of playing field.He stated the phasing schedule needs some revision in order to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements especially in regards to the recreational and commercial area phasing and stated that at the final development plan stage they will need to see a detailed landscaping and buffering plan.Mr. Lung referred to his memo and the Engineering Department's letter in the agenda packet and proceeded to review in detail their requirements.He stated that the County Engineer will require prior to Final Development Plan approval that the following items be submitted:flood plain study for this property and to analyze the downstream flooding condition on the Walter Beckly property, and a complete hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the on site stormwater management.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Staff agrees and in addition feels that the final item that needs to be addressed as soon as possible would be to make the corrections recommended by the County Engineer concerning existing drainage problems of Highland Manor Development.Mr.Spickler stated he felt that all of the items should be addressed prior to Preliminary approval.A discussion followed regarding the flood plain,adding a general purpose field,homeowners association responsibilities, phasing schedule,construction of the pumping station,and parking areas.Mr.Iseminger commented that there were many issues that needed to be addressed and asked why the developer was looking for approval now.Mr.Reichenbaugh,representing the developer,stated they received the list this morning.He does not have a problem with any of the comments and understands that they must be taken care of before Final Development Plan approval.A discussion followed regarding PUDs,walkways,and recreational areas.Mr. Bowers stated that the stormwater management problem needed to be taken care of on both sides of the road.Mr.Reichenbaugh stated he spoke to the developer and that the pond was built in 1988.He stated that the County Engineer at that time felt there were some drainage problems.The pond was redesigned and upgraded in 1991. He stated at that time there was some indication that things were not right,but they did not receive a notice until September of 1993.He stated the pond was constructed according to the County Stormwater Ordinance and was built according to the design cri teria,which was approved by the County Engineer.The developer does not feel he is responsible for things that have gone wrong after construction since he complied with the Ordinance.Mr. Iseminger stated that the Commission had made it clear from the beginning that the stormwater management problem had to be taken care of before final approval will be granted.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved that Preliminary Development Plan approval for Highland Manor East be denied and that the developer must address the items detailed in Mr.Lung's memo of september 22, 1993 prior to resubmitting for approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowen. Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed. McDonalds: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for McDonalds in Clear Spring and explained the portion of the site plan that was under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction.He stated that approvals have been received from Soil Conservation,Permits and Inspections,Town of Clear Spring,State Highway Administration,and water and sewer has been approved from the Town of Clear Spring.Mr.Arch explained how the planning staff reviewed the plan and that they had one issue,which is the proposed sign.He stated that the height of the proposed sign is to be 100 feet and that the developer will seek an appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals.The site is the old Tastee Freeze and proceeded to explain the traffic flow and the location of the proposed bui.lding.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission's action would be to approve what they have jurisdiction over and in this case they will need a variance.Mr. Arch stated that the stormwater management will be on site and that the Engineering Department has signed off.A discussion followed regarding the reason for the 100 foot sign.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan approval contingent on the sign issue being 327 328 resolved. ordered. Seconded by Mr.Bowers.Mr.Bowen abstained.So Forest Conservation Plan: Brewer Heights: Mrs.Pietro stated that the preliminary subdivision plats and the Forest Conservation Plan for Brewer Heights are in the review process.She stated that the staff would like the input of the Planning Commission on one aspect concerning the Forest Conservation Act before proceeding and referred to Mr.Goodrich's memo in the agenda packet.Mrs.Pietro stated that the Forest Stand Delineation Plan has been approved.The site is located in the northeast quadrant of Showalter Road and the zoning of the property is Highway Interchange.Mrs.Pietro stated that the developer is proposing to create 24 duplex lots with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet.She stated that the reason why the plat is before the Commission tonight is to get the Planning Commission's opinion on the Forest Conservation Plan.She stated that the area to be afforested and reforested on the plat is approximately 1.13 acres and that the total acreage required is 1.5 acres.Mrs.Pietro stated that the developer is proposing to pay a fee in lieu of for the remaining .37 acres.She was not sure why they did not want to plant it all;however,Mr.Galusky of Davis, Renn and Associates was present to answer any questions.Mr. Galusky referred to the Forest Stand Delineation Plan and stated that the only forest on the property is .6 acres of forest/pasture and proceeded to explain the types of trees on the site.He stated that 15 to 20 percent of the trees are dead or dying and that it is on the borderline of not being a forest.Since the trees do need to be removed for development,they are required to afforest/reforest 1.5 acres.Mr.Galusky stated that they have 1.13 acres readily available to plant trees,which is adjacent to wetlands and a small stream.He stated they want to pay an in lieu of fee for the .37 acres.He stated they could get the additional .37 acres by putting an easement strip around the lots but feels there could be a problem with enforcement.Mr.Iseminger asked why they cannot add the .37 acres to the forest they have available. Mr.Galusky stated he did not think that was possible.A discussion followed regarding prospective areas where the additional .37 acres could be placed,the constraints of the property,fees,enforcement of the easements,use of the fees, location of the easement,long term maintenance,ownership of the easement,and access to the easement.Mr.Iseminger stated that the developer needs to go back,and look at the design again.If the developer cannot incorporate the additional .37 acres,the consultant needs to prove a uniqueness in order for the Commission to consider granting their request for payment in lieu of.Mrs. Pietro stated that the next time they see the plat it will be for Preliminary/Final plat approval.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger stated that the developer will have to address who owns the forest.He stated if a homeowners association will own the forest and an easement is provided for access,then they will be granted the payment in lieu of for the .37 acres.If the forest is to be cut up and owned by the individual homeowners,then they must find the .37 acres and make it contiguous..No action was taken. CD.q- ....... 00z ~ Forest Conservation Ordinance -Request for payment in lieu of (Warrenfeltz,Sexton,Bivens and Leatherman): Mr.Goodrich stated that these 4 developments have requested to use the payment in lieu of option instead of the afforestation and reforestation that is required.He stated they are not requesting a variance or exemption from the Ordinance.He referred to the letters from the consultant in the agenda packet and said that each of the subdivisions has its own reason for requesting the payment in lieu of option.He stated that all 4 plats would qualify for the express procedure discussed at the workshop meeting.He advised the Planning Commission of its authority to allow the payment in lieu of in the Ordinance in Articles 6 and 11 and proceeded to review them.Mr.Goodrich suggested that the one year or two growing season time limit on the spending the payment in lieu of he waived in order to allow an accumulation of a cash reserve for future planting by the County.Mr.Frederick,the consultant stated that none of the subdivisions have critical areas and three of them have no existing forest.Mr.Arch stated that the requests should be handled individually.A discussion followed regarding the use of the payment in lieu of funds and the waiver of the funds . Mr.Iseminger proceeded to review each plat with the Commission for their decision. Warrenfeltz -Mr.Iseminger stated that it is a 3 lot subdivision, which would require 33,105 square feet to be reforested/afforested pr a payment in lieu of in the amount of $3,310.50.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the payment in lieu of request.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. Sexton -Mr.Iseminger stated that it is a 1 lot subdivision,which would require 14,375 square feet to be reforested/afforested or a payment in lieu of in the amount of $1,437.50.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the payment in lieu of request.Seconded by Mr.Spickler. So ordered. Bivens -Mr.Iseminger stated that it is a 3 lot subdivision,which would require 24,830 square feet to be reforested/afforested or a payment in lieu of in the amount of $2,483.00.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the payment in lieu request.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Leatherman -Mr.Iseminger stated that it is a 2 lot subdivision, which would require 13,068 square feet to be reforested/afforested or a payment in lieu of in the amount of $1,306.80.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the payment in lieu of request.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated that all 4 plats have been granted permission to pay the fee in lieu of conditional upon a waiver of the time limit on the use of the funds.A discussion followed regarding a time frame of the waiver. OTHER BUSINESS: Setback Determination -HI District Mark Dickinson Project: Mr.Arch referred to the drawing in the agenda packet showing the location for a fast food restaurant on Route 65.He referred to the section of the Highway Interchange of the Zoning Ordinance that states that they can impose greater setbacks.Mr.Arch stated that the developer is already going to the Board of Appeals for a variance.Mr.Ernst moved that no greater setback than what is already set be granted.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. 329 330 Forest Conservation Plan Approval/No Plan Implementation Reguired: Mr.Arch referred to the letter he handed out.He stated that the staff is asked the Planning Commission to endorse the policy.He stated that they receive forest plans where there is nothing that will be determined.They are usually completely forested sites where a section is being taken out and they are above the forest requirements.In order to speed the process up the staff wants the ability to go ahead and sign off on the plan without going to the Planning Commission.Mr.Moser moved to grant the planning staff the authority to approve a Forest Conservation Plan when no plan implementation is required.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. Forest Conservation Ordinance -Proposed Amendment for Minor Developments: Mr.Goodrich passed out the proposed amendment for minor developments,referred to as the express procedure and proceeded to review it.He stated that it is based on what was discussed at their workshop.He said that if the Planning Commission was satisfied with the amendment,it would then be put in the form of a proposed amendment and submitted for review by DNR and the County Commissioners.The express procedure would be available to subdivisions of five lots or less when the afforestation/ reforestation requirement is two acres or less and to site plans with the same planting requirement.The delineation requirement is less formal than that described in the current ordinance and can be combined with the plat or site plan submittal.Those that have "priority areas"within the land to be developed would not be eligible.Calculations are based on the area of the land to be developed although the remainder of the land is not exempt from future application of the Ordinance for additional development. The choice of the payment of the fee will be the developers option and the Commission will not need to approve that choice.The one year or two growing season time limit placed on the County for spending the fees on afforestation/reforestation will be waived. The express procedure is intended to relieve the disproportionate burden for planting from small development,eliminate very small areas of new forest that contribute little to the improvement in water quality and create new forest area of such a size that will more likely accomplish the goals of the Ordinance.The County will develop a program for spending the funds on forest planting which will include site identification and negotiation with the owners, development of conservation plans and competitive bidding for the actual implementation of each plan.A discussion followed regarding priority areas,adding a section concerning champion trees,landscaping plans for individual lots,raising the payment in lieu of fee,a planting plan of where these trees will be planted,maintenance of the trees,tree banking and the Forestry Board.Mr.Iseminger stated he felt they need to set up another workshop.Discussion followed.No action was taken. Workshop Meetings: A workshop meeting with the Historic District Commission is tentatively scheduled for October 25,1993 at 7:00 p.m .. (0 "¢,..... OJz::a: The next joint rezoning hearing is scheduled for November 8,1993. A Highway Interchange hearing for Group I is scheduled for November 15,1993.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m . .' 331 (0 ..q,.... OJz::a: JOINT MEETING WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OCTOBER 25,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,October 25,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman 1 Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman 1 Donald Spickler,Carol Johnson,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Director1 Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner1 Stephen T.Goodrich and SecretarY1 Deborah Kirkpatrick. Absent were Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers. Historic District Commission members present:Chairperson 1 Susan Winter,Vice-Chairman 1 Richard N.Bachtell,Jane L.Hershey, Eleanor Lakin and County Commissioner Linda Irvin-Craig.Absent were Henry S.Bonebrake,Gerald Ditto and Charles A.Hulse. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:10 P.M. Mr.Goodrich stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was for a general discussion of mutual interests and recognition of responsibilities and concerns.It appears that both Commissions are ready to give more consideration to historic sites in the land development procedures but that authorities are limited.There are also the questions of what and how to protect the resources.The discussion turned to the demolition permit review policy.Mrs. Irvin-Craig stated she felt that it is important to open dialogue with the developers.She said that the Historic District Commission has been successful in talking people out of tearing down buildings,referred to the value of an old buildings and that the Historic District Commission has discussed having tighter controls.A discussion followed regarding historic properties that have been demolished. Mr.Goodrich stated that in order to prevent demolition,it would take some regulations to give a certain body the authority to prevent demolition.He asked the Planning Commission if they were inclined to support the position of the Historic District Commission to preserve as much as possible.He noted that an amendment would need support from the Planning Commission. A discussion followed regarding the Shaool property,having an ordinance in place,looking at what other counties do,prioritizing the structures and the lack of powers of both commissions.Mr. Goodrich stated it was his understanding that when the Commissioners adopted the policy that it was to provide an opportunity for the Historic Commission to educate property owners about the value and a significance of a certain property and then create the time where interested parties could make arrangements to purchase the building.He stated there are people in the community that would do that but are not always aware of it.The purpose of the Historic Commission was to create that opportunity and not intended to prevent demolition and cited several examples where they were successful. Mr.Ernst stated he feels that they should look at the economic benefit of the property.He feels if they try to save every building that they will alienate more people.Mr.Bachtell stated he felt there should be a set of reprimands on demolition permits, like there are with building permits in the event the education process does not work. A discussion followed regarding updating the prioritized list and descriptions from the historic site survey,saving properties, 333 334 incorporating the old homesteads in subdivisions and having the Historic Commission review the subdivisions at the concept stage. Mrs.Johnson asked if there is a list of significant sites and suggested contacting those property owners to obtain agreements prior to sale to developers that would integrate existing significant buildings.Mrs.Irvin-Craig stated that the HDC has discussed for some time contacting the owners of the survey properties about the advantages of an HP overlay,which would bypass putting a stipulation in a contract of sale.She stated they do not have the staff time to do that and it is a long process.Further discussion followed regarding monetary incentives,the Historic Overlay designation,the lack of State funding and tourism. Mr.Spickler mentioned that the bulk of the historic structures in the County are in the hands of the agricultural community and stated that he felt they should look at incentives before pushing regulations.He asked if the opportunities available are publicized to the owners of the historic survey properties. A discussion followed regarding a comprehensive education plan, making a yearly presentation to the schools,having demolition permit applicants present their case,giving the public the opportunity to purchase a property a developer wants to demolish and including the incorporated towns in the HDC jurisdiction.Mr. Goodrich indicated that offering preservation services to the towns,would also require adoption of regulations by the towns.A discussion followed regarding HP overlays in the towns and historic ~tructures that have been torn down.Mrs.Irvin-Craig stated that the Commission should be able to go to the community to let the owners of historic properties know there is a program to preserve their properties. Mr.Goodrich pointed out that restoration does not always require a lot of money to make the structure useable and is often less than building a new house.He stated there are a lot of benefits in doing this that the general public is not aware of.A discussion followed regarding educating the public and stabilizing the properties. Mrs.Johnson stated that some people do not want to improve a property because they feel their taxes would increase and as a result historic buildings become run down and eventually fall down. She feels there should be incentives for stabilization and protection such as a limit on tax increases.A discussion followed regarding across the board incentives to maintain properties and current incentives.Mrs.Johnson cited Baltimore as an example and stated that the property owner should still have to put some money into the property to repair it.Mr.Goodrich stated there are other incentives offered at the State and Federal levels.A discussion followed regarding ways to raise money for a fund such as additional plan review fees,demolition by neglect,the County and State programs,prioritizing the list,programs in other counties,tax benefits for restoration,acquisition of endangered properties,additional public education and additional staff.Mrs. Irvin-Craig stated that out of the original site survey there were 1300 +/-sites (not necessarily buildings)600 of which are "A" priority sites. Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the items discussed:education, demolition by neglect,the survey and identification and prioritization of sites.He said there are also sites not listed on the survey that should be evaluated.Mr.Iseminger stated a combination of incentives and required evaluation of existing buildings along with Commission authority to require preservation may be appropriate.The Planning Commission was asked if it would be inclined to support such a proposal.Additional discussion followed regarding education,having a priority list available for prospective purchasers,educating the real estate firms and placing a copy of the survey in the real estate offices,incentives for developers to protect the priority site,and impacts on the tourism trade. he felt the main reason a building is taken He stated it is much easier to design the worrying about existing buildings than to CD -.:::t.,.... OJz :':2: Mr.Bachtell stated down is economic. development without design around them. Mr.Arch stated that he feels they should integrate the smaller communities in these preservation efforts.He said they are not included in the 1300 sites of the survey and feels they should also be integrated with tourism.He also said there should be good identification in the smaller towns with a walking tour.A discussion followed regarding who would decide which structures would be designed around,the prioritized list,and the approval process.Mr.Arch stated they would see what they could come up with and come back to present it.A discussion followed regarding the formal approval process the site survey goes through,updating the survey,and offering better incentives for people to join the HP program.Mr.Iseminger stated that if this ordinance goes into effect,they may want to consider setting up a revolving fund.Mr. Goodrich asked the Commissions if they felt they discussed it enough to know where they should start.All members were in agreement.A discussion followed regarding the drafting of the ordinance.Mr.Goodrich summarized what he felt needed to be done: prioritization,incentives and a level of alternatives . Mr.Iseminger stated they should have another joint meeting.Mr. Spickler suggested consulting realtors,developers,consultants, tourism and engineers for their input.A discussion followed regarding looking at what other communities do while working on the ,draft of the Ordinance and how much is involved in the process and the survey.It was decided that the next joint meeting would be in February in order to give Mr.Goodrich to prepare a draft of the Ordinance using the guidelines discussed this evening. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 335 c.o ""'",.- OJz :2: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 1,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday,November 1,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.·Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson and Ex- Officio;Ronald L.Bowers.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,James P.Brittain,Edward J.Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Robert E.Ernst,II. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Iseminger referred to page 4 of the minutes of September 13, 1993,APFO Determination -Mike Jennings,and suggested that Mr. Moser's motion be clarified to read:Mr.Moser made a motion to qeny the APFO exemption request and stated that if it is presented to the Board of Appeals,that they take into consideration that the Planning Commission did not have any objection to the request based on the facts presented.Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of September 13,1993 as amended.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes of September 27,1993. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Robert Huntzberry (SV-93-0161: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Robert Huntzberry. The site is located on the west side of Crystal Falls Drive, approximately 1300 feet south of its intersection with Mt.Aetna Road.The zoning is Conservation.The request is to create a three (3)tier lot whose panhandle is greater than 400 feet.The property owner is proposing to create two lots for immediate family members on his 3.7 acre property.The variance request is from Section 405.11 G 4 and 5 -which states that the stacking of panhandles cannot be more than two tiers and the panhandle length shall not exceed 400 feet.Mrs.Pietro stated that the proposed panhandle lot 8A is approximately 1 acre and does meet all the minimum requirements.Lot 8B will be approximately 1.9 acres and will be a three tier lot.She stated that the panhandle lane for lot 8B will be approximately 810 feet.Mrs.Pietro stated that she met with Mr.Huntzberry and his consultant,Mr.Cump and that Mr. Huntzberry is willing to use a combined access for lots 8A and 8B, but each would have its own panhandle,meeting the 25 feet minimum requirement.She stated that she received a memo from Terry McGee, County Engineer,stating that he does not have a problem with the variance and that the site distance is more than adequate.All proposed lots plus the existing one will be served by public water. A discussion followed regarding how the lot was originally created, other lots in the area,and a similar request in the same area. Mr.Bishop of the Sanitary District stated that the Sanitary District now owns that system and he assumes there is service available but needs to review it.Mr.Iseminger stated that he 337 338 wants to see responses from the Sanitary District and Mt.Aetna Fire Company before making a decision.Mr.Spickler stated that he was not willing at this time to grant a variance based on what was presented.A discussion followed regarding justification of the third tier lot,the water system,and changing the design.The Commission stated that they did not have a problem with the creation of Lot 8A.Mr.Spickler moved to deny the variance for lot 8B.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.Mr.Bowers asked for clarification and if the owner could still create Lot 8A.Mr. Iseminger stated he could as long as water is available. Russell McIntyre (SV-93-017l: Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Russell McIntyre. The site is located on the east side of Orebank Road,2000 feet north of Boyd Road.The zoning is Conservation.The request is from Section 405.11.B which states that all lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage.Mr.Schreiber explained that in this case the existing house straddles two separate properties and referred to the exhibit to show where the properties were located.He stated what is being proposed is to create a lot line around the existing property,by switching property.Due to the setback restrictions in Conservation zoning, the road frontage will be reduced to 7.5 feet.A discussion followed.Mr.Russ Townsley,consultant,proceeded to explain the history of the property.He stated that the new lot line is proposed in order to meet the setbacks.A discussion followed. Mr.Bowers moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Spickler. So ordered. Subdivisions: Park Head Church Road: Mr.Schreiber presented the development plat for Parkhead Church. The property is located on the north side of U.S.Rt.40,1200 feet east of Pectonville Road and is zoned Conservation.Water and sewer will be individual systems.Rt.40 is designated as a local road.He stated that Parcel B was part of a residential subdivision called Licking Creek Hills,which was recorded in 1989 as a simplified parcel for acquisition purposes only.He stated that the Church wants to put a church related activities building on the site with its own entrance onto U.S.40.Mr.Schreiber stated in order for them to do that they must go through the process of revising the plat to show the location of the well and septic area and since it is not a single family dwelling they must come before the Planning Commission to show a generalized location of the building.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to approve the development plat.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Kings Crest PUD -Section A,Site Plan Section B,Development Plan/Preliminary Subdivision Plat: Mr.Lung referred to the plan in the agenda packet and stated that the developer intends to market the development as an adult community.He explained that Section A does not need a development plan because it was previously part of the Youngstoun "PR"Plan that was grandfathered in when the PUD Ordinance was adopted.He stated that a few years ago the Planning Commission approved a revision to the concept plan to allow for this development.Mr. Lung stated that Section B was rezoned PUD in 1991,a concept plan was approved at that time.He stated significant engineering work had to be done to accomodate stormwater management,which is the reason for the long lapse between the pun approval and the co "¢ "I""""coz :2E submittal of the development plan.He stated that in order to expedite the review process,the developer was allowed to combine the preliminary development plan,final development plan and preliminary subdivision plat all in one submittal.He explained that in normal circumstances these would be three separate submittals that would come before the Planning Commission. Mr.Lung stated that Section A consists of apartments on 3.7 acres. He stated there will be 35 units with privately owned parking areas spread throughout the development.Handic~p and RV parking spaces are provided.Dumpsters will be located in the parking areas.The parking areas will be lighted.He stated that the parking areas are connected to the apartment buildings with sidewalks that also connect with the school bus waiting area.He stated that the approved concept plan showed a putting green and a tennis court. The tennis court has been eliminated to make room for stormwater management.He stated that there is now a putting green,two horseshoe pits,four picnic tables and some benches,which is in lieu of the play areas that are normally required for apartment developments since the developer is marketing it as an adult communi ty.A homeowners association is not required in this section since they are all rental units. Section B contains single family dwellings.The average lot area is 2743 square feet and in order to maintain spacial separation and a sense of a space between the dwelling units,they have utilized the zero lot line concept.Mr.tung stated that each unit will have a single car garage and driveway.The remainder of the area ~ill be common open space.Mr.Lung stated that the lots will have frontage and access onto a new County road with a 20 foot wide travel lane and 6 foot paved shoulders.Parking will be allowed in the shoulder area.He stated that the design is open section (no curbs and gutters).Mr.Lung stated there will be a homeowners association for this section and that documents have not yet been received.All agency approvals have been received either verbally or written.The consultant is asking for approval contingent on written agency approvals and review of the homeowners documents and requested that staff be given the authority to approve the final subdivision plat when it comes in.Mr.Lung stated at this point there are two issues which need to be resolved,which were outlined in his memo of October 21.They are the approval the proposed amenities in Section A in lieu of the normally required play areas, and the approval of the use of the roadway shoulder for pedestrian access in Section B.Mr.Lung stated that normally in the single family section of PUD's the Planning Commission has not required sidewalks,however,this PUD has a density closer to that found in townhouse developments where sidewalks are required.He stated that the problem in this development is the open section street design and the reduced front yard setbacks which eliminates any space to include a sidewalk.Mr.Arch stated that it is important to note that the developer has combined several steps in the review process and that is why this issue was not discussed earlier with the Planning Commission. Section A -Mr.Moser expressed concern about assurances that this development will be marketed towards adults only.A discussion followed with the developer,Mr.Stan Valentine and the consultant, Mr.Russ Townsley of Fox and Associates.Mr.Moser stated that the amenities proposed do not serve that type of density.Mr. Valentine stated that the concept was to give townhouse style living without being in a townhouse and that the amenities will be created by the homeowners association. Mr.Iseminger asked for clarification of Section A.Mr.Lung stated that the upper portion contains the apartments and that the lower portion contains townhouses,which will also be rental units. Mr.Iseminger felt there would be less control over the apartments as far as being for adults only and felt they should provide something for children.He suggested replacing the putting green with a play area.Mrs.Johnson asked if there were walking trails. A discussion followed regarding the common areas in both Sections A and B and the townhouse concept.Mr.Iseminger stated that the 339 340 amenities are lacking and need to be increased.He suggested additional landscaping,tree plantings,and a pedestrian walk (not paved).Mr.Valentine stated that the exterior of the property would be maintained by the homeowners association and that the people he is targeting are those who will be going to the country club.He feels that additional amenities would not be used,are not needed and would be a waste of time and money and referred to Arbor Gate.He stated he is trying to create single family homes where the owner does not have to worry about the maintenance.Mr. Townsley stated that the only difference between the amenities shown on the concept plan and what is being presented now is the tennis court that has been eliminated because of storm water management needs.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission feels that the developer needs additional landscaping,tree plantings,and walkways.Both Mr. Spickler and Mr.Moser commented that the developer is using the higher densities allowed in the PUD and not giving anything back as far as the amenities go.Mr.Moser stated that with this density he wants to see more than just a playground.A discussion followed regarding what the Ordinance requires,the length of the driveways, parking areas and amenities.Mr.Spickler stated he was not comfortable with what was presented and feels they need to look it over further and review the documents and asked what the Planning Commission's options were.Mr.Arch stated they could table it, deny it or approve it.He stated that the Planning staff and Paul Prodonovich have expressed concern on more than one occasion for addi tional amenities and pedestrian walkways.Mr.Arch stated there is an opportunity to create a pedestrian path from this development to the Jr.College.Mr.Lung explained the existing pedestrian system in the area.A discussion followed regarding tying in the development with the college,and using the roadway shoulder as a pedestrian walkway.The Commission asked to have Terry McGee review the use of the shoulder for a walkway and how it could be marked.Mr.Iseminger stated that the other item in Section A is the amenities offered versus what was originally planned.He told Mr.Valentine he has to add plantings,have sufficient plantings for shade around the horseshoe pits and picnic benches and add more trees and shrubs.Mrs.Johnson moved to table Section A until they received a revised plan showing the items discussed.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Bowers asked the Commission to be more specific on the requested items.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Commission wants to see additional landscaping,tree plantings,show if the putting green will be changed,and have Terry McGee review the plan to see if the shoulder of Kings Crest Boulevard can be used as a pedestrian walk to connect with the adjacent pedestrian system and the Jr.College.A discussion followed.A vote was taken on the motion.All in favor.So ordered. Section B -Mr.Bowen had a question regarding the plan.Mr. Iseminger stated that a concept plan with the proposed density was submitted and approved as part of the PUD rezoning of the property. Mr.Bowen stated that he felt the density is too high and expressed concern with some of the lots being only 35 feet wide and that cars parked in driveways may stick out into the road.Mr.Valentine stated that the concept is to look like a townhouse but with the units not being connected.A discussion followed regarding the density,parking and cutting the shoulder width down to 4 feet from 6 feet,pedestrian access to the Jr.College,eliminating the parking inside the loop and allow parking on the outside of the road and turning the buildings around to combine the driveways. Mr.Iseminger stated that the developer needs to provide additional landscaping,tree plantings,and have Terry McGee review the pedestrian access (disallow parking on the inner loop).Mrs. Johnson moved to table Section B until the comments have been addressed.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that when the plan comes back he wants both Terry McGee and Paul Prodonovich to be present. Site Plan: CD ~,..- OJz :2: Foxshire plaza: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Foxshire Plaza.The developer is proposing to add an entrance and exit access in the northwest corner of the property.Mrs.Pietro stated that the plan has been reviewed by the County Engineer,Permits and Inspections and State Highway and they do not have a problem with it.She stated that the site was previously approved by the Planning Commission on October 2,1989 and at that time,State Highway recommended the entrance onto Howell Road.However,the Planning Commission deferred to the County Engineer's recommendation that the one rear access not be located on the site.At that time, Howell Road had not been upgraded and there were some citizen concerns for safety in that area because of the poor site distance. Mrs.Pietro stated that a revised site plan was submitted for Planning Commission review and approval on September 2,1990 with several conditions and proceeded to review it.She stated that all comments were taken care of and the site plan was approved.Mr. Bowers expressed concern with the trucks loading and unloading in the back of the building.Mr.Iseminger asked if there were any changes made in the front of the building.Mrs.Pietro stated that the traffic patterns will not change in front of the building.A discussion followed regarding the amount of increased traffic in the front.Mr.Moser moved to grant approval conditional upon Terry McGee's review of the increased traffic in the front of the building,and the mixing of the traffic in the rear.If he is satisfied with the plan,they do not have to come back.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Forest Conservation Plan: Sanitary District -Reguest for Payment in Lieu of (Smithsburg Wastewater Treatment Plant): Mr.Goodrich referred to a copy of a letter in the agenda packet from Frederick,Seibert &Associates on behalf of the Sanitary District requesting that they be permitted to make a payment in lieu of planting on the site of the Smithsburg Wastewater Treatment Plant.A discussion followed.Mr.Goodrich stated that if the Express Procedure,which is currently under review and development were in place,this would be eligible to use it.He explained the location of the site.Mr.Goodrich referred to the site plan and pointed out the existing improvements and the proposed construction.He stated that part of the site is inside the town of Smithsburg.The County is administering the Forest Conservation Ordinance for the Town.The Town is requiring a double row of planting for screening purposes.Mr.Zoretich,consultant, explained that the existing floodplain on the site would have been a preferred location for planting but that is the location of the treatment plant improvements.There are no existing forest on site or adjacent sites that could be enlarged.Also the planting area is only 12,415 square feet and therefore,they are requesting a payment in lieu of planting.Mrs.Johnson moved to allow payment in lieu of reforestion/afforestation.Seconded by Mr.Moser.A discussion followed. 341 342 Other Business: Demolition Permit -John R.Oliver: Mr.Goodrich referred to the permit and the historic site survey in the agenda packet and the county Commissioner's policy of 1989 regarding the review of demolition permit applications by the Historic District Commission and the Planning Commission.Mr. Goodrich stated this application is a little different.He explained that the property itself is not on the survey but the entire community of Ringgold is.He stated that the Historic District Commission has not seen it yet because their regular meeting is on Wednesday,November 3,1993.He also stated that the owner is not present.Mr.Goodrich feels that the Historic District Commission will probably take the position that the owner should make the parts of the building available as salvage as part of its recommendation.He stated that the developer wants to take the building down and build a new house on the back of the lot. The existing house is a typical rural architectural style.Mr. Moser moved that they defer action on the permit to the Historic District Commission and will endorse the action taken by them. Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Animal Husbandry -Text Amendment Staff Report: ~t was decided to defer the review of the Animal Husbandry Text Amendment until a workshop meeting. Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment for Site Plan Reguirements (RZ-93-10): Mr.Iseminger stated that the amendment proposes new language to three sections of the Zoning Ordinance for site plan requirements of HI-1 and HI-2.Mr.Spickler moved that the Commissioners adopt RZ-93-10 because the Planning Commission finds it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment for Buildable Lots (RZ-93-11): Mr.Iseminger stated that the amendment proposes new language to the Zoning Ordinance for buildable lots.Mr.Spickler moved that the Commissioners adopt RZ-93-11 because the Planning Commission finds it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Forest Conservation -Text Amendment for the Express Procedure: Mr.Iseminger stated he liked the proposed amendment.A discussion followed regarding Mr.France's request to remove the waiver on the planting time limit.The Planning Commission agreed to keep the waiver in and stated that they want DNR's input.They instructed Mr.Goodrich to go ahead and pass it on to DNR for their review. Mr.Iseminger asked that wording be added regarding the protection of champion trees and feels that the fee structure should be changed.Mr.Iseminger stated that he feels the fee for reforestation should be more than the fee for afforestation.A discussion followed.It was decided to review the fee schedule with DNR and the County Commissioners.Mr.Goodrich was instructed to keep working on the proposed ordinance. CD ~,.- CO Z ~ Rezoning Recommendation -Albert/Reeder/Munson (RZ-93-S): Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff report and testimony of the September 20,1993 public hearing,Mr. Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the property owned by Larry and Candy Munson,and William and Iris Reeder be approved.This recommendation was based on the staff's findings and the Commission's determination that there was a change in the character of the neighborhood.Also the Commission found the requested zoning classification to be appropriate and logical.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered. Rezoning Recommendation -Allen Martin (RZ-93-9): Mr.Brittain stated that his staff report would be mailed to the Commission members shortly.Mr.Spickler stated that he wants to make a site inspection before making a decision.It was decided to make a site inspection on Friday,November 12,1993 at 11:15 a.m. Upcoming Meetings: The Planning Commission decided to hold a special meeting on l"riday,November 12,1993 at 12:00 noon to review the text amendment for Animal Husbandry. Mr.Iseminger briefly reviewed the dates for the following upcoming meetings:Joint Rezoning,November S,1993,7:00 P.M.Court Room 1 -Court House;Joint Public Hearing,Highway Interchange Group I, November 15,1993,7:00 P.M.Court Room 1 -Court House and Joint meeting with the Boonsboro Planning Commission November 22,1993, 7:00 P.M.Community Center,Shafer Park. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 343 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -NOVEMBER 12,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Friday,November 12,1993 in the third floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Spickler,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert Ernst, II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah Kirkpatrick.Absent were Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson and Ex- Officio Ronald L.Bowers. 345 Also present were Elmer Weibley of Washington County Conservation District,Jerre DeBaugh of the Farm Bureau, Prodonovich of Washington County Permits and Inspections and Ditto. Soil Paul Jerry (0 "'d"',.... OJz ::2E CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 12:00 noon. OLD BUSINESS: Rezoning Recommendation -Animal Husbandry Text Amendment (RZ-93-13): Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission received a copy of the staff report at the last regular Planning Commission meeting.He stated the report was a summary of the testimony received.He stated that the testimony in favor of the Ordinance was generally from the farm community and the opposing testimony was generally from the residents in the Maugansville area. Mr.Spickler stated he does not have a problem with the numbers but is still concerned with enforcement.He does not believe his concerns have been satisfied and stated that there are some regulations being considered by the Maryland Department of the Environment,which would apply to all farms in the State.Those hearings will be held on December 13th and 14th in Cambridge and Frederick.Mr.Spickler asked that if they find the regulations that MDE is proposing adequately addresses the issues that were brought before them in examining this Ordinance,would it be appropriate to suggest to the Commissioners that they be incorporated in some way.Mr.Arch stated the Ordinance would have to be changed and go back to public hearing.Mr.Spickler stated that he felt they should be using the systems within the State that address nutrient management and nutrient pollution.Mr.Arch stated that in the current Ordinance the nutrient management provisions comes into play.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler stated he would like to wait until after the hearings and he will forward a copy of the MDE regulations to the Planning Commission members.Mr.Bowen asked who was the enforcement authority.Mr. Arch stated that with both the current and the proposed Ordinance it is Paul Prodonovich.Mr.Weibley,of the Washington County Soil Conservation District,stated that the proposed Ordinance only insures that a plan is on file and that it does not enforce the implementation of the plan.Mr.Arch stated that in order to get a permit from Mr.Prodonovich,a Nutrient Management Plan must be on file.Mr.Spickler asked what would happen if the plan was not followed.Mr.Arch stated if there is a violation that the Zoning Administrator could address,then he could take some action.He stated that MDE could be contacted regarding a violation and a nuisance complaint could be filed with the courts.A discussion followed regarding how complaints are handled under the current Ordinance and how they will be handled under the proposed Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger stated he would like to wait until after There being no further business, p.m. 346 the meetings of December 13th and 14th before making a recommendation and that he would like to have a full commission to vote on it.Mr.Spickler agreed and suggested they attend the MDE meeting in December and schedule a workshop meeting.Mr Weibley stated that he has a document in his office that the commission members can review.A discussion followed regarding how it relates to the Animal Husbandry Ordinance,enforcement of the Ordinance, the Tributary Strategy Study and the upcoming MDE meeting.Mr. Spickler moved to postpone recommendation and to reschedule their recommendation at the next regular meeting.Mr.Bowen seconded. So ordered.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Weibley to get the report to them and relate the existing state regulations to their Ordinance. Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Spickler to find out when the MDE meetings will be held. ADJOURNMENT: the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 y~~_P/:J -;:// /."1 j()YWV\M<It'01 v L:~.Beftirand L.Iseminger,hairman WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 6,1993 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 6,1993 in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser and Robert E.Ernst,II. Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T. Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro, Edward J.Schreiber,and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were Carol Johnson,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Ex-Officio, Ronald L.Bowers. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 P.M. 347 (0 ""'"....- OJ Z ~ MINUTES: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes S~conded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. of October 4 , of October 25, 1993. 1993. Mr.Spickler stated that in the minutes of November 12,1993,he made an error in the dates of MDE's meetings.The dates should be the 13th and 14th.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes as corrected.Seconded by Mr.Spickler. OLD BUSINESS: Kings Crest PUD: Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Townsley of Fox and Associates has a revised plan to present based on the Planning Commission's comments from the November meeting.Mr.Townsley stated that he spoke to Mr.Arch who suggested that he mark the revisions in red and present it to the Commission before submitting it formally.Mr. Townsley stated that he spoke to the County Engineer about the sidewalks.He proceeded to explain that the area previously designated for a putting green is now a tot lot consisting of a swing,slide and see saw,however,the setback from the property line will need to be relaxed.The required setback from the parking lot can be met.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to reduce setbacks in a PUD.Mr. Townsley stated that they have added a walkway and a half court basketball court where the tables were shown and explained the location of additional walkways in back of the lots and where they will connect.There will also be more park benches and trees. Pedestrian walkways will be provided along the rear of the lots. Mr.Townsley stated that Mr.Lung spoke to the County Engineer regarding the use of the shoulder along Kings Crest Boulevard for a pedestrian access and that Mr.McGee would not endorse it.Mr. Townsley stated they are proposing to connect their walkway with an adjacent walkway in the College Heights development which connects to Stonecroft's,and has an access to the Junior College.A discussion followed regarding the walkways and the need for a permanent easement to connect the walkways.Mr.Schlossberg, attorney for the developer,expressed his concern with the walkways within the single family section because they front or rear a cul- de-sac and they feel it may tend to attract people into the development and their location to the rear of the properties will be an invitation to vandalism and/or street crime.He asked the Planning Commission to reconsider their request for the walkways 348 and stated that they do not connect to other walkways.Mr. Schlossburg stated they have created in the homeowners documents and the declaration a common benefits facility.This allows the residents in the single family section to utilize the common recreation facilities in the apartment section.A discussion followed regarding the amenities in both sections,the sidewalks, amenities,requirements of PUD's and access to the Jr.College and the landscaping plan.Mr.Moser stated ~hat part of the problem is that they are at the rear most area of the land to be developed and they have a high density of units,which is creating a problem with the amount of amenities available.He asked if they could cut down on the density.Mr.Valentine stated that it would not enhance the project.Mr.Townsley referred to the original concept plan and stated they proposed 32 single family units and the plan before them is 31.He stated that the concept plan was approved in 1990 and that road configuration has changed in order to address the County Engineer's concerns.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Lung about the original PUD and if they discussed certain amenities being required.Mr.Lung stated at that stage,the plan is very conceptual in form and they do not get into details as far as amenities and the location of them.He stated that it is in the Zoning Ordinance and it was brought out in the Preliminary Consultation from both himself and Paul Prodonovich the need for pedestrian access and additional amenities.Mr.Lung reminded the Commission that the developer has combined the Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Subdivision Plat submittal all in one package and that they are still very early in the review process. Mr.Iseminger.asked the Commission for their feelings regarding the ~menities and stated that treating both sections as one is not a problem as long as they have enough amenities.He feels they have not changed much from the last meeting.He noted the addition of the walkways,but feels there is a problem with sufficient ameni ties.A discussion followed regarding PUD's in general, amenities in other PUD's,revision to the amenities and available green space.Mr.Iseminger stated that the walkways do not have to be macadam but they do have to get from one section to another.A discussion followed regarding the walkways and the drainage swales. Mr.Iseminger stated that they have come a step further but feels they need more.Mr.Townsley stated that due to the drainage swales,they have done all they can do.Mr.Iseminger asked the Commission what they wanted to do.Mr.Townsley asked if this plan is acceptable,then they will revise it and asked that they be allowed to make the revisions and resubmit to the staff for their approval since all agency approvals except the Health Department's are in.Mr.Iseminger stated they were concerned with there not being enough parking in the back section and talked about eliminating parking on one side of the street.A discussion followed regarding the streets and parking.Mr.Spickler stated that he wants the plat to come back because it is a difficult one and does not want to approve it all at once.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated he agrees with Mr.Spickler and feels the developer needs to review it aga~n and wants Terry McGee to look at the walkways and say he does not have any major problems with it.He also wants the staff to look at the landscaping plan. He stated if the plan is ready before the regular January meeting they could have a special meeting.He stated that by combining the 3 stages they have put the Planning Commission in an awkward posi tion.He stated that other than eliminating some of the density and requiring additional amenities in the other section he does not know what else the Commission can do other than hold the developer to what was proposed tonight with the stipulation that the staff review it and is satisfied that it will work.Mr. Spickler stated he does not have a problem with saying that this is as much as they will get in amenities that they believe aught to be in the development and has concerns regarding the sidewalks.Mr. Schlossberg asked the Commission if what they are looking for is the fine tuning on the sidewalks,landscaping plan and present it in a package.The Commission stated yes and they also want to see what can be done with access across Mr.Shaool's (College Heights) property,have the staff review it and let the Commission know it will work. (D ~ or-coz ~ Mr.Moser asked the Chairman if it would be an appropriate time to ask the staff to look at the PUD in the Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated they are currently doing that. Animal Husbandry Ordinance -Reschedule Recommendation: It was decided to reschedule the recommendation for a special meeting on Monday,January 10,1994 at 7:00 p.m.in the first floor conference room. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Joseph Chukla -Smithsburg Valley Baptist Church ISV-93-020): Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for the Joseph Chukla property. The site is situated on the north side of MD Route 64 (Jefferson Boulevard),approximately .25+miles east of its intersection with Route 66 (Mapleville Road).She stated that they received the variance request for proposed lot #4 along with the Preliminary Consultation,which is scheduled for Wednesday,December 8.The owner is proposing to create 5 lots - 4 residential and one for the Baptist Church.She stated that lot 4 is proposed for single family use.The proposed driveway will only be 300 feet from the intersection of Route 64 and Crystal Falls Drive.Mrs.Pietro stated that the highway is classified as a minor arterial,which requires 500 feet of access spacing between the points.She referred to the letter in the packet from Gerald Cump of Cump and Associates,consultant.The letter states that the reason for the location of the driveway is due to the topographic conditions.She stated that John Wolford of State Highway inspected the site today and stated that the proposed access met access/site distance requirements.Mr.Cump presented a copy of the Preliminary Concept plan for the Commission to review.Mrs.Pietro explained the location of the lots and the access points.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance due to the topographic hardship.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Robert A.Fedorko ISV-93-0191: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Robert A.Fedorko.The site is located on the east side of Rustic Lane approximately 400 feet south of Maryland 68 near Devils Backbone.Rustic Lane is a private road.Mr.Lung stated that the property consists of 2 parcels totaling 4 acres.He stated that parcel 2 contains approximately 3 acres and includes a 60 foot wide strip which goes out to MD Rt.68.Parcell contains approximately 1 acre and is unimproved.He stated it was created by a simplified plat.Mr. Lung stated that Mr.Fedorko wishes to sell parcell and retain the entire 60 foot strip with parcel 2 and is asking for a variance from the road frontage requirement for parcell.Mr.Lung stated that the 60 foot wide strip contains the private road called Rustic Lane,which also serves three other dwellings.He stated there are agreements written into the deeds of these properties which states they will share in the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of this road.He stated that these lots were created in 1972 prior to the County requirement that all lots front on public roads.Mr.Lung stated he spoke to the County Engineer and he does not have a strong opinion one way or the other.He stated that Mr. McGee does not like to take a position to endorse creation of new lots on private roads,however this situation is that this new dwelling will access the private road one way or the other.Mr. Lung explained that even if a 25 foot strip was conveyed along with parcell,it would still utilize Rustic Lane and by doing that would split the right-of-way and make it more difficult in the future if the County takes it in as a County street and bring it up to County standards.He stated that Terry indicated it is much easier working with a single right-of-way instead of having it 349 350 carved up.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. M.William Dutton,Jr.ISV-93-0181: Mr.Lung stated that he will be presenting a variance request and a subdivision plat for Lot 2.He stated this request is to create a lot without public road frontage.The property is located along Blake Road off of Halfway Boulevard near Hopewell Road.The zoning is Highway Interchange.He stated that the County recently accepted ownership of the new section of Halfway Boulevard west of Hopewell Road and Blake Road and proceeded to give the history of the property.He stated that Blake Road is on a 60 foot right-of- way that is reserved by Mr.Dutton.The road is being constructed to County standards and according to the developer,will eventually be turned over to the County.Mr.Lung stated as far as the subdivision is concerned,a site plan was previously approved for the existing building and they are now creating a lot around it. The site will be served by public sewer and a well.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the upgrading of Blake Road and further subdivision. Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance to create a lot without public road frontage with the stipulation that any further subdivision would require the upgrade of the road to County standards.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Subdivisions: M.William Dutton,Jr.Lot 2 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Lot 2 along with the variance.He reiterated that all approvals are in.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the subdivision for Lot 2.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.So ordered. Brewer Heights,Lots 1-24 Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for lots 1-24 for Brewer Heights.She stated that the Commission previously saw the plat when the Forest Conservation Plan was presented at the October 4th meeting.The site is located in the northeast corner of Maugansville and Showalter Roads.The property is zoned Highway Interchange and the RU requirements are being applied.The developer is proposing 24 lots with semi detached housing.The total acreage of the development is 6 acres.The minimum lot size will be 5,000 square feet.All lots will access a proposed public road called Edith Avenue which will attach to Maugansville Road. She stated there will be no access onto Stone Ridge Lane.All lots will be served by public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro referred to her exhibit plat and explained the location of the sanitary sewer easement,the forest area and the easement to the forest area.She referred to the Forest Conservation Plan and stated that the forested area will be incorporated in with the lots.The total forestation area is 1.5 acres.The developer is proposing 1.13 acres as forest and would like to pay the fee in lieu of for the remaining .37 acres.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the amount and types of trees to be planted and the planting timetable.She stated that the responsibility of the planting and maintenance for the first two years will be Mr.Brewer's and after that it will be the prospective lot owners and referred to the signed agreement from Mr.Brewer.Mrs.Pietro stated that the developer is proposing $4,922.28 for surety.She stated the consultant was advised to be prepared to back up those figures this evening.A discussion followed regarding the surety,the payment in lieu of and the two easements.Mr.Iseminger asked who would own the forest easement after the two year management period.Mr.Johnson of Davis,Renn and Associates,consultant,stated it would be owned CD "¢ .,..- CDz :2: by the adjacent lot (lot 17).A discussion followed regarding the surety,ownership of the easement,the Planning Commission's recommendation at the October 4th meeting,enforcement of the Ordinance,the payment in lieu of for the .31 acres,how the surety amount is determined,the forestation area,and what would happen if the project is abandoned. Mrs.Pietro stated that all approvals have been received and that they are looking for approval of the Forest Conservation Plan,the surety amount,the payment in lieu of request for the .31 acres and the preliminary/final plat. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the payment in lieu of for the .31 acres.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the surety in the amount of $4,922.28.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the preliminary/final plan for lots 1-24 with the stipulation that the forest access easement be attached to Lot 17.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered . A discussion followed. Hunt Ridge Business Park: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat and the forest conservation plan for one commercial lot in Hunt Ridge Business Park.The site is located on the east side of Insurance Way in Hunt Ridge business Park off of MD Rt.144 and is zoned Highway Interchange.Mr.Lung stated that the site is currently improved by Lot 1 which contains an office building which is the site of CES,Colonial Insurance and JP Lippincott.He stated that the subdivision plat for Lot 1 was approved in 1990 and included the construction of Insurance Way,which was dedicated to the County.The subject lot has 1.83 acres and is served by public water and sewer.Mr.Lung stated there are 57 acres of remaining lands and a site plan will be required for this lot 2 prior to any development. Mr.Lung referred to the Forest Conservation Plan and stated that the developer is requesting that the plan be approved as part of the approval for Lot 2.He reiterated that the entire site consists of 57 acres and they are asking for approval of the Forest Conservation Plan so they can proceed with subdivision and development of the remaining 57 acres.He stated that a Forest Stand Delineation Plan was approved in September and according to than plan there is 11.36 acres of existing forest on the site. 5.17 acres of the forest will be cleared for development and 6.19 acres will be retained and 3.88 acres of new forest will be planted and referred to the location on the plan.Mr.Lung stated that the forest area is located almost entirely in a 100 year flood plain. The area is to be owned by the developer and set aside as an easement and a plat showing this area will be recorded along with the plat for lot 2 and that all subsequent subdivision plats will reference the Forest Conservation Plan.Mr.Lung stated that the consultant obtained estimates from several nurseries for the cost of reforestation and based on those estimates they will be posting a surety of $30,000.00 in the form of a check to be held in escrow by the County.A discussion followed. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the Forest Conservation Plan and the $30,000.00 surety.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat for Lot 2.Seconded by Mr.Moser.A discussion followed. Mary Warrenfeltz Lots 5-7: 351 352 Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for Mary Warrenfeltz Lots 5-7.The site is on the northwest side of Newcomer Road.The 3 lots contain 3.7 acres with a lot size ranging from .93 to 1.4 acres.Zoning is Agriculture.Individual well and septic will serve the site.Newcomer Road is a local road wi th 50 foot right-of-way required.He stated as part of the subdivision in front of Lot 7 the road was widened to 18 feet.Mr. Schreiber stated that lots 1-4 were approved about a year ago and that lots 5-7 are the remaining lands.He stated that at the October 4th meeting the Planning Commission voted to allow payment in lieu of for approximately $3,200.00.He explained that the $3,200.00 was based on a bad calculation and the amount should be $98.00. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the Preliminary/Final Plat.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Site Plans: Ground Round Restaurant: Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for the Ground Round Restaurant.He stated it is a proposed sit down restaurant and is located on the east side of Wesel Boulevard within the valley Plaza shopping center.The zoning is BG.He stated that this will be an additional structure on the lot and will contain 1.5 acres.The parking area will provide 65 spaces (60 are required)and the site will be served by water and sewer.Mr.Schreiber proceeded to explain the location of the building mounted lights,pole lights and landscaping.He pointed to the plat and referred to the dumpster pad and stated that it will also be used as a recycling area.He stated that there is a loop road that goes around the existing parking area and that the developer will provide addi tional paving to continue the loop around the parking lot.Mr. Schreiber referred to his handout and reviewed some of the problems he had with the plan.He stated that the developer was proposing to add a sign to the existing free standing sign for the K-Mart and Farm and Family Center.Mr.Schreiber stated that both he and Mr. Prodonovich do not feel it should be on the plan until they know the exact square footage in case it would create a zoning violation and if it does,the applicant will have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Schreiber stated that the only other problem was that Potomac Edison has denied the plan because the extension of the loop road is in a cut and they have some lines and an easement they do not want disturbed.Mr.Schreiber stated if they do stay at the existing grade,everything will be in order and Potomac Edison will approve it.He suggested that if approval is given this evening,it should be stipulated that Potomac Edison be satisfied with the plan.The consultant,Mr.Parks of Acer Engineering,presented a photograph of what the facility will look like to the Planning Commission.Mr.Schreiber stated this will be granted an exemption from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it is an existing lot of record and referred to Section 3.2.E.of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Parks stated that this will be the fourth Ground Round restaurant in Maryland.He explained the recycling area and stated that the hours of operation will be from 11:00 a.m.until 12:00 midnight and all deliveries will be made prior to 11:00 a.m.The County Engineer and Soil Conservation Service have approved the plan.Mr.Parks stated that the Engineering Department required a traffic study and required that 4 existing islands at the entrance to K-Mart be made raised and that the existing storm water pond be maintained.A discussion followed regarding deliveries,increased traffic and landscaping. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the site plan conditional upon Potomac Edison's approval and verification of landscaping.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.So ordered. Federal Express: Mr.Arch stated he was presenting the Site Plan for Federal Express ".' CD-q- ~ CO Z ~ and the Preliminary/Final subdivision plat for McRand-Ditto Oakmont Limited Partnership.He stated it is an existing lot of record created by the simplified process and referred to his memo.Mr. Arch stated that the future owner of the site will be Dannek Corporation from Bethesda,MD.He stated they will be the developer for Federal Express.Federal Express will be moving their facility from MD 63 to this facility.The property is located on southeast side of Oak Ridge Drive.The zoning is Highway Interchange.The total site is 4.81 acres.The building size is 50,000 square feet.Mr.Arch pointed to the plan and explained the location of the storm water management pond.He stated that the description of the facility is a mail package and distribution center with 50 employees and will eventually be a 24 hours a day operation.There are 100 parking places including handicap shown (50 are required).Public water and sewer will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and two entrances are shown. Federal Express has a recycling program.Mr.Arch stated that the signs will be building mounted.Lighting will be on the building as well as poles.All approvals are in.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger asked if there was a designated entrance for the trucks. Mr.Arch stated that at this point in time they will be able to use both entrances.He stated they did have a problem with the queuing in one area but felt there is not much traffic right now,but in the future they may want to reevaluate the entrance.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the site plan conditional upon the Planning Commission reserving the right to reevaluate the entrance into the site closest to East Oak Ridge Drive for consideration of an entrance only designation if future traffic queues along Oakmont Drive create congestion problems.Seconded by Don Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Arch stated that McRand-Ditto Oakmont Limited Partnership is requesting preliminary/final approval.He stated that it is an existing lot of record created in the past.It would go from the simplified approval process to the development approval process and all approvals are in.Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Forest Conservation Plan: Thompson's Garage: Mr.Schreiber referred to the letter in the agenda packet and stated that the owner is requesting that since their original submission was January of 1991 they feel they should be exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance via Section 3.2.C.He explained that the plan has not changed and that they have been going through appeals and variances since that date.Mr.Ernst moved to grant them exemption from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. 353 354 Potomac Edison -Reguest for Off-Site Planting: Mr.Moser stated that he would abstain.Mr.Goodrich stated that both this applicant and the next one are requesting approval of their method for compliance with the Forest Conservation Ordinance before the Forest Conservation Plan is prepared.He stated that the Potomac Edison site is located along Virginia Avenue and proceeded to explain the forested area shown on the plan.The property had recently been rezoned and part of it will be conveyed to the County for construction of a storm water management facility to correct a flooding problem in the area.Mr.Goodrich stated that Potomac Edison is proposing to do their planting in the Friendship Technical Park rather than on this site.The details of the planting will be prepared after approval of the method of mitigation.He stated that Potomac Edison has paid for the delineation of the entire site but will not be responsible for the mitigation of the County's portion.A discussion followed regarding forest on the site and landscape buffers.The consultant,Mr.Richard Reichenbaugh of Associated Engineering, explained that a lot of the area will be disturbed and proceeded to review what will be done.He stated that there are priority areas in the Friendship Technical Park and that they will be using nursery stock instead of seedlings.A discussion followed.Mr. Donald Allensworth made a statement in opposition to off-site planting.A discussion followed.By consensus the Commission agreed that off-site planting as a means of mitigating Potomac Edison's forest disturbance on this parcel is acceptable. Maria Valiente -Reguest for Off-Site Planting: Mr.Goodrich referred to the documentation he mailed to the Commission.He stated that Mrs.Valiente,the developer of Fieldstone Acres,is also proposing off site mitigation to comply wi th the Forest Conservation Ordinance.She is proposing 4 additional lots with 50 acres remaining on the farm.The planting will be done on the remainder of the farm.Mr.Richard Reichenbaugh,of Associated Engineering,stated that there will be approximately one acre of plantings.He stated there are a scattering of trees on the property but they do not qualify as a forest.Allowing off-site planting would more likely provide real forest benefits.Planting on the proposed lots would create isolated patches of trees.He also stated that the area they are proposing to plant is contiguous to an existing forest on an adjacent parcel.A discussion followed regarding the size of the property,trees to be protected and future development.Mr. Iseminger asked if the area they will be planting is next to a forest and stated if it was not,he thought payment in lieu of would be a better option.Mr.Spickler asked if the existing forest was on someone else's land.Mr.Reichenbaugh stated yes and that it was a viable forested area.Mr.Allensworth made a comment in opposition to off-site planting.Mr.Iseminger said that it makes sense to create a forest and stated that he does not have a problem with the concept if they are assured that the adjoining forest will remain and questioned if it would be better to do the payment in lieu of and plant elsewhere.Mr.Spickler stated he felt they should get a forest started especially since there may be future development of the site.Mr.Goodrich pointed out that according to the Forest Conservation Ordinance guidelines,planting off-site is a preferred choice over the payment in lieu of fee.By consensus the Planning Commission agreed that the developer could proceed to develop the Forest Conservation Plan for planting off- site. (,0 ~,..-coz ~ Other Business: RZ-93-9 Allen Martin -Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Moser stated that he would abstain from this recommendation. Mr.Iseminger will be voting.Upon review and discussion of the proposed rezoning case,staff report and testimony of the September 20,1993 public hearing,Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the property owned by Allen Martin be approved.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. S-9 Simplified Plat -Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Moser stated that he would abstain from this recommendation. Mr.Iseminger will be voting.Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the request.Mr.Ernst moved that the Commissioners adopt S-9 because the Planning Commission finds it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. A discussion followed. Beaver Creek Recreation Center: Mr.Arch stated that they previously discussed the plan and that it has been revised.He explained there will be no action from the Planning Commission but that Paul Prodonovich requested that they review it.The location is off of Rt.40 near Jack Barr's Go-Kart .Track and Miniature Golf Course.Mr.Arch explained that the developer is proposing a water slide with picnic areas,pavilions and exhibit buildings.He delineated the storm water management area and landscaping.He stated that under the Agricultural zoning,recreation facilities do not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and any approval would be by Paul Prodonovich. A discussion followed regarding approval,the areas to be developed and its location to residential developments and deferring approval to the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Staff can make the Planning Commission's comments part of the staff comments to go to Mr.Prodonovich. A discussion followed regarding the Forest Conservation Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ::)ViM~~r'Srand L. 355