HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 Minutes(0
""'",.-
III
Z
:2::
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 10,1994
The washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,January 10,1994 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,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.
Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;
Timothy A.Lung,Edward J.Schreiber,James P.Brittain and
Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present were County
Engineer;Terry McGee,Director of Permits and Inspections;Paul
Prodonovich and John Wolford of State Highway.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of November I,1993.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of December 6,1993.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Mr.Arch stated that under Old
Business,Kings Crest is on hold and that a special meeting has
been scheduled for Thursday,January 13,1994 at 11:30 a.m.in the
third floor conference room.He stated that under Site Plans,the
Inn at Antietam has been withdrawn.He also stated that under
Other Business,the Highway Interchange Staff Report has been
forwarded to them and can be removed from the agenda.Mr.Arch
requested that the Planning Commission add the following two items
to the agenda:1)Under Forest Conservation -Field Stone Acres
request for payment in lieu of and 2)Under Other Business -
McDonalds/Greyhound Bus concept plan.It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission to add both items to the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Charles Semler:
Mr.Ernst stated that he would abstain.Mr.Lung presented the
variance for Charles Semler.The request is from Section 405.11 B
of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires that all new lots have
at least 25 feet of public road frontage.Mr.Lung stated that the
property contains 7.7 acres and is located on the west side of
Edgemont Road.The property is zoned Agriculture and is
undeveloped.The owner wants to subdivide the property into two
lots,retain the front lot and convey the rear portion to his
cousin.Mr.Lung proceeded to give brief history of the property
and the original subdivision.Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Semler is
requesting to create the lot to convey to his cousin without public
road frontage.A cousin is not considered an immediate family
member by the Subdivision Ordinance.A discussion followed
regarding the original subdivision and the 10 year family member
note.Mr.Bowers moved to approve the variance contingent on the
10 year family member statement being added to the plat for both
lots and that there will be no further subdivision.Seconded by
Mr.Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
357
358
Eugene Armstrong:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Eugene Armstrong.The
property is located on the east side of Greendale Drive.Mr
Schreiber stated that the variance is to create a building on a lot
created by simplified lands and proceeded to give a brief history.
Mr.Schreiber referred to his exhibit plat and showed the location
of the original lot.He stated that about 10 -15 years ago the
Armstrongs purchased 2 lots of record and obtained them by the
simplified subdivision method.He stated in doing that,the lots
became one.Since that time,the property has been perced,the
Armstrongs got building permits,built the house and installed the
driveway.They are now ready to payoff the loan and have run into
title problems because the simplified plat states that it is not
for development.Mr.Schreiber stated what they have is a house on
a simplified piece of ground.Mr.Iseminger asked the planning
staff what they are looking for.Mr.Arch stated they are looking
for a variance from the procedures,so the Armstrongs can use the
simplified plat procedure for the subdivision.Mr.Moser moved to
approve the variance.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.All in favor.
Mr.Iseminger referred to the Semler variance and asked if a right-
of-way would be granted for the driveway and be included on the
plan.Mr.Frederick stated it would.
Subdivisions:
Thompson's Garage,Lot 2 Preliminary/Final Plat:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for Thompson's
Garage Lot 2.He stated that they have been before the Commission
before for variances and the Forest Conservation Ordinance.The
garage is located in the Town of Clear Spring on the north side of
U.S.40 just east of the Clear Spring Corporate boundary.Mr.
Schreiber stated that Lot 1 contains 1.96 acres and will be used
for a tractor trailer storage yard.He stated if any additional
development were to occur,a site plan would be required.A
special exception has been granted for use of storage yard and a
variance to reduce the access spacing along Rt.40 was granted in
July,as well as an exemption from the Forest Conservation
Ordinance.He stated that'as a subdivision there is no development
being created at this time and if any development would occur a
site plan would be required.All agency approvals have been
received.Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final plat
approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
St.James Park (Rockland)Section 1,73 Lots Preliminary/Final:
Mr.Iseminger asked that the Planning Commission be given a few
minutes to review the information from the staff before proceeding.
Mr.Arch presented the preliminary/final plat for St.James Park.
He explained that when the agenda was prepared the status of the
project was discussed with Steve Goodrich,staff plan reviewer for
the project,concerning the fact that revised plans had not been
submitted.Mr.Arch stated that Steve felt that the consultant
would have a copy of the plans submitted by the meeting and that
the consultant indicated all agencies had approved the plans.Mr.
Arch referred to the memo handed out and referred to the
construction plans which came in last week and have not yet been
officially routed out.He stated that the plans have some of the
signatures on them and that there are some issues that are
outstanding which need to be discussed with the Planning Commission
and the developer.He stated that certain amenities previously
discussed are not addressed on the construction drawings or the
final plat.He stated that staff felt this would be a good time to
discuss these issues and hopefully resolve them so that any plan
revisions can be made and the project can get approved.He stated
the staff is not looking for formal approval tonight because the
recently submitted plans have not been routed out.Mr.Arch
proceeded to review the memo itemizing the staff's concerns.He
c.o
~,--
a.l
Z
~
stated they suggested play areas,tot lots and a comprehensive
pedestrian system for this development from the beginning and no
provisions have been provided.Mr.Arch stated that this
development will have a golf course,open to the public,and that
the Planning Commission did grant the developer the right to
cluster,so the units will be tight,because of this,staff feels
that walkways are needed.Mr.Arch stated that staff felt that the
traffic study answered all their questions,but they have not
received any comments from State Highway.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.
Davis,the consultant,what he expected out of the meeting.Mr.
Davis stated that all signatures are on the plans and that they
wanted to submit the plans with all the signatures for approval.
He stated that they had not considered walkways in the development
due to the other amenities offered in the development.He stated
he anticipated receiving a contingent approval based on staff
comments:pedestrian walkways and State Highway comments.He
stated they were the only outstanding issues.John Wolford,of
State Highway,stated they received the traffic study in December
and are still in the process of reviewing it and referred to their
letter and stated that due to the size they want more time to
review it.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated that the other
major items deal with the tot lots and walkways.Mr.Iseminger had
a question concerning the first 79 lots and if the clustering
concept was used and asked if there was space to provide for tot
lots and walkways.Mr.Davis stated that the swimming pool complex
scheduled for Phase 3 has been moved up to Phase I.Mr.Iseminger
stated that a pedestrian access will need to be addressed and the
developer will have to demonstrate how people will get around the
development without relying on automobiles.A discussion followed
regarding the construction of the swimming pool and golf course,
the history of the project and pedestrian walkways.Mr.Carpenter,
the developer,stated that he felt they should not have pedestrian
paths along the golf course,he is concerned people will walk
across the golf course.A discussion followed regarding pedestrian
walkways,amenities and the density.Mrs.Johnson moved to table
this to the workshop meeting on January 13th.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Fountainview P.U.D.Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Site Plan:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat and site plan
for Fountainview PUD.The site is located on the east side of U.S.
Route 11 south of Showalter Road and consists of 68.25 acres.Mr.
Lung stated that the PUD zoning was granted in April of 1988 and
proceeded to briefly review the history of the project.He stated
that this is the final step in the PUD review process.The plan
consists of 173 dwelling units (67 townhouses,30 2-family semi-
detached dwellings and 76 single family lots).The density is 2.5
dwelling units per acre.There are three commercial parcels
consisting of just under 4 acres and site plans have not yet been
submitted for them.He stated there is 17+acres of open space.
He referred to the PUD drawing and proceeded to explain the
location of the units,and the road system.He stated that
pedestrian access is provided by a system of trails and sidewalks
all connecting to the recreation area and proceeded to review the
other amenities provided.The site will be served by public water
and sewer.The homeowners documents were reviewed at the final
development plan stage and the final documents will be submitted
with the final subdivision plat.Mr.Lung stated that when the
property was rezoned there was concern about airport noise and that
the proper certifications have been placed on the plats and site
plans and that notices will be recorded with the covenants and
restrictions with each lot.He stated that the County Engineer has
signed the plans and all other agencies have responded either by
phone or in writing however,all signatures are not yet on the
construction drawings.He stated that the State Highway
Administration is requiring a signal warrant analysis and there
needs to be acquisition of additional right-of-way by the developer
along Route 11 to make the necessary road improvements.Mr.Lung
stated that two items came up during the review 1)The need for
reduction of the setback for the tot lots adjacent to townhouse Lot
359
360
TH41 to reduce the 25 foot setback down to 12 feet and 20 feet
respectively from the property line and 2)The 50 foot set back
down to 28 feet from an alley.He stated in exchange for the
setback reduction they will provide additional plantings around the
tot lots and a fence along the rear of it.The staff feels those
items have been addressed.He stated there is a situation on the
semi-detached dwelling lot D-1 necessitating a reduction of a side
yard setback.He stated that the Planning Commission does have the
authority to grant these reductions as part of the PUD approval
process.Mr.Lung briefly reviewed what was presented this
evening.Preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approval with
the following contingencies -State Highway approval and all
appropriate signatures on the drawings and the reduction in the set
backs previously stated.A discussion followed regarding the
pedestrian paths and the airport noise.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approval contingent upon
State Highway approvals,all appropriate signatures and grant a
reduction in the setbacks as outlined by the staff.Seconded by
Mr.Spickler.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding having
Mr.France contact the owners of the Mission Hill subdivision to
make Masa Terrace a County road.
Site Plans:
Home Federal virginia Avenue:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for Virginia Avenue and
Halfway Boulevard.He stated that in April of 1989 the property
was rezoned to Business Local and when it was rezoned it was
envisioned that something would be done with that interchange
because of all the problems with the access to Virginia Avenue.
In October of 1990 the Planning Commission approved a site plan for
an addition to Home Federal which is similar to what is presented
tonight,a one way motion through the site from Virginia Avenue to
Halfway Boulevard.The back half of the building was not added to
it as well as an ATM and at that time the Food Lion site was not in
existence,so the connection was not included as it is tonight.In
April of 1992,Food Lion submitted a site plan to build on the
site.He stated that extensive traffic studies were done and
numerous problems popped up.It was determined that the left turns
in and out of the bank site were a major problem which should be
addressed.Mr.Schreiber stated that discussions between Food Lion
and the bank produced agreements that provided for cross access
between properties.He stated there are easements on the Food Lion
plat and that the entire site was set up to handle traffic from the
Home Federal site.Mr.Schreiber stated that December 1993 was the
first time the revised plan for Home Federal was discussed.He
stated that the revised site plan mirrored the 1990 plan which
already had been approved by the Planning Commission but there were
a few changes to it -the addition of an ATM,addition of extra
vault and office space to the building and the reduction of a few
parking spaces in order to make the connection to the Food Lion
property.Mr.Schreiber reviewed the traffic flow on the site
plan.As designed,the site plan provides for an entrance on
Virginia Avenue with exits onto Halfway Boulevard and the Food Lion
site.Traffic from the Food Lion site could enter onto the bank
site for the sole purpose of exiting onto Halfway Boulevard.The
site plan proposes allowing both right turns and left turns to be
made from Virginia Avenue but eliminates the Virginia Avenue access
as an exit,prohibiting both right and left hand turns from the
bank site onto Virginia Avenue.Mr.Prodonovich felt there were
enough changes to warrant the Planning Commission's review of the
site plan again.Mr.Schreiber stated a problem that has come up
is that State Highway will approve the plan only if the access to
Virginia Avenue is closed.The County Engineer has also agreed to
that in a letter and Planning staff concurs.He stated that the
Planning staff feels that the new connection to Food Lion should be
used for full ingress and egress to the bank since the entrance
onto Virginia Avenue entrance causes most of the traffic accidents.
He stated that John Wolford of State Highway,the County Engineer
and the Director of Permits were present to answer any questions.
CD
~,....
OJz
:2:
Mr.Arch stated that if the access from Virginia Avenue is closed,
then traffic flow on this site plan will have to be reconfigured.
A discussion followed regarding the redesign involved.Mr.McGee
stated that State Highway needed two conditions to be met in order
for approval:1)close the access onto Virginia Avenue and 2)
reconfigure the connection to Food Lion and Home Federal.He
proceeded to give accident statistics.Mr.Wolford stated that the
existing access to U.S.Route 11 was originally granted to this
site because the State cannot deny access to a parcel if there are
no other alternatives.At the time the site went through review,
Halfway Boulevard was a highway with access controls and there was
no other alternative,and since that time Halfway Boulevard has
been transferred to the County and access control has been lifted.
Since that time two of the three reasons for permitting access to
Virginia Avenue have been eliminated and the bank now has access
onto Halfway Boulevard and they also have access from the Food Lion
site and that is why the State is looking for a solution to the
accident problem associated with the Virginia Avenue entrance.Mr.
Baer,the contractor for the bank,reviewed the history of the site
with regards to the entrance from Virginia Avenue,the approved
site plan and the proposed revisions.He stated that the bank felt
that by accessing Halfway Boulevard with one way traffic through
the site from Virginia Avenue they would cut the existing traffic
to Virginia Avenue by half.He also stated that the reason for the
addition to the bank is due to the fact that the government now
requires that all banks have a safe and that Home Federal never
agreed to allow traffic from Food Lion to access the Home Federal
property.Both Mr.Schreiber and Mr.McGee stated that easements
have been recorded and are in the file.A discussion followed
regarding the Virginia Avenue entrance,and a signal warrant
analysis.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt they should not allow
the entrance from Virginia Avenue to remain.A discussion
followed.Mr.Baer stated that it was not until Food Lion came up
that they had to change their entrance and prior to that they had
an approved site plan.A discussion followed regarding the
Planning Commission's options.Mr.Iseminger stated that when they
approved the Food Lion site plan that they made it clear to Food
Lion that what ever it took to get an access into the bank site
they would agree to and that they were assured by Food Lion that
they would do it.He stated he hoped that Home Federal would be
willing to work with the County on this site.He feels that the
entrance onto Route 11 needs to be shut down and an interior system
be worked out so that it is workable coming off the Food Lion site.
He hoped that the County would be able to help the bank with any
additional costs that the bank would incur because of a redesign.
Mr.Iseminger stated that he wanted all parties to meet and come to
an agreement on a workable solution or else he felt the State would
come in and shut down the entrance to the site.He feels it is an
unsafe situation and feels it should be shut down.Mr.Baer stated
there is not enough room on the site for cross traffic and that
Home Federal and the State Highway Administration have met numerous
times and Home Federal says they cannot close that entrance down.
Mr.Iseminger stated that he wants the bank,State Highway,and the
County Engineer to meet and see if they can work something out and
that the Planning Commission will hold a workshop meeting at a
later date.A discussion followed.Mr.Bowers moved to table the
site plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Ernst abstained.So
ordered.
361
362
E-Pod Addition to Detention Center:
Mr.Brittain presented the site plan and referred to the staff
report.The site is located at 500 Western Maryland Parkway,
Washington County Business Park.He stated the addition is a small
expansion compared to what was approved by the Planning Commission
in June of 1991,which was the addition of the minimum security
facility.He referred to the plat and the existing buildings.The
E-pod will house 74 inmates,and contain about 8,800 square feet
wi th a classroom facility.The other addition is for storage.Mr.
Brittain stated there were some revisions to the stone access road
around the perimeter of the facility due to the proposed
construction of two guard towers.All agency approvals are in.
Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
Funland U.S .A.:
Mr.Brittain presented the site plan for Funland U.S.A.The site
is located 1 (one)parcel north of the corner of U.S.Route 11 and
Maugans Avenue.The facility will be an indoor recreational center
with 23 pool tables,175 games/machines,snack bar and retail
facility to sell machines.There will be an additional storage
area and one on site dwelling unit that an employee will live in.
He proceeded to explain the proposed parking,lighting,screening,
access,signage,and trash collection/recycling.Mr.Brittain
stated that all agency approvals have been received either verbally
or in writing.Discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to approve
the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
Preliminary Consultation:
Joseph Chukla -PC-93-07:
Mr.Arch referred to the staff report in the packet and stated that
the plat was previously before the Commission for a variance.A
discussion followed.No action was taken.
Forest Conservation Plan:
Dennis and Belinda Fulk -Reguest for Payment in Lieu of:
Mr.Arch referred to the letter of request from Fox and Associates.
He stated that they are requesting a payment in lieu of for 0.20 of
an acre.There are no existing tree stands on the site and there
are no environmentally sensitive areas on the site.Mr.Arch
stated that the staff agrees and recommends that they be allowed to
make the payment in lieu of.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the
request for payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Field Stone Acres -Payment in Lieu of:
Mr.Schreiber stated that in December the planning Commission voted
to allow them to create afforestation offsite for approximately
4200 square feet for a 4 lot subdivision,which would be connected
to what was thought to be an existing forest.He stated that after
the consultant performed a field review it was determined it was
not there.Therefore,the developer is requesting to make a
payment in lieu of in the amount of approximately $4,200.00.Mr.
Moser moved to approve the payment in lieu of request.Seconded by
Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
A discussion followed.
(0..q-
"I"'"'"roz
::2:
Agricultural Land Preservation District Application:
Robert and Thelma Castle:
Mr.Arch referred to Mr.Seifarth's memo in the agenda packet.He
stated that the farm consists of 56 acres and is adjacent to
another ag district.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the Robert and Thelma Castle farm be included in
the Agricultural Land Preservation Program since it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Other Business:
Cedar Springs P.D.D.:
Mr.Lung stated that he previously presented a preliminary
development plan in October to the Planning Commission.He stated
that at that time the staff had just made their comments and the
Planning Commission asked the consultant to address the comments
and submit a revised plan before coming back.Mr.Lung stated that
a revised plat was received and both he and Mr.Prodonovich
reviewed it last week and made additional comments.He stated the
largest outstanding item,which they have not received anything on
is the flood plain study.Mr.Iseminger stated that was the
Planning Commission's biggest concern.Mr.Reichenbaugh,
consultant,stated that the developer is in the process of
completing the detailed flood plain study and they understand that
anything in the flood plain will have to be addressed.He stated
that the buildings have been moved out of the mapped flood plain
and the only thing in the flood plain is parking,which is
permitted per the ordinance.Mr.Prodonovich stated that his main
concern with the flood plain is that it is designated on a FEMA map
by approximate methods and that a detailed study could change the
boundary significantly.He stated once the study is done the size
of the flood plain may increase or decrease and feels the plan
should not be approved without knowing where the flood plain is.
Mr.Iseminger stated that was their concern.Mr.Lung stated that
there was adequate storm water management on the site and there is
also concern with down stream flooding conditions that the County
Engineer wanted addressed.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger
asked what they were looking for tonight.Mr.Reichenbaugh stated
they were looking for conditional approval on the plan.A
discussion followed regarding storm water management problems in
the neighborhood,flood plain,additional revisions and conditional
approval.Mrs.Johnson moved to table approval until all the
outstanding items have been resolved.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.
Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Greyhound/McDonalds:
Mr.Arch presented the site plan for the Greyhound terminal at the
Sharpsburg Pike McDonalds.He stated at this time Greyhound has a
temporary ticket booth inside the McDonalds.Mr.Arch stated they
are proposing to put a temporary structure,which will eventually
be permanent,in the back of the parking lot.He stated that the
plan needs a lot of work and at this point it is a concept plan
only,but they would like an endorsement from the Planning
Commission of the location of the terminal because they are
currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Prodonovich
stated he did not have an objection with the use of the site.He
stated they are operating at the site at this time without having
a permit to do so.Mr.Prodonovich proceeded to review his
comments.He stated the plan does not provide for landscaping,
does not show where the buses will load and unload,site plan needs
to reflect additional parking,location of sign,lighting,handicap
space and ramp,special attention should be given to ingress and
egress especially with bus traffic.Mr.Arch stated that the
County Engineer does not recommend mixing the Greyhound traffic
with the automobile traffic on the site.He stated that John
303
364
Wolford of State Highway has concerns with the turning radius.Mr.
Arch stated that staff is concerned with mixing traffic.He stated
in doing a site inspection there is evidence that the area is
parked out at times and there is considerable truck traffic.He
stated we would like to see them use the adjacent access road to
channel traffic to the vacant lot behind McDonalds where there is
space and develop a site plan for that area completely staying away
from the site occupied by McDonalds.He stated the consultant,Bill
Brennen of KCI Associates and representatives from Greyhound and
McDonalds were present.Mr.Brennen explained the location of the
proposed terminal.He stated they want the Planning Commission's
feelings on placing the terminal on the McDonalds site and
eliminating the parking spaces on the building site.A discussion
followed regarding McDonald's concern of the direction the building
will face,lighting,concern with the parking,ingress and egress,
hours of operation and the number of buses per day.
Mr.Lavine of McDonalds expressed his concern of whether or not
Greyhound can work within the McDonalds system and that is why they
would like a temporary structure first to see if it would work
before investing money in a permanent structure and additional
parking and paving.Mr.Arch stated that the staff recommends that
the uses be separated.Mr.Ernst expressed concern over the plan
as presented.Mr.Brennan,consultant,stated what they are
proposing is to go to the first plan,where there would be only 14
buses per day.He pointed to the plat and explained where they
would like to locate the temporary bus terminal and parking area
and see how that facility works.He stated they would like to try
the temporary facility for 60 days.Mr.Arch stated that before
the Planning Commission recommends anything,a complete site plan
should be submitted showing where everything will be located and
include a condition for site development that would kick in after
a certain period of time.Mr.Lavine stated that he cannot
continue as he is now,with the combination of both uses in the
restaurant building.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated
he feels they should develop a site plan and bring it back.He
stated the two facilities need to be separated and that they need
to figure out if it will work and then come back.A discussion
followed regarding the Greyhound facility,the Planning
Commission's concern with safety,ingress and egress,the location
of the building,restroom facilities,hours of operation,
permitted use,parking,internal traffic,using the site as a rest
stop only and striping the parking lot.Mr.Iseminger stated that
they want to work with McDonalds and Greyhound but they will need
a final site plan that is satisfactory.A discussion followed.
Mr.Arch suggested granting site plan approval with the condition
that in 60 days they will submit a revised site plan.A discussion
followed.Mr.Iseminger suggested that staff discuss this as well
as McDonalds,Greyhound and their consultant and see if they can
come up with something that is acceptable to all parties at their
special meeting this coming Thursday at 11:30 a.m.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch stated that on Tuesday,January 25th there will be a joint
public meeting with the Board of Commissioners at 10:00 a.m.for
two text amendments,in the Commissioners meeting room.
It was decided to reschedule the Animal Husbandry meeting to
Monday,January 24th at 7:00 p.m.
Mr.Arch stated that on January 18th,there will be a public
hearing on the recycling plan,if they would like to attend.
A discussion followed.
co
~.,-
CD
Z
~
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,
p.m.
adjourned at 10:45
365
366
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -JANUARY 13,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Thursday,January 13,1994 in the third floor conference room of
the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Robert E.Ernst II,Andrew J.Bowen
IV,and Ex-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planner;
Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also
present,Director of Permits and Inspections;Paul Prodonovich.
Absent were Bernard Moser and Carol Johnson.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 11:35 a.m.
Other Business:
Kings Crest PUD:
Mr.Lung stated that at the last meeting staff was instructed to
review the revised drawings and comment on the proposed pedestrian
system and landscaping.He stated they did so and referred to his
comments itemized in a letter to Russ Townsley of Fox and
Associates dated December 16,1993.He stated that staff
recommended additional landscaping in Section B and that their main
concern was the location of the pedestrian paths in the rear of the
properties.He stated that staff agreed with Mr.Schlossberg's
comments regarding the security problem that the location of the
walkways may present.Mr.Lung stated that staff recommends using
a standard sidewalk alongside the streets,which could be
accommodated with a closed section street design.The staff was
concerned that the proposed paths did not connect with each other
in Section B nor did they connect with Section A.He stated that
the path proposed to connect with the adjacent development and the
Junior College is adequate.He stated the location was somewhat
inconvenient to the apartments on the south side of Kings Crest
Boulevard,however,it was probably the best they could do
considering the topography.He indicated that easements still
needed to be obtained from Mr.Shaool (College Heights).
Mr.Townsley referred to the landscaping plan and proceeded to
review the landscaping proposed for Section A.He stated that in
Section B there will be trees in the open spaces,trees have been
added in the rear by the park benches and there will be landscaping
around each of the homes.He referred to the comment in Mr.Lung's
letter suggesting that street side trees be planted to soften the
impact of the road.Mr.Townsley stated he felt that with the
proximity of the houses to the roadway and the additional
landscaping in front of the homes,the trees would have an adverse
affect and feels what is shown is adequate.A discussion followed.
Mr.Townsley stated that the County Engineer has okayed the on
street parking and referred to Terry McGee's approval letter dated
December 20th.He stated that the County Engineer was opposed to
using a narrower street width.Mr.Townsley stated that the only
thing needed to be resolved is the walkways.He stated that
putting sidewalks in front of the properties would cause problems.
He stated that the County would not accept any maintenance
responsibility and if a rolled curb and sidewalk were added,cars
would overhang the sidewalk due to the size of the lots.A
discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that in his opinion,the
amenities have been addressed and is in agreement with staff
regarding the pathways in the rear of the property,however,it
makes sense to have pathways accessing the open space areas.A
discussion followed regarding the amenities,landscaping,walkways
and rolled curb and side walks.
(0
~..-
CD
Z
~
Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Lung what they are looking for.Mr.Lung
stated site plan approval for Section A,Development Plan and
Preliminary subdivision plat approval for Section B and that all
agency approvals are in.Mr.Townsley asked about the variance for
the tot lot in Section A.Mr.Lung stated it would be a reduction
in the setback.Mr.Spickler moved to reduce the setback
requirements in the tot lot in Section A.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.
Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Bowers moved to approve the
site plan for Section A and the development plan and preliminary
subdivision plan for Section B with the changes to be made as
discussed.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So
ordered.Discussion followed.
Rockland (St.James Park):
Mr.Goodrich presented the plan for Phase I of St.James Park
(formerly Rockland),Lots 1 -73.He explained that staff received
the preliminary/final plat for Phase I in September of 1992.It
was scheduled for the January 3rd meeting with the understanding
that staff would receive revised drawings from the consultant prior
to the meeting for review.The meeting was canceled due to bad
weather;however,staff did not receive the revised drawings until
the following Thursday.Staff prepared a brief review of the
submittal for the January 10th meeting.Not having sufficient time
for review prior to an action,the Commission deferred the matter
to this meeting.He referred to the letter he passed out and
explained that it is the formal review of the consultant's January
6 and January 7 submittal and the consultant did not see the
comments until yesterday.He stated that a set of revised drawings
have been submitted according to staff's comments and there are
still some items outstanding.The drawings have been transmitted
to the appropriate agencies.
As of this morning the State Highway Administration has not
commented.It will be several weeks before they complete their
review of the traffic ~tudy.Mr.Goodrich stated that while the
construction drawings have been approved and signed off by all the
agencies,there are still some revisions needed on the final plat
before it should be approved for recording.A discussion followed.
He stated that Engineering Department indicated that there are some
easements and dedication area that need to be shown on the plat.
In addition,a large storm water management facility and permanent
water facility for the golf course will be added and there are
easements needed to be shown on the plat.Water Department has
given verbal approval contingent on easements being put in the
owners statement.
Mr.Goodrich summarized the Planning staff's comments:1)Showing
correctly the dedicated right-of-way along MD 65 2)Revising
building setbacks for the corner lots according to new standards
adopted in June of 1993.3)Homeowners documents have been
reviewed by the County Attorney.Mr.Goodrich has requested that
a note be included on the plat referencing the documents and their
Liber and Folio 4)Pedestrian system and tot lot -Mr.Goodrich
stated that there are no provisions on the plat for either tot lots
or pedestrian systems.He said the staff has consistently
requested these items since the Preliminary Consultation.Until
now,the developer has not indicated that they would not be
provided.The Planning Commission has always supported the staff's
request for these items.
Mr.Davis stated he did not have a problem with the staff's first
three comments.A discussion followed regarding the State Highway
Administration's comments regarding the entra!lce,when the entrance
will be built and amenities.Mr.Davis stated that he hoped to
receive approval for Phase I before getting into the amenities
package.A discussion followed regarding the time frame of the
amenities.
Wi th regards to the pedestrian walkways,Mr.Davis stated he
367
368
checked his records and stated that an agreement was never reached
and referred to minutes of past meetings where Adrian Carpenter
stated that pedestrian paths may be incorporated in the design.He
stated that was predicated on what the requirements of the golf
course would be and how they would get pedestrian traffic around
the development.He stated that the only areas that pedestrians
can walk on are the rights-of-way that now have roads shown.He
stated that his suggestion has always been to the developer to
utilize the 8'paved shoulders.He does not feel they have a good
spot to locate pedestrian paths without creating a situation where
people will want to cross the golf course,which is not allowed
both from a liability and common sense aspect.He suggested
marking the shoulders to be used for walkways.Mr.Goodrich
advised that the County Engineer is opposed to this arrangement due
to the liability to the County.Mr.Bowen asked if there is a
requirement to put pedestrian walkways in.Mr.Goodrich stated
there is no written standard in the Zoning Ordinance that says they
must have sidewalk in this type of development but in the cluster
provisions it does say the developer will provide amenities in
return for being able to have smaller lots.Mr.Bowen stated he
does not have a problem with the development as it is.A
discussion followed regarding the shoulders,walkways,liability
involved in designating shoulders as walkways.
Mr.Iseminger asked where the amenities are located for the people
to get to and asked if there were logical places they can provide
for them to get to.Mr.Iseminger stated that they are not
suggesting that they put trails throughout the development,but
feels there should be a connection.Mr.Spickler stated he is
satisfied with the fact they have plenty of road to get around and
feels they will drive to get around the development but questions
about the children living on the other side of the golf course and
that they ,\'ould be cutting across it.Mr.Davis commented that the
quickest way to access the amenities in the development is by car.
Mr.Ernst stated this is an unusual situation with the golf course
being in the green space,which in most cases would be used for
walkways.He feels they cannot designate the shoulders as walkways
for liability.Mr.Iseminger asked if there was a way to make the
roads safe for walking.Mr.Iseminger stated that the pedestrian
walkways are not part of Phase I and that they do not have to be
addressed at this time.He stated they can act on Phase I,but
that the pedestrian system will be addressed when the Preliminary
Plan for the rest of the development is presented.He stated he
would like them to get with the County Engineer to see if the roads
could be modified or made useable for walking.Mr.Bowers stated
they should find out legally what is done throughout the State
regarding painting lines on the roads.Mr.Arch stated they can do
that but there is liability involved.Mr.Iseminger stated that
between now and the next phase he would like them to explore some
ways of providing useable pedestrian paths.Mr.Carpenter stated
he is not against having paths I but has not yet been able to
integrate them into the design.Discussion followed.Mr.Ernst
moved to grant preliminary/final subdivision approval for Phase I
contingent upon agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So
ordered.
Mr.Iseminger asked that they look into making the roads safe.Mr.
Davis stated that they submitted the Preliminary plat in February
of 1992 for the entire development and stated they have not
received any comments on it.Mr.Goodrich stated that only one
copy of the plan was submitted and that the staff did provide
extensive comments.Mr.Iseminger stated that they took action on
what was submitted for Phase I and that the Preliminary Plan for
the remainder of the project will have to come back and he asked
the planning staff and the consultant to prepare a sequence of
events concerning the evolution of the project to this point.A
discussion followed.
McDonalds (Greyhound Bus Terminal):
Mr.Arch stated that since their last meeting,a revised site plan
CD
""d'"
"It""""
00
Z::::
was submitted to Paul Prodonovich.He feels it is a workable plan
and proceeded to review the revisions.Mr.Arch stated that the
parking area has been moved and proceeded to explain where the
buses will load and unload and the traffic flow.Mr.Arch stated
that even though they do not have everything together on one plan,
they are asking for conditional approval contingent upon the
developer putting all the information on one site plan.Mr.Arch
stated that at the last meeting Mr.Allensworth asked about the use
itself and whether it was permitted in the district.He stated
that Paul Prodonovich looked at it and determined that the use is
allowed.Mr.Arch stated that the plan will be routed out and that
Terry McGee has already reviewed it and signed off.He stated that
storm water management will be handled by an existing facility.He
stated he is not sure if there will be a need for a sanitary sewer
and water facilities from the standpoint of restrooms being in at
this time.He stated that if the hours of operation for the
terminal are the same as McDonalds then there may not be a need for
additional facilities,if not then adjustments will have to be
made.Mr.Arch stated that the number of approvals from outside
agencies is minimal.Mr.Brennan,consultant,stated that the
hours of operation for the depot will be from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00
p.m.Monday through Friday and Saturday from 8:00 a.m.to 1:30 p.m.
and will be closed on Sunday.He stated that all ticketing
activity will be at the depot.He stated that Greyhound will have
rest stops and meal stops at the restaurant and the hours of
operation are from 5:00 a.m.to 11:30 p.m.He stated that
Greyhound's first stop is scheduled for 5:10 a.m.and the last stop
will be at 11:30 p.m.Mr.Prodonovich pointed to the plat and
showed where the temporary building will be.Mr.Iseminger stated
he is satisfied with the plan.Mr.Arch stated there should be a
time frame for the submission of a revised site plan to Mr.
Prodonovich.Mr.Prodonovich stated the consultant informed him he
could have a revised plan addressing the concerns by the first of
the week and that would be fine with him.Mr.Bowers moved to
approve the site plan contingent on a revised drawing being
submi tted and agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.A discussion followed.
ADJOURNMENT:
369
at 1:00 p.m.There being no
irman
370
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -JANUARY 24,1994
Th~Washington County Planning Commission h~ld a sp~cial m~~ting on
Monday,January 24,1994 in th~first floor conf~r~nc~room of th~
County Administration Building.
M~mbers pr~s~nt wer~:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson,Ex-
Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Robert Ernst,II and Andr~w J.Bow~n,
IV.Staff:Dir~ctor;Rob~rt C.Arch,Associat~Plann~r;Timothy
A.Lung and Secr~tary;D~borah S.Kirkpatrick.Also pr~s~nt,
Dir~ctor of P~rmits and Insp~ctions;Paul Prodonovich.
CALL TO ORDER:
Th~m~~ting was call~d to order by th~Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
Other Busin~ss:
RZ-93-13 -Animal Husbandry:
Mr.Lung inform~d the Commission that a public h~aring for th~
am~ndm~nt was h~ld in S~pt~mb~r 1993 and r~f~rr~d to th~Staff
R~port.H~stat~d that th~r~was discussion at pr~vious m~etings;
how~v~r,th~Planning Commission felt th~y should tabl~any action
until th~y kn~w th~outcom~of n~w Stat~r~gulations which may
aff~ct the amendment.He stated they received a copy of the draft
regulations proposed by th~Stat~and that Mr.Spickl~r att~nd~d
th~m~~tings.
Mr.Lung stated that th~r~was support from th~farm community for
th~amendm~nt including the Farm Bur~au and Soil Cons~rvation
District.H~also stat~d th~r~was opposition ~xpr~ss~d at th~
h~aring from citiz~ns concern~d that th~cut off numb~r was too
high and .th~s~tbacks propos~d wer~too low and that th~
regulations did not do enough in addr~ssing odor.H~stated that
during th~h~aring,Commissioner Snook expr~ss~d concern about th~
wording of the s~tback ~xemption for ~xisting facilities and
sugg~sted that th~staff look at additional wording to clarify it.
H~stat~d th~y did add som~additional wording for clarification,
which was includ~d in th~Staff Report.
Mr.Spickler made a r~port on th~Maryland D~partm~nt of
Environment meetings concerning the n~w Stat~r~gulations.H~
stat~d that in his opinion it will not aff~ct.our Ordinanc~.
Discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to r~commend to the
County Commission~rs th~adoption of t~xt amendm~nt RZ-93-13 with
the corr~ction as pr~sented in the staff r~port.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.Mr.Spickl~r abstain~d.So ordered.
RZ-94-12 Gilb~rt and Dorothy Hunt:
Mr.Arch briefly r~vi~w~d th~propos~d wording for the text
am~ndm~nt,which would p~rmit a nursing home in the Conservation
district.He referred to the staff report following public hearing
and noted that the requirement for additional review by the
Department of Aging appeared unnecessary.He stated that staff's
other main concern was that this should not be as a principal
permitted use,but as a special exception.A discussion followed
regarding the history of this case,septic systems,the previous
371
court cases,potential problems with a nursing home facility in
Conservation and the distance from fire and rescue services.Mr.
Ernst moved to deny the text amendment for RZ-93-l2 based on the
fact that it is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and expressed concern for the following issues:1)concern for
possible septic tank overloadings and consequential environmental
damage;2)concern that areas of the County which are usually
associated with a Conservation designation are normally distant
from public services such as public water and sewer facilities
associated with higher residential occupancy structures,as well as
emergency response units and health facilities which may be
required to address the needs of the elderly residents;3)concern
that there is no need to allow this type of land use in the
Conservation District since it is already allowed in other zoning
districts;4)concern that the use is not functionally similar to
any other use in the conservation District;5)concern that this
action may possibly be discriminatory since it does not address
other types of group homes in the Conservation District;and 6)
concern that the amendment is not supported by documented need for
this type of use in a Conservation District but instead an
amendment for the sake of an amendment requested by a specific
individual to address their specific needs.Seconded by Mrs.
Johnson.Mr.Spickler abstained.So ordered.
RZ-93-l4 McRand-Huyetts Ltd.Partnership:
After consideration of the testimony during the public hearing,
written comments received during the lO-day comment period and
staff reports,Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the property owned by McRand-Huyetts Ltd.
partnership be approved.This recommendation was based on the
Commission's opinion that the applicant demonstrated that there was
a mistake in the original zoning.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.
Spickler and Mr.Bowers abstained.So ordered.
Home Federal Site Plan:
Mr.Arch stated that at the last regular meeting,the Commission
tabled taking action on the Home Federal Site Plan.Since that
time,Mr.Bowers and Mr.Prodonovich met with Home Federal.It was
felt that the Commission should be brought up-to-date as to Home
Federal's position.Mr.Arch reviewed the plan and referred to the
link between Food Lion and Home Federal.He stated that two years
ago the Planning Commission approved a plan for the bank.He
stated that the revised plan is similar except for the link to Food
Lion,the ATM machine and a small expansion to the building for the
safe.He stated that Home Federal is thinking of withdrawing the
new plan and applying for a building permit for the plan that has
already been approved.He stated that on the other hand the
Planning Commission still has the ability to act on the new plan,
which Home Federal would prefer to use.He stated that the new
plan does not propose closing the entrance but does have a better
traffiC flow than the old plan.He stated the question before them
is whether the Planning Commission wants to consider the idea of
approving the plan as presented to them even though it does not
close the Virginia Avenue entrance.A discussion followed
regarding the entrance,the possibility of stacking at the ATM,and
the differences in the two plans.Mr.Iseminger stated that the
key is the State and that they will have to review the plan again.
A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that this plan will
come before them at the February 7th meeting and feels that State
Highway should be apprised of the changes and give their cowments
at that time.
>-3 :.-
::0-1:1roc..,
Ii 0roc:
t1 ::0
ro §1.....t'.l::l Zt.Q >-3
::l ..
0
H>
~
Ii
IT
::0-ro
Ii
t1
~m.....
::lromm
~
IT
/::0-ro
tp \SK\,ro
IT \ro
Ii FIT
PJ .....
::l ::l
Q.t.Q
t"'PJ
Q.
w.
0
~
Ii
::lro
Q.
PJ
IT
--l
U1
0
'0.
S w
"N
CD
V,.-
(Q
z
~
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 7,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,February 7,1994 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,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:
Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,
Associate Planners;Edward J.Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa
Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,
Director of Permits and Inspections;Paul Prodonovich.Absent was
Carol Johnson.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of January 10,1994.
Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Home Federal:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for Home Federal,which was
submitted in December of 1993.He stated that this plan is similar
to the one presented in January and consists of one-way traffic
through the site from Virginia Avenue to Halfway Boulevard,as well
as cars being able to exit through the Food Lion site.He stated
that at last month's meeting they debated whether the entrance
from Virginia Avenue should be closed.State Highway
Administration and the County Engineer both feel it should be
closed.In addition,they would like to see the entire site
reconfigured in order to close the access from virginia Avenue and
utilize the access from the Food Lion site as well as Halfway
Boulevard.He stated that Home Federal does not want to do that.
Mr.Schreiber stated that Home Federal does have an approved site
plan from 1990,but it does not include the connection to Food
Lion,the ATM and the vault area.He stated that if the Planning
Commission does not approve the new plan as shown,Home Federal can
fall back on the 1990 plan.Mr.Schreiber noted that on the
revised plan,there is a problem with parking and stacking with the
ATM and referred to State Highway's letter.In addition,the drive
aisle is shown at only 19 feet with 90 degree parking and needs to
be changed to angled parking.Mr.Arch stated as directed by the
Planning Commission,they spoke to Highway Administration this
morning and did receive a letter from John Wolford which indicates
that they feel it is not the best solution to the traffic problem
but they will not be taking any action in the immediate future.
Mr.Arch stated that this is a better flow than the 1990 plan and
that the State made some suggestions regarding signage and
relocation of the ATM.A discussion followed regarding the number
of signs recommended by State Highway.Mr.Bowers moved that the
site plan be approved as presented minus the ATM,which can be
relocated at another time either on this site with approval of the
County or on the Food Lion site and with appropriate signage to
insure one way traffic.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Moser
commented that it is the best decision they can make at this time
and he hopes that in the future Home Federal will close down the
entrance from Virginia Avenue.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
373
374
Variances:
.:feffrey G:t.ills and Cynthia Weiss:
Lisa Pietro presented the variance for Jeffrey Grills and Cynthia
Weiss.The subject site is located along the west side of Mountain
Laurel Road and is zoned Agricultural.The owner is proposing to
create a two acre lot in the northern corner of the property with
a panhandle of 950 feet long-..The proposed panhandle will be
adjacent to an existing gravel driveway.The variance is from
Section 405.11GB,which requires that the length of each panhandle
be no more than 400 feet in length.Mrs.Pietro stated that she
spoke to the County Engineer regarding any new subdivision along
Mountain Laurel Road and that they could not give her any definite
information on the status of the road without more research.She
stated that the road is inadequate in some spots and if any
subdivision were to occur there may be some in<ldequacies.A
discussion followed with the owner regarding the location of the
site,the access onto Mountain Laurel Road,the possibility of
further subdivision,the location of the proposed driveway,and the
location of the proposed lot.Mr.Iseminger explained that the
reason they have a maximum length for panhandles is because of the
amount of fire hose on trucks.He wants the responding fire
company to take a look at it to see if they will have any problems
with it.Mr.Grills stated that there is a driveway that runs to
a lot in back of their property.A discussion followed regarding
contacting the owner of the driveway for an easement.Mr.
Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission would prefer to see
Mr.Gills use the 150 foot driveway and that they could grant a
variance if the property owner was in agreement.Mr.Bowers moved
to table the variance until the March meeting.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Donald Thomas:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance located on the south side of
Monroe Road,which is classified as local.He stated it is a
variance from Section 318.1,which states that lots created by the
simplified process need to be at least three acres in size.He
stated that a one acre lot is being created with 133 acres
remaining.The zoning is Agricultural and the lot will be conveyed
to an immediate family member.Mr.Schreiber referred to the
applicant's letter and stated that Mr.Thomas wants to create the
lot for his daughter for estate planning purposes.He stated that
Monroe Road is less than adequate,only 11 -12 feet wide and that
Mr.Thomas has indicated that he does not want to improve Monroe
Road at this time and would like to wait until his daughter applies
for a building permit.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to
grant the variance based on the hardship presented in the staff
report.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Western Commercial Funding:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Western Commercial
Funding.The site is located on the north side of Foxville Road,
MD 77,which is classified as a major collector.The variance is
from Section 405.2A which states that new access points along a
major collector shall be spaced at a minimum of 300 feet.Mr.
Schreiber stated there was a preliminary consultation a few years
ago.At that time,the owner was informed that a variance would be
required,because the access was less than adequate,only 220 feet.
This is a 30 lot subdivision and Hippan Hill Road is a private lane
serving 4 lots.Mr.Schreiber stated that in inspecting the site
the proposed access is the best location for public safety.Mr.
Spickler moved to grant the variance based on the safety factors.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
co
~
T'"'"co
Z
~
Subdivisions:
Northaven Commercial Lot I Preliminary/Final:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Northaven
Commercial Lot 1.The site is located on the west side of Route 11
.3 miles north of the intersection with Maugans Avenue.The zoning
is Business General.The property owner is proposing to subdivide
1.2 acres of his 16 acre tract.The proposed lot has an existing
one story commercial building currently being used as a ceramics
business.She stated that Lot 1 will have 30 feet of road frontage
on Route 11,but the site's main access is the one that serves the
mobile horne park.The site is served by public water and sewer.
All approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding
truck traffic,access to the loading dock and screening.Mr.Moser
moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.
Bowers.So ordered.
R.W.D.Realty,Parcel "A":
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat and
stated that the purpose of the plat is to create a parcel of land
to construct a new road.The site is located on the north side of
Virginia Avenue near Bower Avenue.The concept plan for the
Crosspoint Development called for the extension of Massey Boulevard
and in order to make the connection to Virginia Avenue,it is
necessary for the developers of Cross Point to obtain this strip of
property.Due to the engineering requirements and the location of
an existing building,a variance was granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals for the side yard setback.He stated that the owner has
been working with the County Engineering Department,State Highway
Administration and Conrail regarding the design of the road.
According to those agencies,this parcel will accomodate the road
as designed.The plat has been approved by the County Engineer,
State Highway and all of the utilities except for Sanitary
District,who has asked that more of the existing conditions be
shown on the plat.Those revisions have been made and the staff is
waiting for a reply.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant is asking
for preliminary/final subdivision approval conditional upon receipt
of the approval from Sanitary District.Discussion followed.Mr.
Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final subdivision plat approval
condi tional upon Sanitary District approval.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Fieldstone Acres,Lots 27 -30 Preliminary/Final:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for Fieldstone
Acres,Lots 27 -30.The site is located on Beaver Creek Road and
Fieldstone Drive and is part of the existing Fieldstone Acres.The
zoning is Agriculture and the site is located in the Rural
Agricultural area as defined by the Comprehensive Plan.The lot
sizes range from 1.25 acres to 5 acres,which will encompass the
existing barn.There will be 52 acres in the remaining lands.
Lots 27,28 and 29 will use Fieldstone Drive and Lot 30 will use
Beaver Creek Road.All lots will have individual well and septic.
The developer will make a payment in lieu of in the amount of
apprOXimately $4,200.00 to the Forest Conservation Fund.All
agency approvals are in.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary/final approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
C.E.S.Preliminary/Final Plat:
Mr.Arch stated that this is a revision to the previously approved
site plan and is asking for a more detailed site plan approval for
the Day Care Center.He explained that C.E.S.is subdividing the
daycare center from the rest of the site.This site contains 1.39
acres with 17+/-acres remaining.He referred to the plat and
explained the location of the daycare center and explained where
375
376
the C.E.S.building will be located.He proceeded to explain the
parking,the play areas,fenced in areas and stated that the Forest
Conservation fee has been paid.The County Engineer had one
comment about an easement,which has been corrected.Mr.
Prodonovich had a comment regarding handicap space and location for
a hose.He stated that the Water Department commented that they
would like to see two laterals instead of one.Mr.Iseminger had
a question regarding recycling and lighting.Mr.Arch stated that
all issues will be addressed.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary/final approval subject to receiving all agency
approvals.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Site Plans:
DavCo Inc.:
Mr.Schreiber presented the plat for DavCo Inc.located on the west
side of MD 65 and the north side of Col.Henry Douglas Drive.The
zoning is Highway Interchange.The 1.3 acre site will be used as
a Wendy's Fast Food Restaurant with a drive-thru.Mr.Schreiber
stated that access along MD 65 will be right turn in only and full
access is granted to Col.Henry Douglas Drive.He stated that in
the future,Col.Henry Douglas Drive will have a light at MD 65
that will help control traffic.He explained that 32 parking
spaces are required and that 54 will be provided including
handicap,truck and bus spaces.He proceeded to explain the
location of the drive-thru window and the access to it.A
discussion followed regarding access to the drive-thru window,
traffic flow,possible stacking and potential problems access to
the drive-thru may cause.Mr.Iseminger suggested making the
approval contingent upon the County Engineer meeting with the
consultant and the developer to review the traffic flow and come up
with something agreeable.He stated if they cannot,then they will
have to come back to the Planning Commission.Mr.Schreiber stated
that all approvals are not in.He is still waiting for Sanitary
District and State Highway Administration approvals.Mr.Bowers
moved to grant approval contingent on receiving agency approvals
and the consultant meeting with the County Engineer and State
Highway Administration to come up with a better internal traffic
flow.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger
instructed the consultant that if they have a problem with working
out the internal flow,they are to come back.
Inn at Antietam:
Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for expansion of the Inn at
Antietam.The site is located on the south side of MD 34 on the
east end of Sharpsburg.Mr.Goodrich stated there is an existing
Bed and Breakfast Inn with 4 rooms and that the owners are
proposing to add 12 additional guest rooms,a chapel and a
conference center.The conference center would include a 3,000
square foot dining room,a small meeting room and an artifact
gallery.Mr.Goodrich stated that access will be onto MD 34 and
will be widened to 20 feet.He proceeded to explain the parking,
and the landscaping plan.He stated that the plan was first
reviewed in December and referred to his original comments,which
have all been addressed and proceeded to review them.Mr.Goodrich
stated that the dining room is only available for people staying at
the facility.This was confirmed by the owner.A discussion
followed.Mr.Goodrich stated that the owner is aware that the
Historic District Commission must approve the building permits for
the exterior of the building since the development is inside the
Antietam Overlay zone.All of the agencies have responded
affirmatively and public water and sewer will be provided.
Mr.Goodrich stated there are only two items that need to be
addressed.He explained the location of the boundary line between
the County and the Town of Sharpsburg and that the parking area is
inside the Town of Sharpsburg limits.Mr.Goodrich stated that the
Town of Sharpsburg has received copies of the plan and the Mayor
<.0
"¢
,.-coz
:2:
indicated that once the building permit is applied for,the Town
will make a decision on the parking and did not foresee a problem.
Mr.Goodrich stated that even though the Historic District
Commission authority extends only to an opportunity to review the
exterior appearance of the buildings,they requested an opportunity
to review the site plans and made recommendations for two revisions
to the plan when it was first submitted.Since that time they have
been provided with additional information and the majority of the
members who participated in the first decision to recommend changes
have now indicated if a vote were taken,would withdraw their
support for revisions.There was no quorum at the last Historic
District Commission meeting and the decision to withdraw could not
be formally voted on.The original recommendations were:1)To
provide a second access for better traffic flow and integration of
the site into the Town of Sharpsburg.Mr.Goodrich stated that
after a site inspection,he recommended withdrawing the suggestion
for a second access because the location was unsuitable.2)To
perform a Phase 1 Archeological evaluation of the site,prior to
the construction to see if there are any research worthy artifacts
because of the proximity to the battlefield.The owner has since
explained to the Historic District Commission that the majority of
the site had already been disturbed after the battle by farming and
the construction of the storm water management facilities for the
battlefield and other construction activity in the area.
Mr.Goodrich stated that it is now before the Planning Commission
for site plan approval.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to
grant site plan approval subject to approval from the Town of
Sharpsburg and without the Historic District Commission's
recommendations.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.Mr.Ernst abstained.So
ordered.Discussion followed.
Mr.Goodrich stated that the Historic District Commission asked him
to make a general recommendation in the future that the Planning
Commission request multiple ingress/egress to sites and not allow
development to depend on only one way in or out.
Forest Conservation:
Mt.Zion Lutheran Church -Payment in Lieu of Reguest:
Mrs.Pietro presented the payment in lieu of request.She referred
to the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan and stated that the Church is
asking to make a payment in lieu of planting for .47 acres of
forest and referred to the letter in the packet.Mrs.Pietro
reviewed the site plan and stated that if the Express Procedure was
in place,that this request would qualify and not have come before
the Commission.Mr.Ernst moved to accept the payment in lieu of
request and waive the County's 2 year planting obligation.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Western Commercial Funding Lot 33 -Forest Conservation Plan:
Mr.Schreiber presented the Forest Conservation Plan for Western
Commercial Funding Lot 33.The site is located on Crystal Falls
Drive and is an abandoned orchard.Mr.Schreiber stated that 1.2
acres of afforestation will be required and the applicant is
requesting approval of the surety amount of $2,000.00.Mr.Ernst
moved to accept the $2,000.00 bond.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So
ordered.
Pauline Hoch:
Mr.Schreiber stated that the site in question is a one acre lot in
a residential subdivision.He stated that the owner wishes to
resubdivide the property into two lots and that there are no
significant trees or wetlands on the site.The owner would have to
afforest approximately 4,000 square feet or pay $409.50 into the
377
378
fund.Mr.Schreiber stated that this would also be eligible for
the Express Procedure.The owner is requesting to make the payment
in lieu of and is willing to waive the County's two year planting
obligation.Mr.Spickler moved to accept the $409.50 payment in
lieu of and include that the applicant will waive the County's two
year planting obligation.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Other Business:
Western Commercial Funding Section C -Hydrogeologic Study:
The site is located at the corner of Crystal Falls Drive and
Republican Avenue.It is located within the upper Beaver Creek
Basin,which is designated as a special planning area according to
the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Lung referred to the Comprehensive
Plan map to show the location of the Upper Beaver Creek Basin,
along with the Smithsburg and Edgemont Watersheds and the trout
hatchery.He stated that the site is located approximately 2.5
miles from the trout hatchery.Mr.Lung stated that this situation
was brought to the Planning Commission'S attention when the project
was presented as a preliminary consultation in April of 1991.At
that time the Planning Commission requested a hydrogeologic study
be done based on the policies for special planning areas in the
Comprehensive Plan.He stated that the Comprehensive Plan requires
that environmental compatibility be demonstrated in regard to land
use.The owner feels he can show environmental compatibility
without preparing a hydrogeologic study and referred to his letter
in the agenda packet.Mr.Lung stated he spoke to Rod MacRae of
the Health Department today regarding the difference between the
impact of an orchard versus residential development and questioned
whether or not any of the possible contamination would reach the
Beaver Creek itself.He stated that the Health Department's
opinion is that they cannot assess the difference unless they go
through a comparative analysis.Mr.Angle of Best Angle Surveyors,
consultant,presented some figures regarding the differences in
nitrogen loading between agricultural peach orchard use versus
residential development he received from the Washington County
Extension Office.He stated he also spoke to Rod MacRae and the
Maryland Office of plahning.It was Mr.Angle's opinion that
residential development of the site would not increase nitrogen
loading of the soil.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch asked if the
developer would consider using an advanced denitrofication septic
unit.Mr.Angle stated it was not discussed.A discussion
followed regarding the soil types in the area and if the study is
necessary.Mr.Iseminger stated he wants an expert to look at the
site and state if they can forego the study.Mr.Moser stated he
is in agreement and asked if they could get some input from DNR.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to wait until they
hear from the other agencies to see if the request is logical and
valid.Mr.Ernst moved to table this issue until the March agenda.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Marshall Bowman:
Mrs.Pietro referred to the letter in the agenda packet about the
plan submitted for review and comment.She explained that Lots B
and 9 are from a previous subdivision in the 70's and the developer
is proposing to resubdivide.There will be three lots -8,9 and
BA.The third lot is being created for an immediate family member
off of Arcadia Lane,which is a private drive.Mrs.Pietro stated
that it was her opinion during the review that the immediate family
member statement in Section 405.11B would not apply to this
situation since the lane is not owned by the conveyor.In this
case,Arcadia Lane is not owned by the Bowmans but by Hans Goerl
and the lane serves 5 existing homes.Mrs.Pietro added that they
are creating an additional lot on a private road and feels that the
Planning Commission should look at it before the Bowmans proceed to
submit the plan.She stated they do have a letter from Mr.Goerl,
the owner of Arcadia Lane,stating that he does not have a problem
379
wi th them using the lane.Mrs.Pietro stated they advised the
Bowmans that as an alternative they could apply for a variance to
create a lot without public road frontage.A discussion followed
regarding the use of Arcadia Lane and further subdivision.The
Planning Commission agreed that they would like an assurance in
writing from all of the owners along Arcadia Lane that there will
be no further subdivision.Mr.Ernst moved to recommend approval
to create a lot without public road frontage,contingent upon
adding a note to the plat stating that there will be no further
subdivision and receipt of a letter from the property owners along
Arcadia Lane stating that they would not further subdivide their
property.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Demolition Permit:
Mr.Goodrich explained the County Commissioner's policy of 1989
regarding the review of the demolition permit applications.
93-7943 -Willis/Kinslow.Mr.Goodrich stated that this property
is in the Maugans Meadow Subdivision.He stated that the house
will stay and that the demolition permit is for the removal of the
farm buildings.The Historic District Commission feels that part
of the quality of these buildings is that they are part of a
complete complex of farm buildings but believes it is inevitable
that the buildings will come down.They have requested and the
applicant has agreed to record the site,which involves preparing
a scaled drawing to show how each building relates to the others,
and photograph each elevation before removing the buildings.Mr.
Goodrich stated that Jerry Ditto recalled that the Historic
District Commission made a recommendation that the buildings be
dismantled by hand.Mr.Goodrich stated he would check on that and
added that the applicant did indicate he would take the buildings
down by hand.Mr.Spickler moved that they concur wi th the
Historic District Commission's recommendations.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Highway Interchange -Group I:
Mr.Iseminger stated that he had asked that Ralph France check on
the wording of the motion in case it was challenged legally,
addressing specific points in this comprehensive rezoning.Mr.
Arch stated that the key item is that there is no change or mistake
and that the recommendation is based on the findings and facts that
the Commission believes were identified in the study itself and
that the action would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of
Washington County.A discussion followed regarding how much detail
is needed in the motion.Mr.Arch stated he would ask Mr.France
to outline what items the Planning Commission should specifically
address in their motion and suggested that the Planning Commission
direct that a motion be prepared in accordance with the
recommendations of the attorney and based on the recommendations of
the final summary.Mr.Spickler moved to prepare a recommendation
to satisfy the requirement as recommended by the County Attorney
and based on the recommendations of the final summary.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch stated that the joint public hearing tentatively scheduled
for February 22,1994 has been changed to be included in the
regularly scheduled rezoning hearing to be held on March 14th.He
stated that the hearing for the Water and Sewer Plan will be
rescheduled at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00
p.m.
380
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 7,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,March 7,1994 in the first floor conference room of the
County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.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 J.Schreiber,TimothyA.Lung,
Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also
present,Elmer Weibley of Soil Conservation District.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of January 13,1994.
Seconded by Carol Johnson.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger stated that for the minutes of January 24,1994,page
1 under Animal Husbandry,paragraph 2,"classification"should be
changed to clarification.Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes
of January 24,1994 as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So
ordered.
Mr.Spickler stated that for the minutes of February 7,1994,page
3 under Northaven,instead of "Mr.Moser moved to grant the
variance"it should read "Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary/final plat approval.So ordered."Mr.Spickler stated
that under Highway Interchange the minutes do not show that the
motion was seconded and voted on.Mr.Iseminger instructed the
secretary to check the tape and amend the minutes accordingly.Mr.
Spickler moved to adopt the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch asked the Planning
Commission to add two items under Other Business.He stated one is
a request from Frederick Seibert and Associates for Home
Construction Corporation to extend the Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for another year and that the other item is for guidance
regarding a letter from Carl Needy regarding interpretation of the
Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Moser moved to add the two
items to the agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Jeffrey Grills and Cynthia Weiss:
Mrs.Pietro stated that this variance was presented at last month's
meeting for the creation of a panhandle in excess of 400 feet.At
that time the Planning Commission recommended that Mr.Grills
contact his adjacent neighbor to see if he could obtain access
through his driveway for a shorter distance and eliminate the
panhandle.The Planning Commission had also instructed Mrs.Pietro
to contact the fire department.Mrs.Pietro stated she spoke to
Mr.Griffith,Chief,of the Boonsboro Fire Department.He did
inspect the site and does not have problem with the length of the
panhandle and informed her that they have serviced the area before.
He did state that when the lane is constructed,it will need to be
wide enough for trucks and have sufficient shoulders.Mr.Griffith
also informed her that there is another access to the property off
(0
'¢
0r-
al
Z
::2E
of Mapleville Road.
Mr.Grills advised the Commission that his neighbor is not
interested in providing him with an easement,since he is trying to
sell his lot.A discussion followed regarding the proposed
entrance,the width of the proposed lane,keeping the option open
to access the driveway in the future and whether there would be
further subdivision.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance with
the stipulation that there would be no further subdivision.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.Mr.Bowers requested that the
minutes reflect that the Planning Commission wants the option left
open to access the adjacent driveway in the future.
Western Commercial Funding Section C -Hydrogeologic Study:
Mr.Lung explained that this item was before the Planning
Commission at the February meeting and that a subdivision plat has
been submitted.The development is located on the corner of
Crystal Falls Drive and Republican Avenue and is in the Beaver
Creek special planning area.The Comprehensive Plan states that
within this planning area developers are to show that proposed
development is compatible with the watershed area.During the
preliminary consultation,the Commission stated that they wanted to
see a hydrogeologic study.Since that time the consultant has
submitted information which he feels is sufficient to show that
this development is compatible with the water shed without
completing the study.He is requesting the Commission to accept
this information as evidence for compatibility and waive the
requirement for the hydrogeologic study.Mr.Lung stated that at
the February meeting the Planning Commission asked him to verify
the figures Mr.Angle presented with the other agencies.Since
that time he spoke to Don Schwartz of the County Extension Office
and it is his opinion that the distance between the site and the
stream provides a considerable buffer of this site from the stream
and that would reduce any significant impact.Mr.Schwartz
suggested adding notes to the plat and deed covenants advising that
the individual homeowners be encouraged to practice Urban Best
Management Practices.Mr.Lung explained that the program
encourages homeowners to control the amount of lawn fertilizing and
use mulching mowers,etc.Mr.Lung stated that he also spoke to
Rod MacRae of the Health Department and was informed that the
nitrogen production numbers used in the comparison came from the
environmental office of the Department of State Planning and they
are the same numbers that State Planning uses to calculate septic
impacts in the Bay watershed area.He stated that Mr.MacRae felt
that an environmental impact study would probably not tell anything
more about the site than what is already known.
Mr.Lung stated that Elmer Weibley of Soil Conservation is present
and has some information pertaining to what can be done regarding
sediment and erosion,storm water management and site grading.Mr.
Weibley referred to the comparison made between the peach orchard
and urban development.He stated he did not have a problem with
the figures presented by the consultant regarding nitrogen loading
from the septic tanks and the nitrogen loading from the peach
orchard,but did not think it was is a good comparison to make when
speaking of watershed comparisons,watershed planning and
protecting the quality of the stream.He felt the impact of the
proposed development should be compared to a forested area and if
they did that,the impact of the urban development would be much
greater.He stated that the consultant's comparison only dealt
with the nitrogen loading from the septic areas and noted that most
homeowners fertilize their lawns,which is known to run off and
through surface water can get into receiving water such as Beaver
Creek.He felt that an urban development would have more impact
than an orchard and noted that the land is currently idle.Mr.
Weibley stated that he looked at the soils and commented that they
were accurately delineated on the plat and are good for all the
proposed uses.He noted that the 3100 foot distance to the creek
381
382
is accurate but added that there is a small stream northwest of the
site that will only present a problem if water is allowed to escape
off site after it is developed and that the storm water pond is in
a location to prevent it.He stated that the soil survey does show
four small depressions just outside the property line near the
westernmost property line and though the survey was done 20 -30
years ago,he feels they need to look off site where the runoff
from the development will end up.He stated the vast majority of
the soils are of the Murrill Association which are developed from
materials that come off the mountain through gravity and erosion
and are sometimes deposited over limestone formations.He is not
sure if this is the case in this particular soils group and that
the survey only goes to a depth of 70 +inches.He suggested as
far as protecting the water quality of Beaver Creek with this
development they should look at where impacts could occur to the
creek (the construction phase)and whe~it is fully developed.He
stated that during construction current state law requires that
sediment erosion control be provided and that the district will be
reviewing the plan and will make suggestions to ensure it is as
workable as possible in order to protect water quality.Mr.
Weibley stated that the preliminary plan only addresses the
construction of the road and does not take into account the grading
of the lots.He suggested that it be required that an overall
grading plan be prepared to show how the grading on the lots will
be done,specifically to show how they will convey the runoff from
the lots to the storm water management pond.The second suggestion
was that a water quality component be included in the storm water
management pond to manage the excess of nitrogen,oils and
everything else that comes off of the streets,roads and paved
areas to manage them in a reasonable way and suggested the first
1/2 inch of runoff to provide quality improvement.He stated the
Ordinance does not provide for that and it would have to be made
part of the Planning Commissions's recommendation.Mr.Iseminger
asked about the advanced denitrification septic systems.Mr.
Weibley stated he did not know the details on it but knew that it
could add several thousands dollars to the cost of each home but
felt it would be well worth it if they want to keep Beaver Creek in
its current shape.A discussion followed regarding the
denitrification systems and where the plat was in the review
process.Mr.Iseminger stated that he agreed with all three
suggestions -the overall grading plan,water quality management
plan as part of the storm water management pond and use of the
denitrification septic systems.A discussion followed.
Mr.Holsinger,engineer for the developer,stated that he spoke to
Mr.weibley regarding the water quality control.He stated it can
be taken care of in two different ways.One is to put an area in
the storm water management pond to catch the first 1/2 inch of
runoff from the roadways,roofs,driveways,walkways ahd that the
roadway is graded to a culvert that will run into a pond.He
stated that the five lots in the northwest corner would naturally
flow away from the pond.He stated there is a natural depression
in the northeast corner of the development and suggested draining
the remaining lots to that point and add a second area for quality
control.He suggested instead of doing a detailed overall plan,
that they provide the two quality control areas to take care of the
entire development and that they provide that plan to the
appropriate County agencies for review.Mr.Weibley stated that
seemed reasonable to him as long as they can be sure that the water
will reach the structures after the homes are in place.A
discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the only other item
they should be aware of is to add to the requirements that they use
the denitrification septic system and that Mr.Weibley and Mr.Arch
will provide the consultant with the information.Mrs.Johnson
moved to waive the requirement for a Hydrogeologic Study based on
the information they received tonight with the condition that the
items they brought up be addressed in the plan,add a note to the
plat indicating that this area is in the Special Planning Area of
the Beaver Creek Basin and that Urban Best Practices are
encouraged.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A discussion
followed regarding implementing the Urban Best Management
Practices.Mr.Weibley stated that he signs off on all building
CD
"¢
,.-
CO
Z
~
permits and will advise the homeowners that this program is
available.Mr.Bowers stated he wants the County Engineer to
retain future right-of-way along Republican Avenue in case it is
needed for widening.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Tony Kinzer:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Tony Kinzer.The property
is located on the south side of Clearspring Road (MD 68)
approximately one mile northwest of Williamsport.The zoning is
Agriculture and the road classification is major collector.The
applicable restriction is Section 40S.2.A of the Ordinance,which
states that new accesses along a major collector shall not be
located within 300 feet of an existing access.Mr.Schreiber
explained that Mr.Kinzer wants to create a driveway access within
300 feet of an existing access.Mr.Schreiber referred to the plat
to show the location of the existing house,the existing access and
the proposed access.He stated that the owner is proposing to
create one lot to be conveyed to a family member and that State
Highway has approved the location of the proposed driveway due to
safety reasons.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded
by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.Mr.Moser asked the Chairman since
they receive many variance requests similar to this one,would it
be possible for them to be handled at staff level.Mr.Arch stated
that if the Planning Commission grants the staff the ability they
can.Mr.Iseminger instructed Mr.Arch to put together a policy
for the Planning Commission to adopt.
Site Plans:
Dot Foods:
Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for DOT Foods.The site
contains 17.8 acres,zoned Industrial General and is located on the
southeast side of Elliot Parkway off of Route 63 in the 70/81
Industrial Park.The proposed building will be approximately
110,000 square feet which will consist of office space for about 18
employees,a freezer and dry storage warehouse and a loading and
unloading dock.He stated that this facility is for the shipping,
receiving and storage of food.Mr.Goodrich stated there is
approximately 140,000 square feet of paved surfaces,parking areas
and driveways and proceeded to explain the location of the employee
parking,loading and unloading areas and truck parking.Public
water and sewer will be used.There will be two fenced storm water
management ponds on the site and the majority of the site will have
a chain link fence around it.The railroad runs along the rear of
the property and there will be a siding.Mr.Goodrich stated that
the landscaping is adequate.Approvals have not yet been received
from the water and sanitary departments.County Engineering,Soil
Conservation and the Fire Marshal approvals have been received.
Mr.Goodrich stated that the plan meets all the requirements of the
Ordinance with what is shown on the drawing and the additional
information provided by the consultant to Paul Prodonovich.
Mr.Goodrich stated that there is no provision on this site for
Forest Conservation.He explained that at the Planning
Department's recommendation CHIEF,(the Hagerstown,Washington
County Industrial Foundation)who owns this industrial park,will
develop a comprehensive plan for all of their business parks.He
explained they will prepare a delineation of existing forest and
will estimate how much will be removed in developing those areas.
CHIEF will also identify mitigation areas on the site.Mr.
Goodrich commented that he has a letter from CHIEF indicating a
time frame of 6 months for completion of their plan.He stated
that the Planning Commission's approval of the DOT Foods site plan
will depend upon approval of this concept.
383
384
Mr.Goodrich suggested additional landscaping along Elliott Parkway
to shield the trailers but did not feel that it should be a
condi tion for approval.A discussion followed regarding the
location of the site,the location of the railroad,waste
collection,recycling,the amount of mitigation,the maintenance
of the stormwater management and additional landscaping.Mr.R.C.
Edwards,from Facility Group,Inc.,the site engineers stated that
he does not see a problem with additional landscaping and will
recommend it to the owner.
Mr.Spickler moved to approve the site plan conditional on
additional screening and agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Spickler moved to approve
the forest conservation concept presented by CHIEF.Seconded by
Mrs.Johnson.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
preliminary Consultations:
Goodes Haven:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary consultation for Goodes
Haven.He proceeded to review the summary in the agenda and stated
he did not have much more to add.Mr.and Mrs.Elder,the
developers,are proposing to create a 24 lot subdivision,which is
located on the northwest side of Durberry Road.The site is zoned
Agriculture.Mr.Schreiber stated that there are a few adjacent
property owners present that have some concerns with the plans.
Mr.Spickler referred to the summary and asked if the developer
would be exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance if only 4
lots are developed to begin with.Mr.Schreiber stated that if
they proceed with the 4 lot subdivision,there is no guarantee that
the remainder will be developed.Therefore,they will consider it
a four lot subdivision and the developer will have to afforest
based on the four lots.
Mr.Iseminger stated he was contacted by one of the adjacent
property owners,Bruce Barr,who requested to speak this evening.
Mr.Barr stated he has property on both sides of the proposed
development.All of his property is in the Agricultural
Preservation District along with other properties in close
proximity.He stated that there are active dairy farms and
orchards located in this area.He is concerned that the developer
is proposing 25 wells and 25 septic systems only 75 feet from the
Antietam Creek.He stated that in 1976 John R.Oliver proposed a
development called Orchard Estates,south of his property.The
community including the Elders opposed and passed out a copy their
petition of 257 signatures to the Planning Commission.Mr.Barr
stated that the Planning Commission did approve 4 homes on the
south side of the Smithsburg Leitersburg Road and noted that the
property is at least 200 feet from the Antietam stream.At that
time John R.Oliver did a hydrogeologic study and did not formally
apply to continue with the remainder of the subdivision.Mr.Barr
referred to the petition from 1976 and stated that some of the
concerns expressed then are the same now and reviewed them as
follows:1)known drainage conditions in this area will not sustain
residential development 2)An area having no long range plan for
sewage and water should not be given consideration for potential
high density residential development.Such development will
pollute well water sources and over saturate the soil with sewage.
3)Narrow county road will not carry safely an increased amount of
traffic brought by a residential development.
Mr.Barr stated that Mr.Oliver's report indicated a lot of rock
approximately 10 -15 feet below ground.He expressed concern that
a 7 foot trench that the Health Department requires would not be
deep enough.He also expressed concern regarding water quantity
and quality.Mr.Barr requested the Planning Commission to delay
any decision before inspecting the property to see how the
development would disrupt agriculture in the area,a hydrogeologic
study to see the location of the rock,a well head survey and
requested that the Commission reject the proposal.
CD
-:;t
y-eoz
~
Another neighbor,Mike Mohn explained the turns on Durberry Road
and expressed his concern regarding safety.A discussion followed
regarding the location of the proposed driveways,the procedures of
the preliminary consultation,and possible further development.
Mr.Spickler referred to Mr.Barr's three suggestions.He stated
there wasn't much they could do about disrupting agriculture,but
expressed interest in seeing what the hydrogeologic study from 1976
revealed and feels they need to be sure that the Antietam is
protected.Mr.Bowers added that he wanted to see how far out both
the Town Growth Area of smithsburg and the Hagerstown Urban Growth
area extend.He also wanted to know the location of the
Agricultural Preservation areas and all contiguous farms around
this area.Mr.Iseminger asked if this project falls under the
APFO and if the County Engineer is reviewing the roads.Mr.
Schreiber stated that the County Engineer did review the roads and
feels that most of the traffic will travel on Durberry to
Smithsburg/Leitersburg Road.He stated that the Adequate
Facilities Ordinance states that up to 24 lots the road width has
to be at least 18 feet wide and anything over and above,the site
distance criteria comes in.Mr.Iseminger stated that they are
looking at 24 lots with the possibility of more and feels that the
criteria should come into play for the initial 24 lots.Mr.
Iseminger expressed concern regarding water quantity especially
since Mr.Barr's orchard has a permit to draw 279,000 gallons a day
and feels that should be taken into consideration along with school
capacity.A discussion followed regarding putting a note on the
plat indicating that there is pesticide spraying in the area,the
potential conflicts of locating residences in a farm area and
concern regarding the steep banks on Durberry Road.Mr.Iseminger
referred to the comment in the preliminary Consultation summary
indicating that the schools were adequate.He would like that
explored since it is the consensus of the Commission that the
schools will not be adequate after the upcoming redistricting.
Mr.Frederick,consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates was
given an opportunity to speak.He stated that for private reasons
the Elders need to develop this property.They initially want to
subdivide four lots,but because of the County guidelines they need
to show their long term plan.He proceeded to explain the proposed
development,the fact that the plan has been revised regarding
further subdivision and how they are addressing the bad turn as per
the County Engineer's instructions.Mr.Frederick expressed his
concern that his client may have to spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars in additional studies if they have to do everything the
Planning Commission is requesting,when they initially only want to
develop 4 lots.He requested that a compromise be granted to them
to allow them to proceed with 4 lot subdivision to help them get
financial aid.He stated that after the four lots there are some
things that were brought up that they can look at.Mr.Iseminger
stated that they are looking at the total concept and the questions
that will arise if it is entirely built out.He agreed that for 4
lots there is a design and review criteria for them to follow and
they will do that.Mr.Frederick asked the Commission what they
wanted to see for the first 4 lots,for 50 percent of completion
and for 100 percent of completion and would like to have it in
writing so they know how to proceed with the subdivision.A
discussion followed regarding limiting the subdivision to 24 lots,
stormwater management,the use of a water quality system and the
use of a denitrification septic system.Mr.Spickler stated that
the other issue brought up was the right to farm.It is his
opinion that it would be appropriate to ask the County
Commissioners to take a look at the possibility of strengthening
the right to farm laws in the County,especially for the Ag Land
Preservation areas.A discussion followed regarding limiting the
subdivision to 24 lots,road adequacy and having additional setback
areas for residential areas in the agricultural areas,and
retaining equity.Mr.Spickler stated that they made comments and
feels that the developer has a good idea with how to proceed.
385
386
Forest Conservation:
Western Commercial Funding,Section E,Lots 1-20 Reguest for
Payment in Lieu of:
Mr.Schreiber stated that this plan was before the Commission last
month for a variance request.He stated that tonight's request is
for payment in lieu of.The site contains 30 acres and according
to the forest stand delineation,5.9 acres would need to be
afforested.The developer is proposing to pay $25,700.40 into the
fund because there is no forest on the site.Mr.Arch stated that
staff discussed this request and it was their consensus that the
5.9 acres is a larger area than what is discussed in the express
procedure and they feel there is justification in using the
Ordinance the way it is drafted.A discussion followed regarding
further development.Mr.Angle stated that the owner wants to pay
into the fund because they do not know how they are going to design
the rest of the development because of the steep slopes and the
location of the power line.A discussion followed regarding
mitigating on site versus off site,the topography,coming back
with a concept plan and delineation plan for the entire area and
developing the property in phases.Mr.Moser moved to deny the
request for payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered
OTHER BUSINESS:
St.James Park (Rockland)Chronology:
Mr.Goodrich stated that at the January 13th meeting the Planning
Commission requested a chronology of events during the review of
the preliminary/final plats for St.James Park (formerly Rockland).
A discussion followed with the consultant.Mr.Iseminger stated
that the chronology was requested to determine if the Commission or
staff is responsible for delays.After reviewing the information
presented,Mr.Iseminger stated his opinion that the County's
review of the proposal has been timely and this was a large and
complicated project.A discussion followed.
Mr.Goodrich stated that before the plan can be signed off,State
Highway needs some minor comments addressed which pertain to the
main entrance.These comments affect engineering comments and the
storm water management area in the front of the development which
is included in phase one and part on the remaining lands.Mr.
Goodrich stated that the Engineering Department needs to have
assurance from the owner that the entire facility will be
constructed since part is designed on lands not under the
developers ownership.Mr.Goodrich stated that as soon as that is
taken care of they will sign off on the plats for Phase 1.A
discussion followed regarding preliminary approval,policy 9,
whether or not a preliminary plan for the entire site was formally
submitted,and memo of March 30,1993 outlining the outstanding
items.Mr.Arch stated they can sit down with the consultant and
review what is needed for Preliminary Approval.
St.James Manor PUD:
Mr.Arch referred to the letter passed out that requested
reactivation of the St.James Manor PUD.He explained that the PUD
was approved but the concept plan was not submitted and a letter
was received last May from the developer indicating that he was not
proceeding with the PUD due to problems with the sanitary sewer
facilities.Since that time,the sanitary sewer issue has been
resolved so the owner is requesting reconsideration by the Planning
Commission.Mr.Arch stated that the Ordinance states a time frame
of 6 months.He suggested that instead of going through the
rezoning process again,the Planning Commission could retroactively
allow the developer to withdraw the letter that he was not going to
proceed and replace it with an extension request.A discussion
followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant the developer the
ability to rescind the letter of last May 24,1993 and replace it
CD-q-
..-
OJz
:?::
with a letter of request for extension for one year.Seconded by
Mr.Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated they are granting
an extension until May 24,1994 and at that time the developer will
be required to submit a preliminary development plan.
APFO Report:
Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission needs to have a
workshop to discuss some aspects of the APFO,particularly the
impact on schools.He explained that last fall the State changed
the capacity ratings for elementary schools.He stated that the
Board of Commissioners instructed him to keep everything exactly as
it is and come back in July with the 6 month report.At that time
they will review it in detail after the redistricting report has
been completed.Mr.Arch stated that he feels there is a need for
policy evaluation by the Planning Commission and cited an example
of development in the towns.Mr.Moser moved that the Planning
staff continue with the APFO.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So
ordered.A discussion followed regarding scheduling a workshop
meeting.
Highway Interchange:
Mr.Arch referred to the resolution,reviewed by Ralph France,
included in the agenda packet and the one passed out this evening.
He stated he removed the paragraph regarding if there had been a
previous rezoning and there was a condition associated with it.It
was removed because in looking at it there will not be an area
where that will have happened in this comprehensive rezoning.A
discussion followed ..Mr.Moser moved to approve the resolution.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Colonial Park East:
Mr.Arch referred to the letter from Frederick,Seibert and
Associates requesting an additional one year extension of the
preliminary/final approval.Mr.Moser moved to grant a one year
extension of the preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
Needy Letter:
Mr.Arch referred to the letter regarding interpretation of the
immediate family member provision under the Forest Conservation
Ordinance.He explained Mr.Needy wants to get property from his
great aunt and uncle and wants to know if the Commission will
consider them as immediate family members.It was the consensus of
the Planning Commission not to do so,because they felt it would be
stretching the Ordinance.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch reminded the Commission of the upcoming joint rezoning on
March 14,1994 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr.Arch stated that the hearing for the Water and Sewer Plan will
be on March 29,1994 at 10:30 a.m.in the Commissioners meeting
room.He stated that there will be two text amendments to be heard
at 10:45 regarding real estate signs.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00
p.m.
t:::_
387
388
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 11,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,April 11,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,EX-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Robert
E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Associate Planners;Edward J.Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung,
Lisa Kelly Pietro,James T.Brittain,Eric Seifarth and Secretary,
Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were,Bernard Moser and Carol
Johnson.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes of March 7,1994.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch asked the Planning
Commission to add the following items to the agenda:1)Robert
Demett preliminary/final subdivision plat for lots 2 and 4,2)
Site Plan for Packaging Services and 3)Other Business -Edward
Kline request for waiver of the 10 year immediate family member
provision.Mr.Spickler moved to add the three items to the
agenda.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Marshall Bowman:
Mrs.Pietro stated that a variance was presented at the February
meeting for the purpose of creating an additional lot for an
immediate family member off of Arcadia Lane,a private lane.
She stated that the Planning Commission granted a variance to
create a lot without road frontage with the condition that all of
the owners using Arcadia Lane submit a letter stating that they do
not intend to subdivide their remaining acreage.Mrs.Pietro
handed out a letter from the owner of Arcadia Lane,Hans Georl,
stating that he will not relinquish his right to subdivide.Mrs.
Pietro stated that staff is concerned with the possibility of
having additional lots accessing a private right of way especially
since there are other properties along Arcadia Lane with
subdivision potential.A discussion followed regarding the
properties along Arcadia Lane.
Mr.Russell Robinson,attorney,made a presentation on behalf of
the Bowmans reviewing the history of the property and traffic.He
referred to Article IV Section 405.11.B.1 of the Subdivision
Ordinance and stated that he felt that his client qualifies as an
exception.Mr.Robinson stated that they would add the 10 year
immediate family note to the plat.He noted that the point was
made that this was a farm lane and that the property should be
owned by the conveyor and that he does not see anything regarding
that in the text of the Ordinance and proceeded to refer to the
intent and purpose of the Ordinance.A discussion followed
regarding the lots fronting Arcadia Lane,and adding the 10 year
family member statement.Mr.Bowers moved to grant the variance to
create a lot without road frontage with the condition that the 10
year immediate family member statement be added to the plat.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
CD
~,....
OJ
Z
~
Cedar Springs PUD (aka Highland Manor East):
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary development plan for Cedar
Springs PUD,which is located south of Huyetts Crossroads on MD
63.He stated that this plan was before the Commission in January
and that the Planning Commission wanted to see the results of the
flood plain study among other things prior to granting preliminary
approval.Since that time,the study has been completed and
approved by Gary Rohrer,Chief of Public Works.Mr.Lung proceeded
to explain how the plan was changed based on the results of the
study.In addition to the study,the pedestrian system and side
walks are more clearly shown.Mr.Lung stated that staff's concern
regarding the size of the building footprint to allow for
sufficient driveway length for the single family and semi-detached
units has been addressed and minimum building setback established.
Mr.Lung stated that the following items have not been addressed:
1)A design has not been presented to correct the downstream
flooding condition 2)Work on the upstream drainage problem in
Highland Manor has not been done due to the weather 3)No
detailed on-site storm water management design has been done.
Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer indicated that he is not
adverse to allowing the Preliminary Development Plan to be approved
and have the completion of these items be conditions of the final
plan.In addition to the three outstanding items,Mr.Lung stated
that the developer also needs to show exterior lighting on the plan
and that this could also be included as a condition of the final
plan.A discussion followed with the consultant,Richard
Reichenbaugh,regarding the outstanding items.
Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt that the Planning Commission's
concerns were addressed and that the developer is asking for
Preliminary Development Plan approval with the outstanding items to
be addressed prior to Final Development Plan Approval.Mr.
Spickler moved to grant preliminary Development Plan approval with
the conditions set forth.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Theodore Raschka:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Theodore Raschka.The
site is located on the west side of pennsylvania Avenue (U.S.Route
11),north of the intersection of North Point Drive (aka Long
Meadow Road).The road classification is minor arterial and the
request is from Section 405.11.b of the Ordinance,which states
that all new lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet of public road
frontage.The request is to create a lot without road frontage.
Mr.Schreiber stated that the property is a combination of three
lots.One existing lot with a house on it,was rezoned last year
to BT (Business Transitional).The second lot,shaped in a
horseshoe contains Mattress Discounters warehouse and the third lot
is in the middle of the horseshoe.The applicant wishes to create
a lot around the existing 2 story apartment building (which is part
of the lot containing the warehouse).Mr.Schreiber stated that
each lot must have public road frontage.There is an existing 24
foot unimproved right-of-way for access to the property.However,
the tenants currently use an existing driveway on the lot
containing the house.The applicant stated that the owner of the
paper right-of-way does not want to have any additional driveways
on his property.In addition,State Highway Administration does
not want to see any additional driveways onto Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr.Schreiber did present another option for access to the
property.He stated that the variance is requesting to create a
lot without public road frontage and there is a problem with
legally getting to it without creating another access onto Route
11 .He stated that the zoning for the proposed lot is RS
389
390
(Residential Suburban)and it will be an undersized lot and there
will be additional variances required from the Board of Zoning
Appeals,prior to subdivision,if this variance is granted.
A discussion followed with Mr.Raschka regarding access to the
property,the potential problems with having a residential lot
among the commercial zoning and the affect it would have on the
adjoining lots,and the additional variances that would be required
if this variance was granted.Mr.Iseminger instructed staff to do
further research.He wants more information about the property
lines and zoning and have the County Engineer review it again so
the Planning Commission could review it at the regular May meeting.
Mr.Ernst moved to table the variance request until the May
meeting.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Joseph Schnebly:
Mr.Lung presented the variance for Joseph Schnebly.The site is
located on the north side of MD Rt.494,a major collector highway.
The variance is requested from Section 405.2.of the Subdivision
Ordinance (Access points)minim:Im access separation.The developer
is proposing to create a 2.5 acre lot from a 5.5 acre parcel with
a new access onto Route 494 which is less than 300 feet from
existing accesses.Mr.Lung stated that the property has only 230
feet of road frontage and the proposed access is at the safest
location and has been approved by State Highway Administration.
Mr.Ernst moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So
ordered.
Subdivisions:
Chester Martin,Parcel A,Preliminary/Final Plat:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for
Chester Martin.The site is located along the east side of
Maugansville Road adjacent to Martins Elevator.The zoning is
Agriculture.The property owner is proposing to transfer
approximately 39,000 square feet from one parcel to another
adjacent property that he owns.He is proposing to construct 6
grain silos on the site.No water and sewer is needed and all
approvals have been received.Mr.Spickler moved to grant
preliminary/final plat approval for Parcel A.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.
Joseph Gehr,Lots 1-4 Preliminary/Final Plat:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for Lots 1-4 for
Joseph Gehr.The site is located on the south side of MD 68,200
feet west of Dam No.5 Road.The owner is proposing to create 4
lots ranging in size from 1.2 acres to 1.4 acres.The zoning is
Agriculture and the lots will be utilizing individual well and
septic systems.Maryland Route 68 is a major collector with 300
feet of access spacing.Mr.Schreiber stated that all 4 lots will
utilize one access onto MD 68 since they are all being conveyed to
immediate family members and the immediate family statement is on
the plat.He stated that State Highway feels that one access would
be the best.The schools will be Clear Spring.All agency
approvals have been received.Mr.Schreiber stated that since it
is an inter-family conveyance it is exempted from the Forest
Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Spickler moved to grant
preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
c.o..q
,.-coz:a::
Western Commercial Funding,Section C,Lots 14-32,
Preliminary/Final:
Mr.Lung stated that this plat was previously presented for a
waiver of the Environmental and Hydrogeological impact study,which
was granted at the March meeting with the condition that the storm
water management and sediment erosion control on this site address
water quality and that denitrification septic systems be used along
with encouraging the property owners to use Urban Best Management
practices.Mr.Lung stated that the plat and the construction
drawings have been revised to address those items and were routed
out to the agencies.He stated that the Engineering Department has
signed the revised construction drawings,however,there needs to
be a note added to the final plat regarding grading plans before
plat approval will be issued.The Soil Conservation District
signed the construction drawings on Friday and will be sending
their subdivision approval shortly.Written approval has been
received from the Health Department.Mr.Lung stated that future
right-Of-way dedication along Republican Avenue is provided on the
plat.He stated that the only thing outstanding is the need to
revise the note on the plat concerning dentrification septic
systems.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is asking for
Preliminary/Final subdivision approval conditional on the remaining
items being addressed.Mr.Spickler had a comment on the minutes
of the March meeting regarding an overall grading plan being
required.Mr.Angle,consultant,stated that it was decided at the
March meeting that the two water quality devises put on the
construction drawings satisfied Elmer Weibley of the Soil
Conservation District and he was not requiring them to do an
overall grading plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst moved to
grant preliminary/final subdivision approval contingent on receipt
of agency approvals and the items that Mr.Lung outlined being
addressed.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Robert Demitt,Preliminary/Final Plat Lots 2 -4:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for
Robert Demitt Lots 2 -4.The site is located north of Kemps Mill
Road.The zoning is Agriculture.The property owner is proposing
to create 3 single family lots for family members.Each lot has an
area of approximately 2 acres.The lots will be served by
individual wells and septic systems.Mrs.Pietro stated that 3
acres of forest will be cleared with 4 acres to be retained.Total
area to reforest/afforest is O.All agency approvals have been
received.Mr.Bowers moved to grant preliminary/final plat
approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Cavetown Storage:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Cavetown Storage.The site
is located in the northwest corner of Route 64 and Route 66.The
zoning is Business Local.The developer is proposing to add 2
additional mini warehouse units to the site.The total site area
is .68 acres.There are 4 units already on the site.The hours of
operation are from 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.daily.Mrs.Pietro
proceeded to explain the landscaping,lighting and signage.She
stated that the Board of Appeals granted a reduction in the 40 foot
setbacks down to 10 feet.All approvals are in the Permits office.
A discussion followed regarding adequate screening.Mr.Iseminger
stated that he would like to see more screening because of the
densi ty and traffic and asked the owner to contact Staff.Mr.
Bowers moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon additional
landscape screening.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
391
392
Ewing Oil Company:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Ewing Oil Company.The
site is located on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike.The zoning is
HI-1.The developer is proposing to construct a 2,000 square foot
convenience store with self-serve gas station on 2.85 acres.There
will be an in only access at the north end and a combined access on
the south end.The convenience store will be open 24 hours and
there will be 3 employees per shift.The site will be served by
public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the
parking,sidewalks,freight and delivery,dumpster location,
signage,lighting and landscaping.She stated that all approvals
have been received except for State Highway,which needs some
details worked out with one of the entrances.Mr.Bowers moved to
grant site plan approval contingent upon State Highway approval.
Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Bowen and Mr.Ernst abstained.So
ordered.
Paramount Elementary School:
Mr.Brittain presented the site plan for Paramount Elementary
School.He stated that all agency approvals verbal or written,
have been received.The school will have the capacity for 435
students with a staff of 30 and 15 visitors per day.The initial
enrollment projections is approximately 260.He stated that the
parking space ratio is similar to Eastern Elementary School off of
Mt.Aetna Road.This site will not have an overflow parking area
like Eastern Elementary due to the existing parcel's size,shape,
and physical constraints.Mr.Brittain stated it is designed to
meet parking requirements for normal activities,but he did advise
the Board of Education not to plan any large functions such as a
redistricting meeting.Mr.Brittain proceeded to explain the
internal traffic flow.There will be a one way inlet for bus
traffic off of Marsh Pike with drop off in front of the school and
an exit only onto Marsh Pike.There will be a separate parking
area for teachers and visitors off of Longmeadow Road.He stated
that during normal hours of operation there will be a chain
barricade splitting the two areas.1\.discussion followed regarding
the parking and traffic flow.Mr.Brittain explained that the
storm water management facilities will receive a majority of the
drainage from the site.He stated that the pond will be fenced as
required under the Storm Water Management Ordinance.He proceeded
to describe the lighting,dock area,play areas,recycling
facility,landscaping and signage,all of which meet the Zoning
Ordinance criteria.A discussion followed regarding the storm
water management area and opening the barricaded area when the
buses are not there.Mr.Iseminger asked that the Board of
Education be advised of the Planning Commission's concern that
there should be a provision to remove the barrier in order to
alleviate potential traffic problems.Mr.Spickler moved to grant
site plan approval with the recommendation to the Board of
Education that there be a provision to remove the barrier when the
buses leave.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.A discussion
followed.
Wal-Mart Stores,Inc.:
Mr.Arch presented the Site Plan and Preliminary/Final plan for
Wal-Mart.The property is located in the I-70/I-81 Industrial Park
on Elliott Place.The zoning is Industrial General.They are
proposing to create a 9.85 acre lot from 26.856 acres.The
property will be served by community water and sewer.The site
will be used for a photo processing and distribution lab.There
are 259 parking spaces and building size is approximately 54,000
square feet.Employment will be a maximum of 100 per shift and
there will be 3 shifts.It will be open 24 hours a day,seven days
a week.Mr.Arch proceeded to explain the lighting,storm water
management,recycling and landscaping.He stated that the entire
site is fenced with an entrance gate.Forest conservation for this
site will be addressed through the entire Forest Conservation Plan
<D
~.,.-
OJz
::2:
for the industrial parks being developed by CHIEF.All agency
approvals have been received.Mr.Bowers moved to grant site plan
and preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
packaging Services:
Mr.Arch presented the site plan for packaging Services Inc.
addition.The site is located in the 1-70/1-81 Industrial Park.
He stated that they are adding a 40,000 square foot warehouse to
the existing facility.No additional parking will be required.
Mr.Arch stated that storm water management approval has been
granted by the County Engineer.Mr.Bowen moved to grant site plan
approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Agricultural Land Preservation Districts:
Mr.Seifarth presented three requests for agricultural land
preservation districts:James H.and Clara J.Reeder (AD-94-01),
Merritt M.Birky (AD-94-02)and Curtis and Francis Ausherman (AD-
94-03).He stated that they all comply with the Comprehensive Plan
and all three have been approved by the Advisory Board.Mr .
Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that all
three farms be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation
District Program since they are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Edward Cline:
Mr.Arch referred to the letter he received from Mr.Cline
requesting the waiver of the 10 year immediate family member
provision from a previous subdivision.The property consists of
two lots with a home on each.Mr.Cline would like to move his
father in-law into his home due to health and financial reasons,
sell both properties and purchase a larger home.A discussion
followed.Mr.Bowers moved to grant Mr.Cline a waiver from the
immediate family member provision.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.
Bowen abstained.So ordered.
March 14th Rezoning Staff Reports:
Copies of the March 14th rezoning staff reports were handed out.
Mr.Iseminger stated that they would be discussed at the May
meeting,but prior to that he wanted to schedule a site inspection
of the Triad rezoning case RZ-94-01.Mr.Spickler asked Mr.Arch
to check on the previous rezoning in that area and to forward a
copy to them.
CIP -1995 -2000:
Mr.Arch reviewed the CIP for 1995 -2000 which was previously sent
to the Planning Commission.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst
moved to certify that the CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Robins Glenn Site Plan:
Mr.Arch stated that at the Triad rezoning public hearing the
Planning Commission asked that Mr.Prodonovich check the Robins
Glenn development for site plan compliance.Mr.Arch referred to
Mr.Podonovich's memo which indicated that everything was in order.
393
394
Policy 11:
Mr.Arch stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission
requested that he develop a policy that would grant staff the
ability to approve variances for access distance on State roads for
safety reasons when state Highway indicates it is the best
location.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to adopt
policy 11.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger
asked Mr.Arch to forward copies of all of the policies to the
Planning Commission members.
Workshop Meeting:
It was decided to schedule a workshop meeting for Monday,April 25,
1994 to discuss the Water and Sewer Plan update and denitrification
septic systems.Prior to the meeting the Planning Commission will
meet at 6:15 p.m.at the Black Rock Golf Course parking lot to
inspect the Triad rezoning site.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 9:50
p.m.~..("/.
Be;rtrand L.
.........._~
<0
~,.....
III
Z
~
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 25,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Monday,April 25,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson,Andrew J.
Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.
Kirkpatrick.Absent was Ex-Officio Ronald L.Bowers.
Also present was Rod MacRae,Director of the Washington County
Health Department.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Water and Sewer Plan Update:
Mr.Lung stated that his written summary following the public
hearing was not in final form.He explained that they were waiting
for agency revisions and proceeded to present a verbal summary of
the public hearing held on March 29th.He stated that at that
meeting the majority of the people in attendance were residents
from the Jefferson Boulevard area,expressing their concerns about
the proposed of proposed sewer service in that area.They were
concerned about the way the Sanitary District handled the public
hearing,the notification process,the way the project would be
funded and the cost involved.Mr.Lung stated that there were a
number of people who spoke about odor problems at the Hagerstown
treatment facility and a suggestion was made that a moratorium be
put on County hookups that send sewage to the Hagerstown treatment
plant until the odor problem is addressed.He stated that Mr.Ray
Anderson of the Department of the Environment testified in support
of the update and thought that staff had done a good job in tying
the water and sewerage plan in with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan of the County.Mr.Lung stated that during the
10 day comment period they received correspondence mainly from the
service providing agencies and R.Lee Royer,Consultant,regarding
additions or corrections to be made to the technical information in
the plan and proceeded to explain them.He stated that most of the
comments made at the hearing were not directly relevant to the
water and sewer plan.He felt they dealt more with the
implementation of policies and plans.Mr.Lung stated that as far
as taking the Jefferson Boulevard area out of a priority
designation area,that has been in the plan prior to 1985.He
stated there are documented septic problems in that area and taking
it out would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that
perhaps the Sanitary District should look at how the public
hearings and notifications are handled when they set up their
subdistricts.Regarding the odor from the treatment plant,Mr.
Lung stated he did not receive a response from Water Pollution
Control.He stated there is a line item in the Water and Sewage
Plan for ongoing system improvements and updates to the Hagerstown
Plant,but they did not identify addressing odor problems.Mr.
Lung felt that would be more of an implementation problem and that
a moratorium on hookups would be something that would be done by an
action on the part of the Health Department and County
Commissioners.
395
396
Mr.Arch stated that there were some questions from the Planning
Commission members regarding some of the conceptual changes.He
explained that this plan takes a different perspective in order to
modernize it and to look toward implementation of the Planning Act
of 1992,particularly with regard to streamlining.Mr.Arch stated
that they revisited some concepts that had been around for awhile
and looked at the potential for designating the entire Urban Growth
Area for planned service.He explained that they also attempted to
address line extensions into areas outside of the Urban Growth Area
where there are identified health problems.In those areas they
created limited service lines,which had not been done before.
That way if there is a health problem,procedures are available for
line extensions to address that problem while limiting development
associated with those lines.Mr.Arch stated that they also looked
at the areas where they have small towns which were primarily
served by systems which did not fall under a classification and
resurrected the Rural Village designation.He stated that staff
feels this plan is better structured to act as a proactive planning
document than the current plan.There are some areas in the plan
that were not updated at this time and as they go through the
update of the comprehensive Plan in the next few years they will
have to take a look at updating these sections.The Section on
Goals and Objectives was specifically cited as a section which has
become outdated.
Mr.Lung stated there was a question regarding situations where the
service area is defined by the Growth Area boundary.He stated
there will be situations since the growth area boundary does not
follow the property lines where the Planning Commission will have
to make determinations as to whether or not a property falls inside
or outside of the growth area.He stated if they receive an
application for rural village service or the establishment of a new
rural village service area,the Planning Commission would have to
determine what would be the appropriate scale of development or
type of system after input from the Health Department and other
Agencies.He explained,when they receive a rural village
application,the plan,the type of development,the density of the
development and the system to be put in will have to be tied
together.A discussion followed regarding the rural village
classification and lines going outside of the rural village area.
Mr.Moser had a question regarding the Board of Public Works and if
it was more defined.Mr.Arch stated that he spoke to Gary Rohrer,
Director of Public Works,who gave him some input which will change
the organizational diagram in the plan.He explained that the
diagram currently shows too much of the Sanitary Commission being
associated with the Public Works Department.He stated that the
Sanitary District does not fall under Public Works but Lynn Palmer
acts in a reporting capacity to the Division of Public Works.A
discussion followed regarding the Public Works Department,the
creation of a Board of Public Works,Sanitary District and their
functions.Further discussion followed regarding comments made at
the public hearing,and requests for amendments to the Water and
Sewer Plan.
Mr.Iseminger asked if the Planning Commission could wait until the
meeting of May 2nd to make their recommendation of the Water and
Sewer Plan so that they could have time to review the staff report.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to take action on
the Water and Sewer Plan at the next regular meeting.
Denitrification Septic Systems:
Mr.Rod MacRae,Director of the Washington County Health
Department,referred to the information he passed out and stated
that he was not sure if the Planning Commission intended to use the
denitrification systems in certain areas or more broadly.He
stated he has seen some demonstrations of some systems that are in
use in Anne Arundel County.He explained that these systems were
developed for use in waterfront properties in order to overcome
failing systems that were leaching directly into the Bay.He
explained that they cost approximately $4,000.00 more than the
(0
~
"'I!""-mz
::2:
standard system.Mr.MacRae cited the problems that the Sanitary
District has encountered with extending lines to address septic
system failures in older neighborhoods and feels that anything
which can be done to extend the life of a septic system will put
them ahead.He feels that since the lot sizes are now larger than
in the past,the advanced septic systems could function
indefinitely.He explained that this particular design is normally
put above grade,usually under decks and screened.By using these
systems they would be introducing a cleaner effluent into the soil
than is normally associated with conventional septic system
effluent.He noted that since it takes a while for a septic system
to fail it may be 10 -20 years before they would see a decrease in
the number of failures in new construction.Mr.Spickler s'tated
that they recently approved a subdivision with the stipulation that
the developer use the denitrification septic systems.Mr.MacRae
stated that he felt it was feasible and that whenever they get into
something like this they run into cost considerations.He stated
they are going in at a good rate in Anne Arundel County.He has
not seen any drawbacks but noted that because there is a pump it is
a little more complicated and there is a possibility for mechanical
failure.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated that he and Mr.
MacRae met with representatives of Geological Section of DNR
regarding developing a project in Washington County which would do
additional mapping of the ground water and flow directions in the
limestone region of the County.He stated they have started the
process of seeing if they can actually do this and may need the
endorsement of the Planning Commission and proceeded to explain
what the study would entail.A discussion followed regarding a
study DNR did in Boonsboro.Mr.Arch stated that the proposed
study would create another GIS layer they could use on the computer
and would show the priority areas for the denitrification systems.
Mr.Ernst asked if there is a greater problem today then 5 years
ago or are they more sensitive to it.Mr.Arch stated it is a
combination and they are taking a more upfront planning
perspective.A discussion followed regarding how the added costs
and regulations would affect the housing industry,and whether the
denitrification systems would help the problems they are facing
now.Mr.MacRae suggested having a representative from Anne
Arundel County come and make a presentation.Further discussion
followed regarding how the requirement of the denitrification
systems would increase the cost and requirements for subdivision
when adjacent counties in other states do not have this
requirement.Mr.MacRae stated that he would put together a
package of all the approved septic system technology for the
Planning Commission's review.A discussion followed regarding
the cost of the systems and whether the denitrification systems
should be used to correct failing septic problems.Mr.Iseminger
stated that he felt the use of the denitrification systems would
set a precedent with the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.MacRae stated he
is not pushing the system but feels it would help enhance
development of certain areas.
Mack Davis of Davis,Renn &Associates asked what precipitated the
Planning Commission's action to require denitrification systems in
Beaver Creek.Mr.Iseminger stated that because that area is a
Special Planning area,the Planning Commission had requested that
a hydrogeological study be done.The developer made a request to
waive doing the study and that Mr.Arch brought to light that these
systems were available and that it would make sense to use these
systems in Special Planning areas.Mr.Davis explained that the
denitrification systems were originally used in Suffolk County New
York in the late 70's because they had a major nitrate problem with
their groundwater and wells.He stated that these systems are
being used in Anne Arundel County because of the Bay Initiative.
He felt that in Washington County,for the most part,the septic
systems recharge ground water in well systems and commented if
there are high amounts of nitrates in a well,perhaps there should
be a denitrification unit on that particular septic system.He
felt that it does not affect the Bay here as it would in Anne
Arundel County.He feels it will also be an additional cost to the
home buyer and with the other new regulations such as the Forest
Conservation Ordinance,he is concerned it will price them out of
397
398
the market.He asked if they had a hydraulics expert analyze these
systems.Mr.Bowen stated he felt that this is a new technology
available that may solve some problems they have and he wants
someone to come in and give them facts and figures so they can
determine if they need it.Mr.Iseminger stated they are not
requiring this Countywide but only in certain instances where they
feel it makes sense.He stated that the Planning Commission has
been speaking to Rod for two years about the cumulative effect of
the septic systems and the documented problems in the County.A
discussion followed regarding getting as much information as
possible.Mr.Iseminger instructed Mr.Arch and Mr.MacRae to
contact some people involved with these systems to make a
presentation and to invite the consultants,the Commissioners and
Sanitary District.Mr.Moser commented that he felt they should
also pursue the study that Mr.Arch mentioned.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
""//~t~ff;?./,//~e~trand L.Ise~£;:
/..'-,
CD
""",.-
OJ
Z
~
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 2,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,May 2,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Carol Johnson,Bernard Moser,Robert
E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;
Edward J.Schreiber,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 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes of April 11,1994.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch asked the Planning
Commission to add the following items to the agenda under Other
Business:1)Water and Sewer Plan Update Recommendation 2)
Extension of time for preliminary subdivision plat approval for
Potomac Manor.Mr.Moser moved to add the two items to the agenda.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Theodore Raschka:
Mr.Schreiber stated that at last month's meeting a variance was
requested for Theodore Raschka and that the Planning Commission
asked him to speak to the zoning Administrator and the County
Engineer regarding their concerns with the mixed zoning and access.
He stated that Mr.Prodonovich feels that the creation of the
proposed lot would not cause undue harm to the BT and BG areas
because it is the zoning boundary that additional setbacks would be
measured from and not the actual lot itself.Mr.Prodonovich did
suggest having the current RS zoning rezoned to BG and leave the
apartment dwelling as a nonconforming use,which would correct the
problem they have with the RS zoning.
Mr.Schreiber stated that the other concern had to do with access.
He stated that the problem was that they were going to create a lot
without public road frontage.There is an existing 24 foot right
of way going to Pennsylvania Avenue,but State Highway
Administration,the Planning Department and the County Engineer do
not want to see any additional access onto pennsylvania Avenue.
The owner of the property does not want to give up any additional
fee simple frontage to their property as well as having to move the
24 foot right of way up to the existing driveway.He stated their
only other alternative was to access the existing 24 foot right-of-
way by using the existing parking lot entrance to the south.Mr.
Schreiber stated in speaking to Mr.McGee,he felt that parking
lots can be dangerous because people usually do not pay attention
to pavement markings.Mr.Schreiber stated that he made a site
inspection and though he could access the site he was not sure if
anything but a passenger vehicle could enter the site.Mr.
Iseminger asked about relocating the entrance to the BG zoned
parcel further south.Mr.Schreiber explained that when Mattress
Discounters moved in two years ago,the State Highway
Administration asked that they close the southern entrance and
improve this one.He stated that to date nothing has been done.
Mr.Rashcka stated that the warehouse has a new owner.Mr.
Iseminger asked whether he would be agreeable to improving the
399
400
other entrance.Mr.Raschka stated he would speak to Iris Reeder,
the realtor involved.Mr.Iseminger asked if Mr.McGee felt that
the entrance off of Rt.11 was useable.Mr.Schreiber stated yes
but it is a sharp turn and there could be potential conflicts.
Discussion followed regarding access.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.
Raschka if he could provide the Planning Commission with assurances
to rezone the RS to BG,provide assurances that the owner will
upgrade the U.S.11 entrance and to provide the Planning Commission
with a detailed site plan showing how they would get back to the
apartment.Mr.Raschka stated he would put it in writing and
present it to the owner.After a discussion it was decided that it
would be better for the Planning Commission to do a comprehensive
rezoning of that area and obtain a letter from the owner and Mr.
Raschka that they would not oppose a rezoning.Mr.Schreiber
stated that by rezoning the RS area it would not impose greater
setbacks.Mr.Arch referred to the access problem and stated that
if the owner agrees to the upgrades required by the State as well
as showing how access relates to the parking area,the Planning
Commission would want subdivision approval contingent on those
upgrades being complete.Mr.Schreiber stated that they will have
to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for setback reductions.A
discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant a variance to
create a lot without public road frontage conditional upon
receiving a letter from both the current owner and Mr.Raschka that
they would not object to a comprehensive rezoning from RS to BG,
the access be upgraded and that staff will work with the owner to
accomplish that and submittal of a detailed site plan showing how
access through the parking lot will be accomplished.Seconded by
Mr.Ernst.Mr.Bowen opposed.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Bret Sprecher:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance request for Bret Sprecher.
The site is located on the south side of Trovinger Mill Road.The
road classification is local.The variance is requested from
Section 405.11.G5 of the Ordinance which states that panhandles
shall not exceed 400 feet in length.The owner is proposing to
create one lot with a 430 foot panhandle.Mr.Schreiber stated
that the lot will be conveyed to an immediate family member
although the ten year statement is not proposed for the
subdivision.zoning is Agriculture.Mr.Moser moved to grant
variance approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Cohill Estates:
Mr.Lung stated that this item was a last minute addition to the
agenda when staff discovered that there was a need for a variance
before proceeding with the subdivision application.The owner is
proposing to create a lot with a panhandle longer than 400 feet
which is the maximum length allowed under Section 405.11.G.5 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.This property is located west of Hancock on
MD 144.It consists of approximately 10 acres.It is part of a
subdivision called Cohill Estates which was approved in 1974.The
zoning is Conservation.The site is currently improved with a
dwelling,well and septic area.Mr.Lung stated that applicant
wants to create a 7.2 acre lot around the existing dwelling.He
stated that on the remaining lands there is a site for a proposed
dwelling,septic and well.The proposed panhandle is approximately
560 feet in length.According the variance application and the
subdivision plat the lot is to be created for an immediate family
member.Mr.Lung stated that they are using the exemption for an
immediate family member from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.He
stated there is an existing lane currently serving the existing
dwelling but the owner wishes to create a panhandle for the
CD
~
v-
al
Z
::2':
proposed lot.Route 144 is classified as a major collector with
access spacing of 300 feet.Mr ..Lung stated that the consultant
stated they would use a shared entrance in order to meet the access
separation requirement.Mr.Lung stated that his major concern
with this request is the sight distance at the entrance location.
He stated that he made a site inspection and felt that sight
distance to the east was poor.Mr.Lung stated that the access
does have an approved access permit from State Highway
Administration.He explained that in 1974 access locations were
not reviewed and approved by the State Highway Administration at
the Subdivision stage,the access permits were issued along with
the building permit.Mr.Lung stated that in his opinion the
access is poor and presents a potential safety hazard and if the
Planning Commission is inclined to approve the variance,he
suggested that they make it conditional upon State Highway
Administration rechecking it to make sure it is a safe access
location and additional vehicles would not create an additional
safety problem.He stated since this was a late addition to the
agenda,they did not have time to route the plat out to State
Highway;however,John Wolford is aware of it and will be making a
site inspection.Mr.Johnson,consultant,of Davis,Renn and
Associates stated that the surveyor is Ralph Donnelly and that they
are platting it for him and the configuration is what the family
members have worked out and that the lot with the existing house
will be conveyed to the daughter.The daughter,Mrs.Theresa
Cohill Van Der Bos,was present and proceeded to explain the
history of the property.She stated they want to use the panhandle
road due to financial reasons.A discussion followed regarding
State Highway Administration's inspection and the safety of the
access.Mr.Moser moved to grant approval of the variance subject
to State Highway Administration's checking the access location.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Meadow Rock Estates,Preliminary/Final Lots 5,6 &7:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for
Meadow Rock Estates Lots 5,6,and 7.The site is located west of
Meadow Rock Drive,north of Black Rock Road.The zoning is
Agriculture.The site consists of 87 acres.Mr.Lung explained
that lots 1 - 4 were approved in February of 1993 with the
condition to create a cuI de sac at the end of Meadow Rock Drive,
which has been done.Lots 1 - 4 were exempt from the APFO road
adequacy standards section 4.1.1.The lots currently being created
are for the purpose of immediate family members and are also exempt
from the APFO road adequacy section 4.1.2.He stated that the
owner plans to retain Lot 7 and convey Lots 5 and 6 to his children
and that the remaining lands will probably be sold off.Mr.Lung
stated they will have a total of 7 lots and a remainder.Any
additional subdivision for the purpose of dwellings could not be
approved until Meadow Rock Drive is improved and all of the other
APFO requirements are met.All agency approvals are in.The lots
will be served by wells and septic systems.Mr.Lung stated that
a note will be added to the plat stating that no additional
building lots can be approved out of this property until all APFO
requirements are met.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to
grant preliminary/final plat approval with the 10 year family
member statement being added to the plat.Seconded by Mr.
Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that it is the
consensus of the Commission that staff should review the immediate
family member statement and the treatment of remaining lands.
401
402
Site Plans:
DOT Foods:
Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for DOT Foods which will be
located in the 70/81 Industrial Park.The original plan was
approved at the March meeting.He explained that the 17 acre site
will contain a food warehouse with dry and freezer sections,office
space,loading dock,and parking lots.Two storm water management
ponds were approved on the original plan.In the northeastern
corner of the property the original plan showed a truck parking
area with a scale building.The revised plan shows the addition of
a truck maintenance building in the parking area.There is also
another storm water management pond.Mr.Goodrich stated that the
approval of the original plan had a request for additional
landscaping,which has also been shown.He stated that everything
else has been approved before except for this minor modification.
Mrs.Johnson moved to approve the revised site plan.Seconded by
Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
preliminary Consultations:
White Oaks:
Mr.Schreiber presented the plat for the Preliminary Consultation
for White Oaks.The site is located along MD Route 67.The
developer is proposing a 23 lot subdivision using the cluster
option.The original acreage is 70 acres of which 27 acres will be
left in open space as well as leaving that for the forest
conservation requirements.He stated there are 2 panhandle lots
and will utilize private well and septic systems although there is
a water line along MD 67.This line was not intended to be used by
anyone else but the Town of Brunswick.He stated that very little
disturbance of the trees is proposed.He brought up two points for
the Planning Commission to give guidance on.One was what to do
with the open space.The plan shows that the developer wants to
dedicate the open space to the County Commissioners.The other
item is what else should be done with the open space,should a
picnic area,tennis court,trails or pavilion be provided.The
cluster option does state that the open space be provided with some
recreation in it.Mr.Iseminger felt that the County Commissioners
would not want to take over the open space.He suggested having a
homeowners association take it over and to set money aside for them
to decide what they would like there within reason.A discussion
followed regarding the location,access to Route 67,State Highway
Administration comments and the house to be removed.Mr.Iseminger
asked about the one lot which is currently hooked up to the Town of
Brunswick water line.Mr.Dean Moore,owner/developer,stated they
will use the existing service and will re-perc the lot.A
discussion followed regarding the line to Brunswick.Mr.Iseminger
stated that he likes the plan but wants to see some amenities and
suggested making a provision that money be set aside for the
homeowners association to decide what they want.He also suggested
adding a note to the plat encouraging the homeowners to use Urban
Best Management Practices.He explained that Urban Best Management
Practices information would be picked up when building permit is
issued and stated it just tells them things they could do to reduce
runoff,etc.Mr.Moore stated he would do that.Mr.Iseminger
stated there is new technology out for denitrification septic
systems,which are more effective than the conventional systems.
Mr.Moore stated that they did get some information on it and have
spoken to the Health Department.A discussion followed regarding
the open space.The developer suggested using the Agricultural
zone setbacks and the Planning Commission agreed.Mr.Schreiber
stated that he stipulated that notes be added to the plan
explaining what a cluster option is and that the lots cannot be
resubdivided because the density cannot be increased over what the
conventional zoning calls for.Mr.Iseminger suggested to the
developer to look at using the denitrification systems and to set
money aside for the homeowners association to decided within reason
what to be done with the open space.He feels it should remain
(0
""".......coz
:2:
forested but there should be some form of recreation whether it is
a path,etc.Mr.Spickler stated that they would not to get too
many amenities back there which would make it attractive to people
going by and feels they should be selective.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rezoning Recommendation -Triad Properties (RZ-94-01):
Mr.Iseminger referred to the correspondence from Associated
Engineering Sciences,Inc.and William Wantz,Esquire proposing to
amend the rezoning application.Mr.Arch stated that the applicant
is proposing to establish a 200 foot buffer strip along the
boundary line between the Miller property and Brightwood Acres East
and is asking to amend the rezoning application accordingly.He
stated that Mr.Wantz,representing 16 of the adjacent property
owners,has indicated that 15 of his clients would be in support of
the rezoning if the zoning application was amended to add the
buffer strip.He referred to the plan and Mr.Wantz's letter
which states that the proposed buffer area would consist of
approximately 2.765 acres and would be afforested according to the
Forest Conservation Ordinance.He stated that if the Planning
Commission decided to make this recommendation there are two points
to keep in mind:1)The 2.765 acres buffer area may not meet the
afforestation requirement of the Forest Conservation Ordinance 2)
Even if there is a 200 foot buffer strip,Mr.Arch stated that an
option would be to have various types of plantings to be provided
i.e.a 6 foot high tree or a seedling.He stated that a seedling
could take as long as 20 years to grow.He also stated that even
though 15 property owners are in agreement,they received
correspondence a considerable number of letters from property
owners in the area and does not know how they feel.Mr.Moser
asked assuming that the property was rezoned how much authority
does the Planning Commission have over the landscaping aspect of
the Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated that this would be developed under
the RM district and would be in accordance with the requirements of
that district.He stated that the landscaping is vague from an
ordinance prospective.A discussion followed regarding the
requirements of the size of trees which could be planted.Mr.
Iseminger stated they need to address the request to amend the
application and wanted to know if Mr.France is aware of it.Mr.
Arch stated he has not received an opinion from Ralph.Mr.Wantz
spoke and explained he spoke to Mr.France and he is satisfied with
the application.A discussion followed regarding the buffer.Mr.
Iseminger asked the Planning Commission if they want to act on the
rezoning without having an opinion from Mr.France or wait until
they receive an opinion from him.Mr.Arch stated that the letter
should have come directly to the Planning Commission and feels they
should have the opportunity to send something to Mr.France.A
discussion followed.Mr.Spickler stated that he would like to
have an opinion from Ralph and suggested holding a special meeting
to make a recommendation.After further discussion,it was decided
to hold a special meeting on Friday,May 6,1994 at 3:00 p.m.in
the Commissioner's meeting room to take action.Mr.Moser moved to
postpone taking action until the Special meeting scheduled for
Friday May 6,1994.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment (RZ-94-02):
After review and discussion of the proposed text amendment,staff
reports and testimony of the March 14,1994 public hearing,Mr.
Spickler moved to recommend that the County Commissioners adopt
RZ-94-02 because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
403
404
Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment (RZ-94-03):
After review and discussion of the proposed text amendment,staff
reports and testimony of the March 14,1994 public hearing,Mr.
Moser moved to recommend that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-94-
03 because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded
by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment (RZ-94-04):
Mr.Arch explained that this text amendment deals with information
signs for public or quasi public purposes.He stated it allows for
public or quasi public bodies to put up informational and/or
directional signs.He stated he has some reservations regarding
this amendment.He suggested that the following two criteria may
want to be considered:1)limiting the number of signs per
organization 2)the signs be within some sort of a radial distance
of the location of the nonprofit organization in an amendment.A
discussion followed regarding the potential problems.Mr.
Iseminger referred to proposed wording for Section 22.21(c)and
feels that signs cited in that section should be temporary and
allowed by right and that the permanent signs should only be
allowed as a special exception.Mr.Moser moved to recommend
denial based on the position that the proposed amendment as written
had the potential to generate a considerable amount of unnecessary
and undesirable sign clutter within the County.Furthermore,the
Planning Commission feels there is a need to address this signage
issue but feels it should be addressed based on whether the signs
were proposed to be temporary or permanent.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
Rezoning Recommendation Text Amendment (RZ-94-05):
Mr.Arch stated that this amendment pertains to real estate
directional signs and is similar to the previous one.He stated
this amendment came about from numerous conversations with the
Board of Commissioners,the Real Estate community and Paul
regarding the problem they have with directing people to homes.A
discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to table their recommendation
in order to give staff time to check on similar ordinances used in
other counties.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Rezoning Recommendation Text Amendment (FC-94-01):
Mr.Goodrich stated that this is an amendment to the Forest
Conservation Ordinance adding the Express Procedure which allows
applicants to go straight of the payment of the fee in lieu of
without Planning Commission approval as long as they were doing
less than five lots and had 2 acres or less of mitigation.Mr.
Ernst moved to recommend to the County Commissioners to adopt
FC-94-01 because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Environmental Sensitive Areas Element:
Mr.Arch referred to Mr.Goodrich's memo regarding environmentally
sensitive areas.He stated that the staff is seeking Commission
input on sensitive areas other than those mandated by the State.
Mr.Spickler stated that he has reservations about adding more
areas to what is required in the Planning Act.A discussion
followed.Mr.Arch suggested having a workshop to review this in
detail.It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff
proceed with the four mandated areas.During a workshop to be
scheduled in the near future,the Commission could discuss adding
others.The Commission requested that the staff evaluate the
(0
~,....
coz
~
protection measures currently in place for the areas under
discussion for possible addition.Mr.Ernst moved to postpone
action until after they have had a workshop meeting to review these
areas in more detail.Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Water and Sewer Plan Update Recommendation:
Mr.Moser moved to recommend approval to the Board of County
Commissioners to adopt the amended Water and Sewer Plan because it
is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Potomac Manor -Reguest for Extension:
Mr.Arch referred to a letter from Frederick,Seibert and
Associates requesting a one year extension of the Preliminary Plat
for Potomac Manor Estates.Mr.Moser moved to grant a one year
extension of the preliminary plat for Potomac Manor Estates.
Seconded by Mrs.Johnson.So ordered.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch reminded the Planning Commission of the following upcoming
meetings:Tuesday,May 17th at 7:30 p.m.in Boonsboro,MCPA Spring
meeting;Wednesday,May 18th at 4:00 p.m.at the Sheraton Inn,
Seminar/Meeting with the State Economic Growth,Resource Potential
and Planning Commission;Thursday,May 19th at 7:00 p.m.at
Hagerstown Junior College,the Upper Potomac Public Input Meeting;
Monday,May 23rd at 7:00 p.m.at the Maugansville Ruritan Club
Building,Group II Highway Interchange Study Public Information
Meeting;Wednesday,May 25th at 3:30 p.m.,meeting with the Airport
Commission at the Washington County Airport.
ADJOURNMENT:
405
There being no further business the me~ng adio.:<_L>:..dW~"
/Bertrand L.
.'.
'\
9:45 p.m .
406
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -MAY 6,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Friday,May 6,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.
Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary,Deborah
S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were,Bernard Moser,Carol Johnson and Ex-
Officio;Ronald L.Bowers.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:10 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:
RZ-94-01 Triad Properties -Rezoning Recommendation:
Mr.Iseminger stated that the only item on the agenda was the
rezoning case RZ-94-01 Triad Properties or Lewis and Grace Miller
a map amendment from Agricultural to Residential Multi-Family.He
stated this meeting was called as a result of letters submitted by
the consultant,Fred Papa of Associated Engineering Sciences,Inc.
and Bill Wantz,attorney representing some of the Brightwood East
residents,asking that the rezoning application be amended.Mr.
Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission asked for the County
Attorney's opinion on the request to add a condition to the map
amendment and how it would affect the Planning Commission's
decision.
Mr.Arch stated he wrote Ralph France a memo asking for his opinion
and he also spoke to him concerning this matter.He stated it is
Mr.France's opinion that the issue of the 200 foot buffer starts
to establish a land use condition on the property.Therefore,
there is the potential for this action to be considered a
conditional rezoning.Mr.Arch stated it is Mr.France's
recommendation that the Planning Commission not address the 200
foot buffer strip that is being proposed at this time,but instead
take action on the application as originally submitted and as heard
at the public hearing.Mr.Iseminger asked that as far as the
Planning Commission is concerned,they are to disregard the
proposed buffer and address the application as originally submitted
and if the Board of Commissioners want to do something different
with the agreement or condition that is up to them.Mr.Arch
stated yes and that the Board of Commissioners have done so in the
past.Mr.Iseminger asked if it is the Planning Commission's
charge to only act on what was presented at the public hearing,the
testimony and what was received in the 10 day period and disregard
this latest correspondence.Mr.Arch stated that was Mr.France's
recommendation since he felt that establishment of the 200 foot
buffer may potentially lead to development of a conditional
rezoning which may be held to be illegal.Mr.Iseminger asked if
this would in no way encumber the Planning Commission in any future
dealings with the property regarding site plans,subdivision
approval or anything like that.Mr.Arch stated that it could
possibly add a development condition to the property,depending
upon if there would be further action by the County Commissioners.
Mr.Spickler referred to the letter from Mr.Wantz where he cited
in Section 27.4 of the Zoning Ordinance,the "Commissioners upon
the zoning or rezoning any land";he asked if that referred to the
Board of Commissioners and if so does that section give them the
ability to rezone with special conditions.Mr.Arch stated that
the Board of Commissioners have placed conditions on rezonings
before but the type of conditions that he is familiar with tended
to address issues such as access via certain roads and things of
that nature and not a condition that could affect land use on the
piece of property itself.He thinks that is where Mr.France's
(0
~.,.-coz
~
concerns are rooted.He explained they are taking several acres of
a development and stating that they can only be used as a buffer.
Mr.Spickler commented that conditions placed upon a rezoning would
normally be on the entire property,and in this instance they are
proposing to place conditions on a portion of the property.Mr.
Arch stated that the case law pertaining to illegal conditional
rezonings tended to focus on land use issues,where specific uses
would be prohibited.Mr.Arch stated that in this case Mr.France
is saying that it starts to head in that direction since they are
taking several acres of the property and saying that it cannot be
used for anything but a buffer yard.By doing that there is
potential to view that action as establishing a land use condition.
Mr.Iseminger asked if that was for the County Commissioners to
decide and referred to the Zoning Ordinance where it states that
the Board of County Commissioners may impose conditions and Mr.
France is giving the opinion that if the Commissioners would
attempt to do that,that would be prohibiting the use.Mr.Arch
stated that Mr.France would be reviewing that for the
Commissioners at that time.Mr.Iseminger asked as far as they are
concerned,the Planning Commission should ignore what has been
submitted and act on what was originally presented at the public
hearing.Mr.Arch stated yes.Mr.Iseminger asked if anyone had
problems with that.The consensus of the Planning Commission was
no .
Mr.Iseminger stated they would act on the original rezoning
request from A to RM and that the applicant has asked that there be
a rezoning based on change in the character of the neighborhood and
not a mistake.Mr.Iseminger stated that Mr.Spickler asked for
copies of letters regarding prior rezonings,which they received
from Mr.Arch.Mr.Spickler stated he did not have any questions
about the information stating that Mr.Arch had gone back through
the minutes of the previous meetings and gave them an idea of the
rezonings that had occurred in that area which the applicant had
referred to in his testimony.He stated that the RS zones and most
of the area zoned PUD were established at the time another zone,
PR,was eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance and the RM zone was
the original zoning established in 1973.He stated that the
minutes show that this was done because there were already plans on
the books for the piece of property proposed for RM.He stated it
did not appear that the RM zoning was put in as an indication that
the original plan had intended there would be more RM zoning other
than that one piece and that was there because of a prior condition
on the land.He believed that the original planners who studied
this area determined there was a need for a multiple family area in
that particular region and it has developed as planned.He cited
single family residential units,multi-family,institutional and
all sorts of things happening pretty much in the way the planners
had envisioned it in 1973 and also the comprehensive rezoning that
was done in 1985.Mr.Spickler stated he felt it was beneficial to
have the information on the previous rezonings since this has been
a difficult request for him to understand all the associated
issues.Mr.Iseminger stated that all of the PUD's were originally
PR's (planned residential).Mr.Arch stated yes except for two
rezonings,RZ-91-1 and RZ-91-2.
Mr.Spickler stated that he was prepared to make a motion.Mr.
Spickler moved that they recommend to the County Commissioners that
they do not rezone this piece of property from A to RM.He stated
that the applicant did demonstrate a change in the neighborhood but
it was not significant enough to warrant a change from A to RM.He
stated that the comprehensive zoning in 1985 was done in order to
change from the other two previous zoning designations and he felt
that the area has developed pretty much to plan and that everything
in that area is compatible.Mr.Spickler indicated he did not feel
that the rezoning request to RM is compatible with the existing
neighborhood and is not sure that it is logical in light of the
development that is going on out there.He stated that mixed use
is called for in the plan and he feels it is progressing that way.
Mr.Spickler stated that for those reasons and the findings
outlined in the staff report,he moves to recommend that the Board
of Commissioners do not rezone the property.Mr.Arch stated that
407
408
he would like to point out that they could have a multiple family
development such as a PUD like the two cases cited in his memo
since it is inside the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Iseminger so noted
but stated it is not part of the application.The motion was
seconded by Mr.Bowen.A vote was taken.Mr.Iseminger,Mr.
Spickler and Mr.Bowen voted in favor of denial.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the motion
carries and that they recommend to the County Commissioners that
they do not rezone RZ-94-0l.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at
3:20 p.m.
-,---"-_.
c.o..q
,.-coz
:?::
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING -MAY 23,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a public information
meeting on Group II of the Highway Interchange Study on Monday,May
23,1994 at the Maugansville Ruritan Club.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice
Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,and Robert Ernst,II.
Absent were EX-Officio Ronald L.Bowers and Andrew J.Bowen,IV
Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Edward J.
Schreiber and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
Mr.Iseminger explained that this was the second in a series of
meetings to comprehensively rezone the interchanges in Washington
County.He stated that tonight's meeting will cover the
interchanges of I-81 and Stateline Road,Showalter Road and
Maugans Avenue.Mr.Iseminger introduced the Planning Commission
members and then proceeded to read the presiding officer statement.
He explained that no formal testimony would be taken this evening
and that a public hearing will take place at later date.He also
stated that this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the
Planning staff to present their findings and recommendations
pertaining to Group II.He referred to the guidelines in the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan,which were used in
preparation of this study.He explained that these areas were
zoned in 1973 and they each took approximately a half mile radius
on each of the interchanges.In 1988 the Planning Commission
adopted zoning text amendments creating the HI-l and HI-2 zoning
classifications.Mr.Iseminger stated that HI-l was geared towards
commercial and HI-2 was geared towards more residential.He
explained that the staff is completing the detailed study by
reviewing the current Highway Interchange zonings for all the
interchanges and recommending either HI-I,HI-2 or other zoning
classifications as appropriate.These recommendations are
preliminary and will not be finalized until the recommendation is
made from the Washington County planning Commission to the Board of
County Commissioners,who will either adopt it or reject it.If it
is rejected,they will go back to public hearing.Mr.Iseminger
stated that based on the questions presented at this meeting,the
Planning Commission will either recommend adoption of the staff's
proposal or recommend that they change the staff's proposals and
then either adoption or recommendation of additional study of this
interchange area.He stated that this meeting is informal and
proceeded to explain the format.
Mr.Arch presented the proposed zoning for the three interchanges
and reiterated that the proposed zoning presented tonight is
preliminary.He stated that there will be plenty of opportunity
for comments and encouraged the public that if they have a comment
to put it in writing and explained that the file is kept open for
10 days for written testimony.Mr.Arch proceeded to review the
process the staff went through in looking at each interchange.He
stated they considered the existing land uses,utilities,
environmental factors,transportation in order to determine the
most logical proposed land uses for a particular area.
Mr.Schreiber reviewed the overlay maps detailing environmental
features,utilities,transportation,water and sewer categories,
sewer lines,water mains,gas lines and 3 phase electric.He then
proceeded to show a slide presentation of the three interchanges
and explained the locations and what was represented on each slide.
409
410
Mr.Arch explained that the information presented in the slides and
drawings were compiled and analyzed to determine the zoning
classification.He stated there are major traffic generators at
all three interchanges and that each interchange has excellent
economic development potential.Mr.Arch explained the review
process and how staff determined the proposed recommendations.He
stated they tried to avoid creating situations which could generate
compatibility problems.Mr.Arch informed the audience that
everyone who received a letter regarding this meeting did so
because they own property in a HI district.He stated that this is
the most liberal district in the county because it allows
commercial,industrial,single family residential,and multi-family
residential to take place simultaneously side by side.He stated
the approach used was to look at the individual parcels and decide
if they should be HI-lor HI-2 and in some cases neither one of
them and cited examples.
Recommendations:
I-81 and Stateline Road:
Mr.Arch referred to the area around the airport and stated they
felt it should remain as a HI-1 a Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial
classification.The area where the motel,trucking area and
restaurant was also considered as HI-1.Adjacent to it are single
family homes which they recommended be classified as RR.Adjacent
to it on the other side is a farm which was recommended to be zoned
Agricultural and pulled out of the HI district.
I-81 and Showalter Road:
Mr.Arch stated that there were some properties along Rt.11,that
even though they were still residential in nature,were recommended
for inclusion in an HI-1 district whose boundary would be pushed
out to Rt.11.He explained that an amendment has been adopted by
the Commissioners which states that a person that lives in a house
in the HI-1 district can remain in the house and the residential
dwelling would not be considered a nonconforming use.Mr.Arch
stated that the next interchange area is near the airport.The
airport is not part of the HI district but does separate the two
zones.This district includes Rohr Industries and the Airport
Business Park.He referred to the area across Showalter Road from
the Airport and stated they felt it had a lot of potential for
commercial/industrial development and because of flight patterns
they did not want to see it develop as residential and therefore
recommended it designated as HI-1.He explained that an
agricultural zoned property at the corner of Showalter Road and Rt.
11 was also proposed for inclusion in the HI-1 district since it
was felt it would not remain agricultural.Mr.Arch stated they
were sensitive to the properties in the Maugansville area because
of its historical significance and pulled a lot of properties out
of the HI zoning and made them RR.He explained there were a
series of single family homes that they felt should be zoned RR and
a multiple family area which was proposed to be rezoned RM.Mr.
Arch stated there is also a small area proposed to be designated RS
since that classification would be more consistent with existing
development.He referred to the a large farm area which they
recommended be designated Agricultural.
I-81 and Maugans Avenue:
Mr.Arch stated that along I-81 they considered a section HI-2
because it is located near the interchange and contains multi-
family dwellings.He stated the area along I-81 remained HI-1 from
Showalter Road to the Maugans Avenue Interchange as well as the
area adjacent to the Mack Truck plant.He explained that there are
some areas adjacent to .residential development and they were
CD
-.:;:t
,-
CD
Z
~
designated HI-2 for transition purposes.Mr.Arch explained that
HI-2 is basically residential with some light commercial and light
industrial transitional type land uses permitted but with primary
emphasis on residential development.Mr.Arch stated that most of
the property along 1-81 was recommended for HI-l.The area between
Maugansville Road and the railroad tracks were made a transition
area and designated as HI-2.Consideration was given to the
airport for eliminating some residential zoning.Mr.Arch stated
that staff looked at noise contour levels and the runway approach
zones and made recommendations accordingly focusing on emphasizing
development of a nonresidential character.
At this point questions were taken from the audience.A question
was asked regarding the length of time for the study and the cost
to the taxpayers.Mr.Iseminger stated that the original zoning
was done in 1973 and at that time they recognized the need that the
Highway Interchange zoning was to be temporary in nature and that
future Boards of Commissioners would have to come back and look at
the zone.He stated that it is something that has been on the work
schedule and for various reasons it has not come to public hearing
until now.He stated that it is something that has been on and off
the top of their priority list and that approximately 6 years ago
they started the process of looking at this group of interchanges.
He feels these interchanges were ready for public hearing about 4
years ago and it is just recently that the Board of Commissioners
decided to go to public hearing.Mr.Arch stated that the current
recommendation was put together in about a year and is funded
basically 50 percent by the Appalachian Regional Commission and 50
percent by Washington County.Mr.Iseminger stated that originally
they did not want to go to public hearing until all 17 interchanges
were completed.The same gentleman asked if the core of this
interchange study is based on the airport.Mr.Iseminger stated
that the airport happens to be part of this area and that the
purpose of the rezoning effort is the highway interchange district
itself.He stated they were mandated to go back and take another
look at it,20 years have passed and development patterns have
changed.He stated that they recognize these are unique resources
to the County and in most cases would like to see them developed
commercially to take advantage of the sewer,roads,water,etc.so
that there is not a conflict with single family homes and
commercial development.The same gentleman expressed concern that
the properties will be rezoned to a situation where taverns and
liquor stores will be allowed near residences.Mr.Iseminger
stated that could only occur if the property is appropriately zoned
and if the developer brings it through the Planning Commission and
receives all of the appropriate approvals.The gentlemen stated
that he wondered when Mr.Iseminger stated that "we have decided"
and that it was not the property owners in that particular area and
none of them have agreed that what is presented is a good idea.
Mr.Iseminger stated that the purpose of these meetings is to hear
their comments and concerns.Mr.Moser stated that nothing has
been decided and that this is a recommendation and they are asking
for public input.The gentleman stated that this should have been
brought out to the public first before making these
recommendations.Mr.Arch stated that he has misunderstood what
the Planning Commission is proposing and suggested that he come in
to the office to discuss it.He explained that what they are doing
is in one way or the other paring away certain uses and that the HI
district they have now allows everything.
Another gentleman asked how far off Maugansville Road does HI
zoning exist and was concerned that his property had two different
zonings.Mr.Schreiber statecl that the original zoning followed
property lines.He asked if the gentleman owned multiple
properties in that area.The gentleman stated that some of his
neighbors had the same situation and wanted to know how far the HI
zoning extends off of Maugansville Road.Mr.Schreiber stated it
is about 100 -200 feet to the rear property line of one of the
properties.The gentleman stated he owns property on Maugansville
Road across from Reiff Church Road and would like to see the HI-l
411
412
zoning run to Maugansville Road up to Reiff Church Road.
There was a question concerning the RR zoning on the west side of
I-81 south of State Line which has HI-l to the north of it and if
there is any consideration for water supply to that area since the
HI-l area receives it.Mr.Arch explained that the water that
services the industrial area comes from a line in Pennsylvania and
he is not sure if there are any plans to extend it.The gentleman
was concerned that heavy industry will affect the quality of his
water.Mr.Arch explained that the HI-l and HI-2 districts allow
the same current uses.He stated they cannot add anything more in
the districts and in fact will be required to do less.He stated
that the current zoning allows industrial,heavy commercial,single
family and multi-family in the HI district where he lives.A
discussion followed regarding the uses currently allowed.Concern
was expressed by some of the residents of whether anything needed
to be changed.Mr.Iseminger explained the interchange process,
the purpose of the rezoning and the existing zoning.
There was another question regarding the RR triangle area south of
State Line Road.The gentleman referred to the HI-I area above it
and stated there is some industry in that area and they have been
buffered on the west side with Agriculture and pointed out that the
Planning Commission has buffered the other residential areas with
HI-2.He stated they are all on wells and septics and wanted to
know why they cannot have HI-2 instead of the HI-I.Mr.Arch
stated that the group of land uses currently in the area designated
HI-l would not have fallen under the HI-2 classification and that
they were trying to stay away from generating nonconforming uses.
The gentleman stated he felt there should be a buffer between the
RR and HI-I.
Another gentleman commented he has a business on Showalter Road and
is glad that this zoning is being straightened out.He stated that
one of properties is zoned commercial and one is zoned Agricultural
and that the Agricultural property is allowed to operate a business
because of a grandfather clause.
Concern was expressed regarding the traffic on Maugans Avenue and
if anything would be done to take care of it.Mr.Iseminger stated
that the Planning Commission recommended several years ago to the
Commissioners that a traffic improvement study be done on the
entire Maugans Avenue Corridor and that he would have to ask the
Commissioners about it.Another question was asked by a lady who
lives in a HI-I area.She wanted to know if she is protected if
her neighbor wants to go commercial and wants to buy her property
in order to expand.Mr.Iseminger stated she is protected and that
she is under no obligation to sell her property.He stated that as
part of the first group of interchanges the Commissioners and the
Planning Commission adopted amendments to the Ordinance to make
sure that existing residences would be protected and would be able
to expand i.e.add decks,etc.and be able to remain as
residential.She commented that the Commission is saying that the
Maugansville area is growing,yet their sewer bills increased and
the reason it has is because there is no potential growth in the
Maugansville Area.Mr.Iseminger stated that he could not answer
sewer questions,that would be for Sanitary District.He stated
with the way the economic times are they are not seeing development
and that there are projects on the books that have not yet been
built but the potential fer development is out there.He stated
that the zoning maps are proposing what could go there and only
economics will dictate what will happen.A resident from Sunrise
Drive stated that her property backs up to a cornfield proposed for
HI-I.She asked if as of right now if everyone in the area is
zoned Highway Interchange.Mr.Arch answered yes.She asked if by
expanding the area does it give someone else the opportunity to buy
up more land for commercial development.She stated she felt with
the present zoning,she was somewhat protected and does not want a
(0..q.,.....
coz
~
truck stop or liquor store in her back yard and felt that could
happen if the zoning is expanded.Mr.Iseminger stated that they
are not expanding the area.He explained that they are rezoning
the area that is currently zoned Highway Interchange,which allows
many of the things she just described.He stated they are not
adding uses but instead are eliminating many of the uses that could
cause conflicts.He stated that they are trying to protect the
residential areas from intrusive uses.Mr.Arch stated that the
property she is referring to is currently HI and proposed to be HI-
1.He stated what would be eliminated would be orientation toward
the heavy residential classification.He stated it is more of a
heavy commercial classification.She stated that is why she is
concerned by them rezoning it to HI-l because they are opening it
up to truck stops.Mr.Arch stated that the proposed zoning is not
opening it up any more than it is.She asked if they could instead
zone it HI-2.Mr.Iseminger stated that is what the Planning
Commission wants to hear and she should testify to that at the
public hearing.Mr.Arch asked her if what she wants them to do is
to look at it as being HI-2.Someone asked if that would stop
something like a truck stop.Mr.Arch stated that the HI-2 zoning
would have a major impact on restricting that type of development .
Another gentleman had a question on the same piece of property and
asked what the proposed zoning was for the adjacent property,
because it was not clear on his map.Mr.Schreiber stated that it
is HI-I.
There was a question regarding the HI-l and HI-2 designations along
Maugans Avenue near the car wash and McDonalds.Mr.Arch stated
the property is currently zoned HI and they looked at building a
transi tional area to the residential development.There was
another question concerning Sunrise Drive regarding the distance
from HI-I.Mr.Schreiber stated it would be a minimum of 75 feet.
A discussion followed regarding the size of the buffers.There was
a question regarding if the property was rezoned,would they
require an existing business to abide by the new buffers.Mr.
Iseminger stated that it would be grandfathered,but if the
existing business expanded they would have to abide by the new
restrictions.Mr.Iseminger stated that things would continue as
is for commercial and existing residential and only new
subdivisions and site plans would be affected.
Mr.Robert Shawley noted that the map handed out classified their
business as HI-2 and that would put them in a nonconforming use.
He stated that they also own the adjoining property,which the land
use shows as Agricultural use and suggested that it be rezoned
zoned HI-I.He stated that across the street from them on Shawley
Drive is the retirement home and that would have been a nice buffer
zone,which he feels is needed.He suggested that perhaps
something be done to alleviate that situation.Mr.Schreiber
stated that they want to hear all concerns and suggested that he
submit it in writing and bring it up at the public hearing.Mr.
Shawley asked about nonconforming use and when it would apply.Mr.
Iseminger stated that a nonconforming use would kick in if the
property is vacant for 6 months.Mr.Iseminger stated that when
Group I was rezoned,they did amend the Ordinance to address the
concerns and briefly reviewed it.Mr.Arch stated that the
Ordinance was amended to state that if there was a lot that was
created for residential purposes,even though it is rezoned they
can develop a residence on it.He stated the reason for it is
because they sometimes run into pockets where they have that
situation.Mr.Shawley stated they recently went through a special
exception to install two additional propane storage tanks.He
asked since the property is currently zoned HI,why would they have
to go through special exception,since none of the principal uses
address what they do but addresses a lot of the things they do and
wanted to know why they had to go through special exception and if
they are rezoned HI-l would they have to do that again and if they
are rezoned HI-2 would that mean that the development of the
adjoining property to them would then be special exception.Mr.
Arch stated that if they had a status that they needed a special
413
414
exception for,most likely they would need it again and it probably
went beyond the normal HI requirements.He stated that off hand it
was probably the tanks themselves that caused the need for the
special exception.Mr.Shawley stated it was his understanding if
the property remains as HI-l and Shawleys wants to increase the
size of their fence line they would not have to go through a
special exception but if the property was zoned HI-2 they would.
Mr.Arch referred to the map and reviewed the classifications and
allowed uses.He stated there are some light commercial uses that
are still allowed in the HI-2 classification but that Business
General,the most heavy commercial classification,would only be
allowed under HI-l.Another gentleman stated that Shawleys is
already there and another portion is proposed for the new fire hall
and wanted to know why they would want to change it back to
residential and felt they ought to consider that.There was
another question concerning whether water and sewer would be
extended down State Line Road.Mr.Arch stated to the best of his
knowledge there are not any plans to extend it.Mr.Arch stated
that it is a Pennsylvania line and the property owners serviced
gave compensation to Antrim Township to extend the line to the
truck stop and the motel.Mr.Schreiber stated that Antrim
Township was compensated by the owner of one of those lots to
provide water to their site.Concern was expressed about providing
water to the residences in that area because of the potential for
contaminating the wells by the commercial properties.
A resident who lives south of the Colonial Motel referred to a
vacant lot behind her property,she thought someone said that the
property could never be developed because it is zoned Agriculture.
Mr.Arch explained the proposed zoning in that area and stated that
the areas near the airport were designated for more intense
commercial development.She also asked coming down Pennsylvania
Avenue one side of the road is hooked up to the sewer on the front
of the property and she hooked up to the back.Mr.Arch stated
that he could not comment on that and that was a decision made by
the Sanitary District.Mr.Iseminger stated that she needed to
speak to Lynn Palmer.There was a question if there were any plans
for any industrial permits in these areas.Mr.Arch stated that
the major development in the area is Maugans Meadows and that the
County is trying to market the airport business park property above
the airport.Concern was expressed by some of the residents that
a truck stop could go in the area.Mr.Iseminger stated that a
truck stop for the HI-l area would require a special exception and
that would require the applicant to go to public hearing and that
the residents would have an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Mr.Arch stated that several years ago there was interest in
putting a truck stop in that area and he did have someone contact
him regarding putting a residential development in that area.
Mr.Shawley stated he spoke to the Assessment Office regarding how
the rezoning will affect their taxes.He stated that if a property
is devalued because of rezoning,the Assessment Office is not
notified.He stated that if a property is devalued because of
zoning the owner would benefit,but for the person that has
residential zoning that is changed to HI-lor 2,it will greatly
increase the value of the property.A discussion followed
regarding taxes.Mr.Shawley commented that these proposed
recommendations were actually taking more away from HI-l than
adding.Mr.Arch stated that is correct.A discussion followed
regarding the process.A comment was made regarding the
agricultural industry in the area and that should be taken into
consideration.Mr.Shawley stated he felt that it was the
Planning Commission's intent to take the HI away from the
Agricultural areas and thereby intensify the search to a particular
area,i.e.the airport.Mr.Iseminger stated that the reason they
want development to go in these areas is part of the analysis.It
is where they have sewer,water and the least amount of homes and
referred to the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Arch stated that a lot of
good points were brought up this evening and suggested that they be
put in writing.Mr.Iseminger stated that after this meeting,the
There being no further business,
p.m.
(0
~
T"'"co
Z
~
Planning Commission will have a workshop meeting to discuss the
comments made at this meeting and reiterated that the public will
have an opportunity to testify at a public hearing.He encouraged
the residents to submit something in writing or call the staff.
ADJOURNMENT:
the meeting was adjourned at 9:00
,/~~-.,,/n/,></j)~,f (",/(VlJWi'~}Q;V
"B~andL.Iseminger,Chairman
415
416
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 6,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,June 6,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Paula Lampton,Bernard Moser,~obert
E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Associate Planners;Edward J.Schreiber,Timothy A.Luhg,
Lisa Kelly Pietro,James P.Brittain 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.
Before proceeding with the meeting the Planning Commission welcomed
their new member,Paula Lampton.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Mr.Moser made a motion to nominate Bertrand Iseminger as Chairman
of the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Mr.Moser made a motion to close the nominations for Chairman.
Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Mr.Ernst made a motion to nominate Donald Spickler as Vice-
Chairman of the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.Mr.Ernst made a motion to close the nominations for
Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
A discussion followed regarding the Rules of Order.It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission to continue using Roberts
Rules of Order at this time and to hold a workshop meeting in the
future to review the by-laws and how the order of b1,lsiness is
conducted.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of April 25,1994.Seconded
by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mr.Moser moved to approved the minutes of May 2,1994.Seconded
by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mr.Ernst moved to approved the minutes of May 6,1994.Seconded
by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
variances:
J.Michael Stouffer:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for J.Michael Stouffer
and stated that the subdivision plat is also on the agenda and is
contingent upon variance approval.The site is situated on the
north side of Welty Church Road.The road classification is local.
The request is from the requirement of a preliminary consultation
once five lots are created on a particular tract.The applicant
did not want to do that at this time since he may develop three
more lots in addition to the five and would do the preliminary
consul tation at that time.Mrs.Pietro stated that Gray Hebb,
Engineering Department,informed her that if the property was
further developed after the five lots,Welty Church Road would need
to be upgraded.A discussion followed regarding access to the
co..q
,.-coz
~
remaining lands.Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and
Associates,consultant,stated that Mr.Stouffer originally planned
on a four lot subdivision and was not aware that Lot 1 had been
created some years ago.He explained that they had already
submitted their subdivision plat when they were informed that they
needed a consultation.All approvals are in.Mr.Moser moved to
grant approval of the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
Robert Bisser:
Mr.Lung presented the variance for Robert Bisser.The property
is situated on Kaetzel Road and is zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung
stated that Mr.Bisser owns a 7.3 acre parcel with an existing
dwelling and is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots.
He stated that Mr.Bisser wants to sell the lot with the existing
dwelling and retain the rear lot to build a house for himself.Mr.
Lung stated that the proposed lot meets the Zoning Ordinance
requirements in Conservation for minimum lot size but would be
required to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the lot width
requirement for the new lot because the existing parcel is only 167
feet wide.Mr.Bisser is proposing to create the rear lot without
any public road frontage and since he plans to keep the lot for
himself he wants to use the immediate family member clause on the
subdivision plat.Mr.Lung noted that the Ordinance stipulates if
it is an immediate family member lot without public road frontage
the lot must access an existing lane and this proposed lot does
not.He stated that the staff recommends that if the variance is
granted,that it be from the requirement to create a lot without
road frontage,since the family member statement would not serve
any purpose and would only further encumber the property.A
discussion followed regarding the adjoining lots,the condition of
Kaetzel Road,sight distance,using the family member statement and
how the APFO would affect it.Mr.Iseminger asked if the Boonsboro
Fire Company had been notified of the proposed lot.Mr.Bisser
stated no.Mr.Iseminger stated that he would like to have
comments from the Boonsboro Fire Company before the Planning
Commission makes a decision on the variance.He also stated that
they need to take a look at the Ordinance regarding revisions.Mr.
Ernst moved to table the variance.Mr.Moser seconded.So
ordered.Mr.Iseminger instructed Mr.Lung to contact both the
Fire Company and the County Engineer regarding the road.
Todd W.Elwood:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Todd W.Elwood.The
property is located on the south side of MD 68 and is classified as
a major collector.The request is from Section 40S.2.a which
states that a new access must be at least 300 feet from an existing
access.The applicant is requesting to reduce the distance to 100
feet.Zoning is Agricultural.Mr.Schreiber stated that the
proposed lot is being conveyed to an immediate family member but
there is no need for the additional owners statement.He stated
that there is an existing drive that borders the property and
serves 3 other homes but the applicant wishes to have their own
access onto MD 68.Mr.Iseminger asked why they do not want to
meet the 300 foot spacing requirement.Mrs.Elwood stated with the
design of the house it would be nearly impossible to use the
existing driveway.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
417
418
Karl Needy:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Karl Needy.The site is
located on the north side of Cool Hollow Road,which is classified
as local.The variance is requested from Section 405.11.b of the
Ordinance which states that all new lots shall abut a minimum of 25
feet of public road frontage.Mr.Schreiber referred to the plat
and pointed out the location of Mr.Needy's father's home and a wet
weather stream.He stated that Mr.Needy is proposing to create a
lot behind his father's house on property owned by Mr.Norwood
Winders and that Mr.Needy's father will give him access along his
existing driveway.Mr.Needy does not want to create a lot with
road frontage because of the wet weather stream and the permits he
would need to obtain.In addition,if he were to put in a
panhandle a culvert would be required,which would require
additional costs to bring it up to 16 feet wide.He stated that
Cool Hollow Road is 16 feet wide except for a few places where
culverts have been put underneath the road to take care of storm
drainage.He further stated that Mr.Needy would like to use the
existing driveway and even if he had to put the panhandle in and
widen the road he would not go the extra expense of putting another
driveway in.The zoning is Agricultural.The proposed lot would
be 1 acre and has an approved perc.There would be 56 acres
remaining.A portion of the lot will be in the flood plain.A
discussion followed regarding the 10 year family member statement
and whether or not to require a panhandle.Mr.Spickler moved to
grant the variance based on the topographical hardship with the
condition that the 10 year immediate family member statement be
added to the plat.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Norman and Lois Horst (Martin Lot Al:
Mr.Lung presented the variance for Norman and Lois Horst and
stated that there is also a subdivision plat up for approval
contingent upon the variance.The property consists of 1.13 acres
and is located on Pennsylvania Avenue,which is classified as a
minor arterial.The zoning is Business General and is bordered by
commercial zoning as well.The property is owned by Maurice Martin
who wishes to subdivide the property into two lots and convey the
rear lot.Mr.Lung stated that there are existing commercial uses
on the property.Access to the proposed commercial lot would be by
a right of way across an adjacent property,which Mr.Martin is a
partial owner.Mr.Lung stated there is a letter in the file from
the owners of this adjacent lot granting the right of way across it
as a means of access.Mr.Lung stated that State Highway
Administration requested that the right of way be increased to 25
feet and that Mr.Martin has submitted a revised plat indicating
that they will increase the right of way.Mr.Lung stated that a
site plan will be required prior to any development.He stated
that State Highway has asked that if the variance is granted that
improvements be made to the existing access as far as curbing and
channelization of the access.Mr.Martin explained that Mr.Horst
is his son in-law and operates the Martins Farm Market and that
they plan to move the market to the rear of the property.He
stated that he met with State Highway and has agreed to make the
improvements and widen the right of way.A discussion followed
regarding the access.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance
contingent on the improvements to the entrance to State Highway's
standards and increasing the right of way width to 25 feet.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
c.o
~.,..-
coz
:aE
Subdivisions:
Maurice Martin.Lot A:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for
Maurice S.Martin,Lot A for a future commercial building.The
site is located on the east side of U.S.Rt.11.Mr.Lung
proceeded to review the plat.He stated that prior to development,
a site plan will need to be submitted and is noted on the plat.
Mr.Lung stated that the Zoning Administrator is requiring a note
on the remaining lands stating that the creation of this lot shall
not reduce the requirements on the remaining lands.The lot will
be served by public water and sewer.Approvals have been received
from Sanitary District.The Water Department has not yet sent
written comments but have stated verbally that they do not have a
problem.Mr.Lung stated that the plat meets all setback
requirements.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary/final
subdivision plat approval contingent upon agency approvals.
Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Byer's Meadows.preliminary/Final:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for
Byer's Meadows Lots 4-11.She stated that lots 1-3 were previously
subdivided for family members.The site is located on the
northeast side of Rt.63.Zoning is Agriculture.The developer is
proposing to create 8 single family lots.All lots will have
access onto two new public roads.All lots will have wells and
septics.All approvals have been received.Mrs.Pietro referred
to the County Engineer's comments on his approval regarding the
infiltration trenching that will be put in adjacent to Signal
Drive.The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance
since the plat was submitted in December of 1992.Mr.Iseminger
referred to Terry McGee's letter regarding a drainage deficiency
problem and an uncooperative property owner.Mr.Frederick,of
Frederick,Seibert and Associates,consultant,explained that the
problem is with a low area in front of the property.He stated
that any water that comes off the farm just lays there.There is
no culvert there and if one were put in it would go across the
neighbor's garden.Mr.Frederick stated that State Highway wanted
them to check that the hydraulics would work.He stated it would
manage a 75 year storm and that State Highway and the County
Engineer have both approved the hydraulics.A discussion followed
regarding the drainage,and access to the existing farm.Mr.
Iseminger expressed concern that they were possibly creating a
problem that State Highway will have to do something about in the
future and asked if they could require a bond or should it be
referred to the County Attorney.Mr.Arch stated that he
understands the Planning Commission'S concerns and feels that the
County Engineer's concerns with infiltration are due to the fact
that it is a type of system that they are no longer advocating and
explained what the State likes to see.A discussion followed
regarding the infiltration.Mrs.Pietro stated that all agency
approvals are in.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the
preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Frederick Walls,Lots 1-3:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Frederick
Walls,Lots 1-3.The site is located along the east side of Rice
Road.The zoning is Conservation.The developer is proposing to
create three lots for immediate family members.The lots will each
be 3 acres in size with 7.8 acres remaining.All three lots have
existing structures on them (Lot 1 has a house and Lots 2 and 3
both have a mobile home).All lots will have wells and septics.
All approvals are in.Mrs.Pietro stated that the plat is exempt
from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it is going to an
immediate family member and no more than 40,000 square feet of
forest will be disturbed.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
419
420
ordered.
J.Michael Stouffer,Preliminary/Final Lots 2-5 and Forest
Conservation Plan:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for J.Michael
Stouffer and referred to the variance.She stated that this
subdivision is for Lots 2-5 and is located along the north side of
Welty Church Road.The zoning is Agriculture.The developer is
proposing to create 4 single family lots ranging in size from .9 to
2.5 acres.Total acreage of the subdivision is 7 and the remaining
land consists of 66 acres.Each lot will access Welty Church Road
and will have individual well and septic.All agency approvals
have been received.Mrs.Pietro stated that the Afforestation Plan
was also submitted and that they are required to plant 1.4 acres of
trees.The area of afforestation will be on the remaining lands
approximately 700 to 900 feet southwest from the house and barn
complex.The area is adjacent to a perennial stream,flood plain
area and mapped wetlands.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain where
the trees will be planted,the planting phases and the types of
trees to be used.She stated that an agreement was also submitted
which includes the 2 year management agreement,financial surety,
agreement of bond and long term protective agreement and has been
signed by the owner.The agreement states that upon acceptance of
the letter by the County,Mr.Stouffer agrees to forward within 30
days a bond in the amount of $6,098.00,which is based on 10 cents
a square foot.A discussion followed regarding the area to be
forested and the surety.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the Forest
Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Moser
moved to grant Preliminary/Final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.
Appalachian Orchard Estates,Lots 1-19 Preliminary Plat:
Before reviewing the plat,the Planning Commission took a few
minutes to review a letter from the forester outlining the types of
trees to be planted in the amount of $2,949.00 (less than the 10
cents a square foot).Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary plat
for Appalachian Orchard Estates Lots 1 -19.The site is located
on the north side of MD 77 and consists of 29 acres.The site has
one storm water management area and the lot sizes range from 1.1
acres to 1.9 acres and will provide approximately 1900 feet of new
road.There will not be any access onto MD 77 except for the new
street.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics.
The schools will be Smithsburg.
Mr.Schreiber stated that the plat had previously been before the
Commission for a variance request.He stated that a fee simple
panhandle less than 400 feet long will be provided to Mr.Kline
(the adjacent property owner)and will only be 25 feet wide.Mr.
Schreiber stated that he had not received any agency approvals
since they are in the process of reviewing it.He stated he has
received some tentative verbal approvals along with some written
comments.Mr.Spickler stated that he felt they needed to address
the Forest Conservation aspect.Mr.Schreiber stated that for the
first phase the developer will be planting 6 acres of trees along
steep slopes and adjacent to an existing forest.Mr.Schreiber
referred to the letter from the forester,Greg Baker,which details
the amount they projected it would cost,the types of trees and how
the planting will be done.He further stated that the contract
purchaser is putting together a maintenance agreement stating that
after the two year period if less than 75 percent of the trees
survive then the County can go in and cash the bond.They will be
planting approximately 2400 trees so at least 1800 would have to be
living after 2 years.A discussion followed regarding the Forest
Conservation Plan.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt they could
not accept the letter presented regarding the bond amount and at
the minimum they should accept 10 cents a square foot.After
further discussion,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission
that 10 cents a square foot would be the minimum allowed for the
<0
~
.oy-
CO
Z
~
bond.
Mr.Arch stated there may be a problem with the school capacity.
He reviewed the attendance figures for the Smithsburg schools
versus the current capacities as outlined in the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance.He explained the potential problems they may
incur even with the redistricting.He suggested since this is a
preliminary plat,that approval should be contingent upon resolving
this issue to make sure there is adequate capacity and felt that
the developer should be aware that there could be a problem at the
final stage of the approval process.A discussion followed.Mr.
Arch informed the Planning Commis 9 ion that the detailed 6 month
APFO report will be presented to the Commissioners in August and
the redistricting report should be completed soon.Mr.Bob Angle
of Best Angle Surveys stated he had hoped that once the Preliminary
approval was granted that the staff could grant the final approval
and that he was not aware of the school capacity problem until this
evening.Mr.Spickler stated that the developer will have to come
back for final approval.Mr.Arch stated that staff has to come
back with additional information for the Planning Commission to
make a decision and suggested that the developer could go to the
Board of Appeals for a variance from the APFO if there is a problem
with the capacity after their report.Mr.Moser moved to approve
the Forest Conservation Plan with a change to 10 cents a square
foot for purposes of the bond.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mr.Moser moved to approve the preliminary plat contingent on the
agreement with Mr.Kline,agency approvals and working out the
capacity problem with the school district.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
Don Ebberts,Preliminary/Final:
Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary/final plat for Don Ebberts.
The developer is proposing to subdivide three lots on the north
side of Black Rock Road.The zoning is Conservation.The lot
sizes are approximately 6 acres each with approximately 5.45 acres
remaining.There is an existing right of way through the property
to lands owned by Mr.Russell Snyder and is noted on the plat.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Brittain stated that the
land was forested and that the calculations show that they do not
have to do any forestation.The total area of clearing is 10.71
acres.There is a note on the plat to every property owner and
will be part of their deed stating that any areas outside of the
clearing zone are subject to the Forest Conservation Act.Mr.
Moser moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by
Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Sheetz,Inc.:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for a new Sheetz Convenience store
on the corner of U.S.Route 40 and Route 66.The zoning is
Agriculture.The property will contain a building and 2 fueling
islands with canopies.Sheetz will be leasing a 3 acre parcel out
of 44.4 acres.There will be 66,900 feet of parking area with
access onto both U.S.Route 40 and Route 66.The site will be
served by a well and septic system.Mr.Lung proceeded to review
the landscaping.He referred to his memo to Paul Prodonovich
detailing his comments.Since that time a revised plan has been
submitted,which addressed most of the comments.Mr.Lung stated
that the landscaping has been increased and that the existing bank
along Rt.40 will be graded off.Sixty-four parking spaces will be
provided (23 are required).The lighting will be pole and building
mounted lights and are not down focused,which may cause some spill
over in the adjacent areas.Mr.Lung reviewed the dumpster and
recycling areas.Mr.Lung stated that this site was before the
Board of Appeals in April for reduction in rear and front setbacks.
He stated the variance was granted in May based on the hardship
421
422
created by the unusual and irregular shape of the lot.Mr.Lung
stated that during the hearing concerns were expressed by the
owners in the area regarding the visual impact on the Christian
Newcomer house,which is approximately 900 feet from it and listed
on the National Register.The Board of Appeals recommended that
the Planning Commission require two rows of trees be planted along
the property line for screening from the house and be planted off
center and be approximately 6 feet in height.He stated that the
consul tant provided a cross section of the site so staff could
determine if it would provide sufficient screening and proceeded to
review it.Mr.Lung stated that what is shown meets the
recommendations of the Appeals Board.The Historic District
Commission also reviewed this plan but did not have the cross
section to review and could not reach a consensus to make a
recommendation.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer is
prepared to sign the plan,Soil Conservation is waiting for two
minor revisions,Health Department has approved it and State
Highway needs comments addressed.Mr.Iseminger referred to Mr.
Lung's memo outlining 16 items and asked if all of them had been
addressed.Mr.Lung stated only a few needed to be cleared up.
Mr.Iseminger asked about the comment concerning possible wetlands
on the site.Mr.Lung stated that a comment was made prior to
looking at the inventory maps and stated that there are no
identified wetlands on the site.A discussion followed regarding
water quality,storm water management,the exterior of the
building,landscaping,the variance,and restrooms.Mr.Iseminger
noted that there is a new traffic light there because there are
documented problems with the intersection and expressed concern
with the lighting for the fuel pumps and asked if there will be a
problem with the lighting as shown.Mr.Frederick stated that they
want the intersection well lit and they do not want to hide the
building.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern with parking out front
and potential problems with head lights.Mr.Frederick stated that
they have a large green area in front and the bUilding will be 100
feet from the road.Mr.Augustine,Sheetz representative,
explained that the landscaping along the front of the property will
grow about 3 - 4 feet high,which may block some of the head
lights.A discussion followed regarding ingress and egress,
parking lot,traffic flow,signage,and maintenance of the
landscape screening.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern again with
the control of fuel runoff and wants the appropriate agency to look
at it.Mr.Lung referred to the subdivision plat for Western
Commercial Funding,Section CLots 14-32 and stated that the
Planning Commission's approval included a contingency for water
quality based on a design explained by Mr.Elmer Weibley of Soil
Conservation.Mr.Iseminger stated he wanted to see that done.
Mr.Frederick stated that he would discuss it with Mr.Weibley.A
discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan
approval contingent on agency approvals,that the water quality
management issue be addressed to the highest degree and the head
light issue into the intersection be addressed (double rows of
bushes if needed).Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst and Mr.
Bowen abstained.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Sterling Oaks Extension Reguest:
Mr.Arch stated that Milcar Construction requested a one year
extension of the preliminary plat approval for Sterling Oaks
subdivision.Mr.Moser moved .to grant a one year extension of the
preliminary plat approval for Sterling Oaks.Seconded by Mr.
Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Sensitive Areas:
The Planning Commission agreed to hold a workshop meeting on the
Sensitive Areas on Thursday,July the 7th at 7:00 p.m.in the
Commissioners meeting room.Mr.Arch stated they want to send
notices out to various groups and organizations so that they have
the opportunity to express their ideas to the Planning Commission.
CD
~,..-
OJz:a:
Mr.Arch stated though only 4 areas are mandated by the Planning
Act,a lot of issues may want to be considered for inclusion.A
discussion followed.
Boonsboro Annexation:
Mr.Iseminger stated they discussed this at the joint meeting and
suggested they do it all at once.Mr.Arch stated that the
Planning Commission does not have to do anything and staff can
proceed.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch stated they will not have the quarterly rezoning next
week.He stated he would like to schedule a meeting for Friday,
June 17th from 11:30 a.m.to 1:30 p.m.to discuss the comments
expressed at the Group II public meeting.After discussion it was
decided to hold the meeting on Thursday,June 16.It was also
decided they would make a recommendation on RZ-94-0S and review a
subdivision for Ewing Oil at that time.
Mr.Spickler stated that after making a recommendation for the last
rezoning case,he was reminded of the difficulty they have in
making a resolution or motion that encompasses all the items
regarding the findings of fact and wants it to be as complete as
possible.He stated he would like the Planning Commission by
consensus ask staff to offer alternatives on how that can be
accomplished.Mr.Spickler suggested discussing the rezoning
issue,have a straw vote,have the staff prepare the specifics of
that resolution,look at the wording and vote on it.A discussion
followed regarding problems this may cause and the fact it may
prolong the decision process.Mr.Arch agreed that it would delay
the decision process and stated that he and Mr.Spickler discussed
how staff could write a motion for the Planning Commission with the
supporting criteria.He felt the only way they could do that is if
they have a consensus determination ahead of time and based on that
they would create,a motion and cite specific items with regards to
findings of fact so the Commission can take action.He stated that
the Planning Commission has to instruct staff as to what that is.
A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to have a workshop meeting following the rezoning
hearing with possibly a site inspection and have staff prepare a
recommendation for the Planning Commission to vote on.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
423
~::srand L.Iseriilnger,Cha
-<--1.-...,,)tiV~,~VVV\tl "
424
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING -JUNE 24,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting
on Friday,June 24,1994 in the third floor conference room of the
county Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Paula Lampton,Andrew J.Bowen,IV
and Ex-Officio,Ronald L.Bowers.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,
Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,Edward J.Schreiber and
Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Bernard Moser and
Robert E.Ernst,II.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 11:45 a.m.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Mr.Arch asked the Commission
if he could add the Ditto subdivision to the agenda.Mr.Spickler
moved to add the Ditto subdivision to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.
Bowen.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Ewing Oil Company,Inc.Preliminary/Final:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Ewing Oil
Company,Inc.She stated that the Planning Commission previously
approved the site plan on April 11,1994.The property is located
on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike and is zoned HI-I.The
developer is proposing to subdivide a 2.9 acre lot into two
parcels.Lot 1 will consist of a convenience store and a gas
station on 1.6 acres and Lot 2 will consist of 1.2 acres (no plans
have yet been submitted).There will be no remaining lands.Both
lots will be served by public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro
proceeded to explain the location of the storm water management,
access,drainage and sewer easements.All approvals have been
received and the property is exempt from the Forest Conservation
Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated that if Lot 2 is developed,the Forest
Conservation Ordinance will apply.A discussion followed regarding
access.Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final approval.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.A vote was taken.Mr.Spickler,Mr.
Iseminger and Mr.Bowers voted 'aye'.Mr.Bowen abstained.So
ordered.
Victor Ditto,Preliminary/Final Lots 1 and 2:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Victor Ditto
Lots 1 and 2.The site is located on the south side of East Oak
Ridge Drive between United Parcel Service and Roadway Express.The
property is zoned Highway Interchange.The owner is proposing to
subdivide two lots off of a 9 acre tract.Lot 1 contains 2.17
acres with a 2 story brick house and pool.Lot 2 has a 1 story log
house which is currently used as an office.The site is served by
well and septic.Mrs.Pietro stated that the Health Department has
requested that if any of these systems fail,that the owner connect
to public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro stated that City Water and
Water pollution Control have agreed that at such time the owner
will be allowed to connect at his own expense.All approvals have
been received.A discussion followed regarding the Health
Department request,the location of the water and sewer lines,
whether or not a condition should be added and the cost of hook up.
All approvals have been received.
preliminary/final plat approval.
ordered.
Mr.Bowers moved to grant
Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So
425
(0
-.::::t,-
CDz
:2:
RZ-94-05 (Real Estate Temporary Signs):
Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission had previously
reviewed this text amendment but had requested additional
information,which he did forward to them.Mr.Iseminger asked
about the decision on RZ-94-04 (directional signs).Mr.Arch
stated that the Commission recommended denial because there was
concern about sign location and numbers,as well as the fact that
the signs were more permanent.He also stated that it has been
tabled by the Board of Commissioners,who were waiting on a
recommendation for RZ-94-05.Mr.Iseminger commented that the text
amendment does not define temporary and that the information from
the other counties included specific definitions for temporary
signs.A discussion followed regarding the purpose of the
amendment,policies used by other counties,where the signs would
be placed/allowed,responsibility for the signs and the definition
of temporary.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that
the word temporary should be added to the beginning of the
amendment to read "Temporary directional real estate signs ..".Mr.
Spickler felt that temporary should be defined.Mr.Iseminger
stated that "temporary"should be for the duration of the event and
be used in both RZ-94-04 and RZ-94-05.Mr.Arch suggested adding
the word temporary to the text of this amendment.He stated if the
Commissioners adopt RZ-94-05 and kick back RZ-94-04,then at that
point the Planning Commission could define temporary and revise
RZ-94-04 accordingly.Mr.Bowen moved to recommend that the County
Commissioners adopt RZ-94-05 with the addition of the word
temporary in the beginning of the amendment.Seconded by Mr.
Spickler.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Highway Interchange,Group II:
Mr.Arch stated that the proposed zoning for Group II has been
changed in some cases to reflect the comments and recommendations
they received from the public meeting.If the Commission is
comfortable with the changes,the map would be presented to the
Commissioners for their opinion prior to scheduling a joint
meeting.Mr.Schreiber reviewed the map for Group II as it was
originally presented and then proceeded to explain the proposed
changes.He stated that after receiving correspondence from Rohr
Industries and various property owners in the area that they have
changed the area Rohr is located from HI-I to IG.Mr.Arch stated
that IG would be closer to the airport type manufacturing than HI.
Mr.Iseminger asked why they don't change it to AP in keeping with
the Airport.Mr.Arch stated AP has limited uses associated with
it and did not know if AP allows for all the uses provided for in
IG.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern regarding allowed uses in IG
that may conflict with the airport.After reviewing the allowed
uses in.AP zoning Mr.Arch stated that the AP would work well for
them and provides for light manufacturing.A discussion followed
regarding rezoning adjoining properties in the area to AP,amending
the IG zoning and expanding the text of the AP zoning to include
addi tiona I special exceptions.Mr.Arch stated that if the
Planning Commission wanted to address the airport at this time,
they should have another public informational meeting before going
to a joint public hearing since they are introducing a completely
different concept than what was shown at the first public
informational meeting.Mr.Bowers stated he felt they should
address what they have now.Mr Schreiber stated his perception
from the public meeting was that the majority of the people in
attendance felt that the purpose of the rezoning was to benefit the
airport and he thinks the residents will be unhappy if the County
comes back with a significantly expanded AP zoning since it is not
what was presented.Mr.Bowers stated that after the public
meeting he has received positive comments on the way the meeting
was handled and recommends that they should be consistent with the
426
public hearing and deal with the airport as a separate issue.Mr.
Bowen asked if they could go with the AP zoning inside the HI area.
Mr.Arch stated that would not change the scope of anything if they
stay within Rt.11 and 1-81.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger
stated he felt we should let Rohr Industries know that we are
considering rezoning their property to AP and ask if their people
see something that would be objectionable.After further
discussion,the consensus of the Commission was to apply AP zoning
all around the airport and use the Citicorp property as a cut off.
Mr.Schreiber reviewed the other changes.He stated that addressed
the concerns of residents and a developer in the "A"quadrant of
the Maugans Avenue intersection area who wanted a mixed use.Mr.
Shawley's concerns were addressed by designating his site HI-I.
Mr.Schreiber stated they received a letter from Customizers asking
that additional property they have be included in a BL zone.He
stated staff is proposing to add a piece on the southwest corner of
Showal ter and U.S.11 in as HI-I.Mr.Schreiber referred to
remaining Agricultural area adjacent to a PUD on Rt.11 and stated
they recommend that area be BL in keeping with the PUD.
Mr.Arch stated he received a letter from Asaad Ghattas,who owns
property on Maugans Avenue near the car wash and Cumberland Valley
Insurance.The property is currently proposed to be HI-2 to act as
a buffer or transitional area between Petmar Circle and the
commercial area.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Ghattas is requesting
that the property be designated HI-I.Mr.Schreiber stated there
is a cluster of trees that would buffer the houses that are there
now and noted that this piece of property has a steep slope,which
would require a lot of grading for commercial property versus
residential.Mr.Arch stated they do not have a problem with
changing it to HI-1 as long as there is adequate buffer protection
between it and the residential neighborhood and they are looking
for direction from the Commission.A discussion followed.It was
the consensus to leave it as HI-2.
Mr.Arch stated that he felt they should have another workshop
meeting before proceeding with the joint meeting.Mr.Iseminger
agreed and instructed staff to look at the airport and asked Mr.
Bowers to talk to the Commissioners and ask them what their
feelings are with expanding the AP outside the scope of HI.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
CD..q,.....
aJ
Z
~
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -SENSITIVE AREA ELEMENT
JULY 7,1994
The washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
the Sensitive Area Element on Thursday,July 7,1994 in the Kepler
Theater at the Hagerstown Junior College.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,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;William Stachoviak and Secretary;
Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr.Iseminger explained that this is the first of many tasks that
are required by the Planning Act of 1992.The first item to be
addressed is the development of the environmental element section
of the Comprehensive Plan.He then introduced the Planning
Commission members.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Act of
1992 requires them to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan an
environmental sensitive element and that the purpose of tonight's
meeting is to get public input.
Mr.Arch introduced the Planning Staff.He explained that the
purpose of this meeting is to hear the public's thoughts since they
are creating a new element in the Comprehensive Plan and that this
is the formative phase of that process.He stated that they
attempted to bring together groups with a variety of backgrounds
i.e.,developers,agricultural,business,and environmentalists and
that they are looking to develop a more proactive element.He then
turned the presentation over to Mr.Goodrich.
Mr.Goodrich said that he planned to show slides to illustrate the
sensitive areas to be discussed.He stated that in 1992 the
Maryland Legislature passed the Planning Act which affects the
local governments land use regulations.The Act instructs counties
to amend Comprehensive Plans to address:1)Streamlining review
procedures 2)Use of flexible development regulations 3)
Encouraging economic development in growth areas
4)Environmentally sensitive areas.He stated that Washington
County has chosen to address the Sensitive Area element first.
Mr.Goodrich explained that he will review the four areas that must
be included in a Comprehensive Plan amendment.He will also
briefly describe other potential sensitive areas.The sensitive
area element will be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr.Goodrich stated that the reason for a Sensitive Area Element is
to protect the sensitive areas from the adverse affects of
development.He pointed out the that the Planning Act expects
economic growth and development.The process includes deciding
what the sensitive areas are,why they need to be protected,
defining them,and how they are adversely affected by development.
Finally,a method to curb those effects must be developed.He
stated that existing regulations may be found to be adequate.The
next option would be to modify them or adopt completely new rules.
Local governments are permitted to define what the sensitive areas.
He then presented the slides illustrating the 4 mandated areas
which are:1)Flood plain 2)Habitat of threatened and endangered
species 3)Streams and their buffers 4)Steep slopes.
427
428
Mr.Goodrich then proceeded to discuss briefly,with the aid of
slides some additional areas that are candidates for sensitive area
status.They were:1)Wetlands 2)Historic Sites 3)Special
planning areas such as the Appalachian Trail,water sheds and
reservoirs and the C &0 Canal;4)Soils with slide potential.
S)Unique geological features.
Mr.Goodrich concluded the presentation and requested input from
the audience.
Mr.Iseminger briefly commented on the Planning Act.Mr.Arch
stated that unlike the Forest Conservation Act,there is more
leeway in developing the Environmental Sensitive Area Element and
that is why public input is important.At this point the public
was given the opportunity to comment.
Mr.Jack Byers asked if the Sensitive Area Element would be a
revision to the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.
Goodrich stated that the Act states to first amend the Plan to
include the sensitive area element and then amend any regulations
including the Zoning Ordinance that may be affected.Mr.Arch
stated that by 1997 they have to have adopted all the regulations
to the Comprehensive Plan and already have the work program
submitted to the State.He stated that with this particular item
they want to have it adopted within the next 6 months to a year.
Mr.Byers then asked if the Commission feels this will be a minor
revision or do they envision rewriting the plan as part of the
process.Mr.Goodrich stated that they will evaluate the entire
plan and will include the things that have to be included and will
update it as necessary.Mr.Iseminger noted that the Comprehensive
Plan is a long range plan.Mr.Byers asked if the 4 mandated
areas are the only things they have to do to satisfy the Act and
does the State have veto power.Mr.Arch stated that only the 4
mandated areas have to be included in the amendment adopted at the
local level.Mr.Byers asked if the State provided them with a
model.Mr.Iseminger stated the State gave them a guideline to
follow.
Another gentleman asked if this element is to protect the Sensitive
Areas from adverse affects from development.The man stated that
they showed Agricultural areas next to streams and asked if it will
be mandatory that they put buffers along all flood plains.Mr.
Goodrich stated that it is within the realm of possibility.
Mr.Jere DeBaugh stated that for the Agricultural Community,
buffers along all streams and intermittent streams,would be
putting controls on development of agricultural land.He also
expressed concern with duplication of regulations and feels some of
the areas such as flood plain may be covered under the Tributary
Strategy initiatives.Mr.De Baugh referred to the other areas
mentioned that may need to be addressed and feels that there are
other agencies that should address those elements such as the
Health Department.Mr.Goodrich stated that it may be determined
that other agencies need the new or modified regulation.Mr.
Iseminger stated that as a Commission they already have recognized
the need to address some of these environmental issues and stated
that the Commission has suggested to the developers to use
denitrification septic systems and Urban Best Management Standards
for water quality.Mr.DeBaugh expressed concern with how
Agricultural land will be impacted once the sensitive area element
is in place.
Mr.Goodrich stated that the sensitive area element is only one of
several requirements of the Planning Act.Many questions and
concerns may be covered by other requirements.He also stated that
there will be other public meetings and hearings before anything is
adopted.
Mr.Joe Swope asked what the time table is.Mr.Arch stated they
should have a solid draft within the next 3 to 6 months that can be
worked on and that it would be sometime into 1995 before they have
something they can recommend for adoption.Mr.Swope asked if they
<.0
~,....
coz
::2:
have a schedule of upcoming meetings.Mr.Iseminger explained that
they typically have an informational meeting first and then a
public hearing.He stated there will be at least one more public
informational meeting.Mr.Swope referred to several areas they
discussed that he felt were addressed in other regulations such as
transportation and the clean air act.
Mr.Elmer Weibley of Soil Conservation stated he felt that the term
stream should be defined.He noted that the maps indicate a stream
where water does not flow.In addition,he feels that an adequate
buffer and type of buffer should also be defined.Regarding the
100 year flood plains,he referred to the ones mapped by the FEMA
agency and stated there are some areas that are wet in the spring
and are not shown on the maps as well as areas shown on the map
that do not flood.Mr.weibley stated there is continual problem
with ground water in basements and suggested incorporating in the
development review process a way to notify a person if there is a
potential problem so they can decide whether or not to build a
basement.This way the owner would know up front and the various
agencies would not have to spend the time they do now resolving
problems after construction.In reference to the threatened and
endangered species habitat,Mr.Weibley stated he felt he needs to
know where it is located.Specifically which ones there are,
location and how many acres are included.Mr.Weibley stated he
also encourages looking at groundwater recharge areas as being a
sensitive area.He feels that water quality of wells is important
and they need to look at methods of protecting it.Mr.Goodrich
stated that the recharge area is something they have talked about
as another area to be discussed.He stated that the threatened
and endangered species will be a difficult problem to address
because that information is not widely available.Even though it
is on the map,it is not specific because the State agencies keep
that information to themselves to prevent intrusion.Mr.Arch
stated the regulations will probably identify large areas where
various types of habitat may be encountered.He suggested they
could bring it up at the Preliminary Consultation stage and alert
the developer.A discussion followed regarding the endangered
species list and habitat.
Mr.Iseminger referred to Mr.Weibley's comments on water quality
and stated that Boonsboro is experiencing water quality problems.
Mr.Moser explained the problems that Boonsboro is currently
experiencing and the expense involved with filtering.He feels
they need to look at development and the proximity to the
watersheds.Mr.Arch stated that they are currently discussing
undertaking a project with the Geological Survey to identify water
recharge areas in the Karst region of the County and the effect
development is having on these recharge areas.
Mr.DeBaugh commented on the buffer and flood plain areas and
property rights regarding establishing the buffers and the
responsibility of maintaining them once the are established.He
stated that he felt that buffers would cause problems for the
Agricultural Community.Mr.Iseminger stated that as a tie into
the Forest Conservation Act,planting along streams is recommended
and perhaps some of the funds from the payment-in-lieu option could
be used to offset planting costs.Mr.Moser asked Mr.DeBaugh if
the farm community feels a responsibility to help protect the
water.Mr.DeBaugh stated that there are methods that can be used
to help minimize the run off and feels that if they work with the
Agricultural Community on a voluntary basis,it would be better
than mandatory.Mr.Moser stated that to date the farm community
has not experienced the mandatory regulations imposed on
developers.
Mrs.Sue Smith had a question concerning runoff from industrial
areas and asked if this plan could have the zoning text address
this better.Mr.Iseminger stated he does not see the Ordinance
addressing that but does see the State doing that.He felt what
they could do is address water quality.Mr.Arch stated that MDE
is the agency that issues that permit and that the County is not
part of that permit process.Dr.Eric Smith asked if they will
429
430
consider urban and industrial waste as an issue.Mr.Arch stated
it is not an issue that is geared to what the State proposed
addressing in the Act.That issue would more appropriately be
addressed in the Solid Waste Plan.A discussion followed regarding
the Solid Waste Plan and hazardous waste.
Mr.Swope stated he feels some of the other areas that should be
looked at are the scenic views and mountain ecosystems of South
Mountain and Sidling Hill,Greenbriar,migration routes,Indian
Springs hunting and fishing reserve and feels they should address
down zoning and impact fees.
Mr.Jack Byers,stated that he represents the Home Builders
Association and that they urge the Planning Commission not to
expand beyond the scope of the mandate at this time.He feels that
the four mandated issues are enough and some of the other suggested
areas can fall into place later.He referred to the agricultural
community and stated a lot is already in place and feels the County
should keep private property rights in mind.He also feels that
stream buffers are needed but does not feel the private property
owner should pay for it.He felt this item should be publicly
funded.He also commented on the location of the endangered
species habitat.
Mr.Mac Davis expressed concern with possible duplication.He
feels they should look at the four mandated areas but make sure
there is no duplication.
Mr.Andy Semler expressed concern with increased density caused by
agriculture and development and he feels that directly affects the
water quality.Mr.Tom Heatton commented that they should not make
the taxpayer pay for funding improvements required by the
regulations.He also referred to the watershed along South
Mountain and was concerned with how the State handled the gypsy
moth problem.Another area they should consider is runoff from the
interstates.He stated that the interstates do not have catch
basins and feels there is more erosion from that than from the
farms.Regarding water quality,he agrees that recharge areas
should be looked at as well as springs and feels there should be
protection from quarries and that people should be aware of their
location.He also thought it was a good idea to include the
historic sites.
Mr.Bowers briefly commented on what the Planning Commission was
trying to accomplish with the Sensitive Area Element and that they
will not be able to address every specific problem with a separate
Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger thanked everyone for attending the
meeting and asked that if they have any comments to please submit
them in writing.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
;?-L 0 (»)v//~l\'f'~A'J\-lAU~LA,
L/Be~and L.Iseminger,C·'.
,
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JULY 11,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,July 11,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Robert
E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Associate Planners;Edward J.Schreiber,Timothy A.Lung,
James P.Brittain 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.
431
Mr.Iseminger stated that in the minutes of June 6,1994 under
Appalachian Orchard Estates on page 6 Mr.Moser's approval of the
Forest Conservation Plan should read "Mr.Moser moved to approve
the Forest Conservation Plan with a change to 10 cents a square
foot for purposes of the bond."Mr.Moser moved to approve the
minutes as corrected.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
(0
-.;:;t
,.-
OJz
:::aE
MINUTES:
Mr.Spickler moved to
Seconded by Mr.Moser.
approve the
So ordered.
minutes of May 23,1994.
Before proceeding with Old Business,
variance for Mary Jane Kreps,Lot 1.
item to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.
OLD BUSINESS:
Robert Bisser:
Mr.Arch requested to add a
Mr.Bowen moved to add the
Spickler.So ordered.
Mr.Arch referred to the memo in the agenda packet and stated that
Mr.Bisser has requested to continue the variance to the next
meeting.Mrs.Lampton moved to continue the variance request of
Robert Bisser to the August meeting.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Young/Bolton:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Gwendolyn Young and
Gladys Bolton.He stated they are the daughters of Marjorie
Watkins,who owns a 29 acre farm on the south side of Bakersville
Road.The property is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that the
owner wants to subdivide 2 lots for her daughters and wants to
locate the lots in the southwest corner of the property away from
the pasture area.He stated that the lots would not have any
public road frontage and that it would be difficult to access them
by the existing farm lane,which is a requirement of the
Subdivision Ordinance when immediate family member lots are created
without public road frontage.The lots will be served by the new
proposed lane off of Bakersville Road and cross the western portion
of the farm.Mr.Lung stated that the Engineering Department
checked the sight distance and noted that there are a lot of trees
and brush vegetation in that area.Engineering informed him that
sight distance to the west appears to be adequate.Sight distance
to the east does not meet their requirements unless existing
432
vegetation is removed and possibly some grading done to the bank.
Mr.Lung stated that if the Commission grants this variance he
suggested that be made part of the approval.After discussion it
was determined that the applicant was putting in a panhandle 480
feet in length to the first lot,which is in excess of the allowed
length.A discussion followed regarding amending the variance
request.Mr.Ernst moved to grant a variance from the requirement
for the length of the panhandle,a variance from the requirement to
create a lot without public road frontage for the back lot with a
shared driveway,comply with the sight distance requirements and
include the 10 year family member statement on the plat.Seconded
by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
John Miller:
Mr.Brittain presented the variance request for John Miller.He
stated that a Preliminary Consultation was held in November of 1988
to create 9 lots.The owner wishes to develop one more lot and
since it is the last lot,requests to be exempt from a Preliminary
Consultation.The property is located along the west side of MD 65
near Bakersville Road.Mr.Brittain referred to the consultant's
letter in the packet and stated that staff recommends approval.
Mr.Spickler moved to grant variance approval from the requirement
of a Preliminary Consultation.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Randy and Misty Winders:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Randy and Misty Winders.
The property is located on the west side of Crystal Falls Drive.
The request is from Section 405.11.B,lots granted for immediate
family members must front on an existing lane or right of way.Mr.
Schreiber stated that the owner is proposing to create a 3 acre lot
from his 231 acre farm.The majority of the complex is accessed by
Mapleville Road.The Winders want to create the lot in the back of
the property away from any agricultural land.The entire 231 acres
is in Agricultural Preservation and they do have authority from the
Maryland Ag Preservation District to remove 3 acres from that Ag
district in order to create a lot for an immediate family member.
He stated they would be creating a drive to the proposed lot.Mr.
Schreiber stated that the proposed drive was at one time used as a
logging trail.He stated the reason they do not want to take in
the entire property to Crystal Falls Drive is that it would be a
rather large piece of property to take on and do not wish to do
that at this time.He also stated that the estate plan for this
farm is for Mr.Winders to take over part of the property at some
time.The zoning is Conservation.The subdivision would carry the
10 year family member statement.A discussion followed regarding
adding land to the proposed lot and emergency vehicles accessing
the lot.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the variance.Seconded by
Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger commented that in the
future if the request is for a panhandle over 400 feet they should
have the responding fire company look at the sight to be sure there
is no problem in accessing the site.
Carson and Virginia Johnson:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Carson and Virginia
Johnson.The property is located on the west side of Kuhn Ridge
Road.The road classification is local.The request is from
Section 405.11.B which states that all lots shall abut a minimum of
25 feet of public road frontage.The owner is proposing to create
remaining lands that would not have direct road frontage.Mr.
Schreiber explained that the property is a 300 acre farm divided by
Licking Creek with one area fronting on Kuhn Ridge Road,which is
a dirt road.The farming complex is accessed by a right of way to
Orchard Ridge Road.Mr.Schreiber explained that the applicant is
having a problem in selling the entire farm and wants to create one
150 acre parcel to convey to a hunt club.He stated that this
would leave the remaining lands without public road frontage.He
CD
"""',......
CO
Z
~
noted that it never actually had road frontage because Licking
Creek bisects the property and it is actually a technicality in the
Ordinance that needs to be cleared up.Mr.Schreiber stated that
it would be a simplified plat.A discussion followed.Mr.
Spickler moved to grant the variance to create the remaining lands
without public road frontage with the stipulation that the 150
acres not be developed.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mary Jane Kreps:
Mr.Brittain presented the variance for Mary Jane Kreps.He
explained that in reviewing the subdivision plat he found that the
right of way dedication had not been completed on Highland Street.
He stated that Highland Street is a single dead end road off of
Long Meadow Road.He stated that there are currently 3 existing
homes there and they are proposing to take land from two parcels
and creating another lot,which already has existing facilities.
He stated there is an existing 40 foot right of way that would fall
into the local street category which would require a 25 foot
dedication.Mr.Brittain explained that 25 feet is normally
dedicated from the centerline.A discussion followed.Mr.
Spickler moved to grant the variance not to dedicate the required
25 foot right of way from the centerline.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.
So ordered.
Mr.Moser stated that he questions if these variances are at the
proper place and he feels most of these variances should be handled
by the Board of Appeals.He stated that variance requests for
setbacks,road frontages and things like that belong in the Zoning
Ordinance and that most other jurisdictions handle it that way.
Mr.Arch stated that he feels they need to make adjustments to the
Zoning Ordinance and that the ones that are technical should be
handled by the staff.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated
that this item is on the work schedule.He also stated that he
would like to get to the point where they have specific road
frontage requirement in the Zoning Ordinance.A discussion
followed regarding the variances,charging a fee and staff time
involved in preparation of a variance.Mr.Frederick of Frederick,
Seibert and Associates stated that if they turn the variances over
to the Board of Appeals,he feels they will have a problem because
they already handle 10 -12 cases per meeting.He stated that most
of the variances are small and are within the Commission's realm
and will possibly be delayed 2 or 3 months by going through that
process.He stated that he felt some of the variances grant.ed
tonight were technical.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated
they can have a workshop on variances.Mr.Arch stated some of
these issues are policy that can be addressed by the staff.Mr.
Cump of Cump and Associates stated that he agrees with Mr.
Frederick and feels they would be making the process longer.He
also felt that the Board of Appeals does not have the technical
back up that the Planning Commission has.A discussion followed.
Mr.Moser stated that he is not for giving all variances to the
Board of Appeals and feels a lot of them could be given to staff.
He feels some of the situations they have gotten into with
panhandles,should be addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr.Iseminger stated it is something that needs to be addressed and
that it is on the staff's agenda and they will come to them with a
recommendation.
Subdivisions:
Richard Huntzberry,Lots 1-6 preliminary/Final:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Richard
Huntzberry,Lots 1-6.The property is located on the west side of
Crystal Falls Drive.The zoning is Agricultural.The developer is
proposing to create 6 residential lots ranging in size from 1.4 to
5.2 acres.Mr.Lung stated that Lot 5 contains an existing
dwelling and Lot 6 contains a 3.36 acre forest retention area.The
lots will be served by wells and septics and has been approved by
433
434
the Health Department.Access will be onto Crystal Falls Drive and
has been approved by the County Engineer.Two lots will have 400
foot panhandles.Mr.Lung stated that requirements of the Forest
Conservation Ordinance have been met with the creation of the 3.65
acre retention area of trees.All agency approvals are in.Mr.
Lung stated they are looking for preliminary/final approval and
approval of the Forest Conservation Plan.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary/final subdivision plat approval.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the Forest
Conserva tion Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A
discussion followed regarding the responsibility for maintaining
the forest retention area.
Meadows at St.Paul:
Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary plat for Meadows at St.Paul,
Sections 1 and 2,Lots 1-23.The site is located on the southwest
corner of Route 40 and St.Pauls Road.The zoning is Agriculture.
He stated that a preliminary consultation was held in July of 1992
and reviewed in September by the Planning Commission.Mr.Lung
stated that together Sections 1 and 2 contains a total of 23 lots
on 46.4 acres.Section 1 consists of Lots 12 -23 and is located
off of Route 40.The lot sizes range from 1.17 to 3 acres.Each
lot will have its own well and septic system.Mr.Lung stated they
are waiting for results from well samples and corrections to septic
areas on Lots 16 and 23.Section 2 contains Lots 1 -11 and is
located along St.Paul Road and will use shared accesses,which
Engineering has approved.Lots 12 -23 will access a new street
that will be built to County standards and dedicated to the County
called Garrow Drive and is a dead end cul-de-sac approximately 1200
feet in length with access onto Route 40.State Highway
Administration has approved the entrance and the hydrologic study.
Mr.Lung stated there is an existing dwelling on one lot and that
they reconfigured the entrance.The plat was submitted prior to
the Forest Conservation Ordinance,so it is exempt.Mr.Lung
stated that the Preliminary Consultation Plat shows that the
remaining 65 acres is to be developed into 28 additional lots.The
development is located in a Rural Agricultural Area classified as
prime long term farm land.The plat meets all requirements of the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Lung stated that the
following agencies are still outstanding:final approval from the
Health Department for the contingencies they asked for,Permits and
Inspections requested a revision to one of the notes regarding
setbacks on corner lots.He stated that if the Commission is
inclined to approve the plat they consider a conditional approval.
Mr.Arch stated that the first time this came before the Commission
the consultant and developer made a proposal to consider a
community septic system and there would have been more lots.He
stated that concerns were expressed by both the Planning Commission
and the Health Department and the developer dropped that idea and
reduced the number of lots.Mr.Rodney Wienbrenner,of Associated
Engineering stated that they have all approvals except for the
Health Department -waiting for good well samples for Section 2.
Mr.Rich Reichenbaugh,of Associated Engineering stated they are no
longer planning to develop the remaining lands because it is rocky
and plan to keep it with the farmhouse.A discussion followed
regarding the remaining lands and the well samples.Mr.Spickler
requested that the staff report be amended to reflect two sections.
Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval for Sections 1
and 2 contingent upon agency approvals and staff will have the
authority to grant final approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.
Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Pemberton,Section B &C,Preliminary:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Pemberton,Sections B
and C.The property is located near Beaver Creek and is in the
northeast corner of Beaver Creek Road and White Hall Road.The
zoning is Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that a preliminary
consultation was held in October of 1992 for a proposed 42 lot
c.o
"¢
.,.-
00z
:2:
subdivision on a total of 71.6 acres.This preliminary plat is for
Sections Band C.Section A was approved years ago and consists of
7 lots along White Hall Road.The proposed lots range in size from
.92 acres and 1.49 acres.Each lot will have individual well and
septic.Mr.Lung stated that they received verbal approval from
the Health Department.All lots will access 2 new public streets.
There is an existing house on the remaining 16 acres and is
designated historic.Mr.Lung stated that a Forest Stand
Delineation was approved on May 16,1994 and the Forest
Conservation Plan was submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat.
He stated that the Forest Conservation Plan calls for afforestation
on 6.42 acres located within an easement on parcel A -remaining
lands along Beaver Creek and some of it is within a flood plain.
Mr.Lung stated that the plan does not address the development of
the 22 acres in the remaining lands and would have to submit
another plan when they decide to develop the remaining lands.He
stated that the amount of surety has not been submitted and will be
part of the final plat.Mr.Lung stated that the Soil Conservation
District has requested that the storm water management address
water quality and that has not been done yet.Mr.Lung stated that
this property is in the Rural Agricultural area with prime
agricultural land.He stated they meet all the requirements of the
Ordinance.He stated that the developer is requesting preliminary
approval.He also stated that if the Commission is inclined to
approve the plat,he suggested making it contingent upon written
Health Department approval and Soil Conservation approval of the
storm water management,water quality element.A discussion
followed regarding water quality,remaining lands,the use of
denitrification septic systems and soil types.Mr.Iseminger
encouraged the use of the denitrification septic systems and
requested that they add a note to the plat asking the lot owners to
use Urban Best Management Practices and stated that the information
can be picked from the Soil Conservation District and that it is a
voluntary program.Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary
approval contingent upon written approval from the Health
Department and that Soil Conservation's request that water quality
be addressed.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Ghattas Enterprises,Former 7-Eleven:
Mr.Schreiber presented the site plan for Ghattas Enterprises.The
site is located on the west side of U.S.11 and is the former
7-Eleven site.The applicant wants to add approximately 1950
square feet to the building and turn it into an office building.
Mr.Schreiber proceeded to explain the landscaping and parking
area.He stated that there are two existing accesses.State
Highway Administration is concerned with any turning movement near
the northern entrance.They suggested either removing some of the
spaces or close the entrance.The developer decided to close the
entrance so there will be only one channelized entrance into the
site.Mr.Schreiber proceeded to explain the addition to the
existing building,the dumpster and recycling provision and the
lighting.The zoning is Business Local.Mr.Schreiber stated they
are just a reviewing agency and that the Planning Department's and
State Highway'S approvals are needed.Mr.Moser moved to grant
site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained.
So ordered.
Maurice Martin:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Maurice Martin.The property
is located on the east side of U.S.Rt.11 north of Longmeadow Road
and is behind the Martins Farm Market and Keystone Country Store.
Mr.Lung stated that the subdivision plat and variance had been
approved at the June meeting.Mr.Martin is proposing to move the
existing farm market to a new 60'x 70'building located to the
rear of the existing building.Mr.Lung proceeded to explain the
parking,loading area and landscaping.He stated that Engineering
435
436
has waived any storm water management requirements.The plan notes
that storage of recyclable materials will be outside,however no
area has been designated.He stated he spoke to Mr.Martin who
felt the recyclable material would be stored inside,which is what
is normally done for this type of business.He also stated that
the plan shows the required improvements.that State Highway
requested along Route 11.Public water and sewer is available.
Mr.Lung stated that he did receive revisions last week addressing
his comments but he has not met with Mr.Prodonovich and recommends
that any approval be contingent on the Permits office making sure
that the revision addresses all comments.A discussion followed
regarding recycling.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan
approval contingent upon approval of Department of Permits and
being satisfied that all conditions have been met and adding a note
to the plat regarding recycling to be handled indoors.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
St.James Village North:
Mr.Brittain presented the Preliminary Development Plan for St.
James Village North.He stated that the PUD zoning was approved
November 24,1992.He stated that the first step in the PUD
process is the Preliminary Development Plan stage and proceeded to
review the PUD proces s .The site contains 133 acres on the
northwest quadrant of College Road and MD Rt.65 intersection.The
developer is proposing 263 single family units and 44 two family
units.Mr.Brittain stated that the overall gross density is
approximately 2.3 dwelling units per acre and that the maximum
allowed is 12 dwelling units per acre.There will be a commercial
section containing 6.5 acres or 5 percent (the maximum allowed is
10 percent)and will contain the required amount (25 percent)of
open space.Mr.Brittain reviewed the 6 phases,the street design,
right of way and revisions to the roads from the Preliminary
Consultation in detail.He stated that a traffic impact study has
been required by both State Highway and the Engineering Department
and which will determine if any improvements off site will be
required.
Mr,Brittain stated in looking at each phase the staff had the
following suggestions.At the intersection of Lyles Drive and
Zemma Lane (where Phases 3 and 5 meet),they recommend that at a
minimum,Lot 254 be included in Phase 3 and that the intersection
of Lyles Drive and Zemma Lane be included in Phase 3.He stated
they also recommend that Lot 69 be included in Phase 5 and that the
intersection of Lyles Drive and Roberts Drive be included in Phase
5.Mr.Brittain pointed out the location of the bus waiting areas
and stated he had no response from the School Board.
Mr.Brittain reviewed the major drainage patterns affecting the PUD
and areas off site.He referred to an existing culvert southwest
of the commercial area that has experienced flooding in the past.
He stated that the Engineering Department will require the
developer to bring the storm water management up to higher
standards due to down stream conditions.He stated at this phase
the developer is not required to perform all the detailed storm
water management engineering.Mr.Brittain stated this was
addressed by adding a note to the plat which satisfied the concerns
of the Engineering Department.
He reviewed the location of all the open spaces,tot lots and
recreation areas and their amenities.There is a note on the plat
stating that all open spaces as well as all amenities in the open
spaces will be maintained by the Homeowners Association.Mr.
Brittain pointed out the location of the proposed nature trail in
Phase 1 (east of Olivewood Drive)and stated that the area is
predominately a forested area and that only the necessary trees
will be removed to construct the stormwater management pond and the
trail.He stated that most of the open space is centrally located
and designed to go from passive open space to an active play area
co..q
,.-
COz
:2:
or buffer areas without having to use a street.A discussion
followed regarding the phasing schedule concerning the open space
and active play areas.
Mr.Brittain stated that the commercial area will be accessed off
of Lyles Drive and College Road (service entrance only -no exit).
He stated the plan included the required 50 foot buffer area
between the commercial area and the residential area.Mr.Brittain
stated that the phasing requirement between the residential and
commercial sections in the Ordinance states that they must be
developed in equal percentages.He noted that the commercial area
will be 25 percent in each phase where as the residential schedule
will cover 6 phases.The staff feels that it is meeting the intent
of the Ordinance and explained why.The commercial area will be
limited to 'BL'Business Local uses.Mr.Brittain stated that
there is one other change since the staff report was sent to the
Commission.The proposed height of the commercial structures has
been changed from 20 feet to 35 feet which is within the
Ordinance's criteria.
Mr.Brittain stated that water and sewer issues have been
addressed.He explained that a water line extension to the penal
complex is currently under construction.The PUD will utilize this
line and an existing water line within the right of way of MD 65.
The developer and Sanitary District will be jointly building a
sewer pumping station.Mr.Brittain explained the location of the
sanitary sewer easements.He stated there is a 30 foot sanitary
sewer easement between Lots 131 and 132 for future development to
the north.He suggested that the developer widen these lots
because the standard side yard is only 8 feet and to the proposed
sewer easement is 30 feet.Easements for future water line
extension to the north have also been established on the Plan.
Mr.Iseminger asked if staff had any problems with the plan or if
there was anything that should be brought to their attention.Mr.
Brittain stated that part of the PUD is modifications that the
Planning Commission may allow for setbacks.He explained that a
typical single family lot has a 70 foot frontage with 25 foot front
setback,35 foot rear and 8 foot setback on the side.He stated it
is close to Rural Residential requirements and explained the
differences.On the semi-detached units he stated that the party
wall is the line of subdivision and will have a combined frontage
of 80 feet,40 foot rear and 25 foot front yard setbacks.He
stated that staff did not have a problem with it.He stated that
the plan is well thought out and the only thing he could think of
for an improvement is the addition of pedestrian walkways or a
sidewalk system.He stated that detailed engineering is not
available at this time and made a suggestion on how he would like
to see the walk system.Mr.Arch stated the staff wanted the
Planning Commission to give consideration to requiring a pedestrian
system on the looped area and give them the leeway to work with the
developer and Engineering to see what would be the best solution.
A discussion followed.Mr.Weikert,consultant,stated they are
opposed to adding walkways because he feels it is not practical due
to the expense.He stated they looked at sidewalks with curb and
gutter earlier in the design of the plan but ruled it out because
of the expense.He noted that their density is closer to that of
a Rural Residential zoning and in the higher density duplex section
sidewalks are provided.He also feels with the open section type
road,engineering wise,it is not a good idea to try to fit a
sidewalk in the right of way.He stated that each horne will most
likely have a two car garage with double wide driveway so there
should be very little on street parking.He noted that St.James
Village has smaller lots with smaller road sections without
shoulders and they have not experienced a problem with a need for
sidewalks.Mr.Moser felt that the consultant made some valid
points and had a question regarding access to the open spaces and
if they were all accessible.Mr.Brittain stated that they are all
accessible.Further discussion followed regarding the sidewalks
and the PUD concept.Mr.Spickler suggested that they should
explore a way to connect all open spaces throughout the
development.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that
437
438
with the open space and the density that they do not need
sidewalks.Mr.Moser moved to grant Preliminary Development Plan
approval with the condition that they will receive final agency
comments and add additional connections to the open spaces.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Terry McGee Letter:
Mr.Iseminger referred to Mr.McGee's letter and stated he felt it
was a good guideline.A discussion followed.
Meeting Date with Geological Survey Representatives:
Mr.Arch stated he tentatively scheduled a meeting for July 15th,
but that it was not a good date for everyone.After a discussion
it was decided to hold a workshop meeting prior to the regular
Planning Commission meeting on August 1,1994 at 5:30 p.m or 6:00
p.m and that Mr.Arch would verify the time.
Use of Cluster Concept in Conservation Area::
It was decided since Mr.Bowers had requested this item to be on
the agenda,that the Commission would move it to the August meeting
since he is not present this evening.
Mr.Arch informed the Planning Commission that as he mentioned they
are now on line with the Sierra computer system and the Planning
Commission will be seeing reports generated from it.He stated
that as of last Monday,the Planning Department will be the
processing agency for all site plans that will come before the
Planning Commission.Mr.Arch informed the Commission that Mr.
Schreiber will be going to the Permits Department and that the town
of Smithsburg has requested Mr.Brittain's services.A discussion
followed.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meetin
10:00 p.m.
adjourned at
,'J;;..,
(0
~..,.-
roz:a:
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING -AUGUST 1,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting
on Monday,August 1,1994 in the Commissioners meeting room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Andrew
J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch 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 5:38 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission previously discussed
developing a project with the Geologic Survey concerning
hydrogeological conditions in the Karst Topography area of
Washington County.He stated that preliminary guidelines were
developed and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their
review.He stated that the representatives were present to make a
presentation and the Planning Commission could either make a
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners or decide not to
proceed.Mr.Arch introduced the survey representatives:John
Grace,Chief for special Water Supply and program Supply,Harry
Hansen (Geologist),Chief Hydrologist and Hydrology Program and
Mark Duigon,Geologist.Mr.Arch stated that Bill Atkinson from
the Maryland Office of Planning was also present and that the State
Planning Office will contribute ARC funds to the project.He
explained that funding for the project will come from DNR,MDE,and
Washington County with half of Washington County's portion being
funded by ARC.He stated that the cost to the County would be
approximately $50,000.00 spread over a three year period starting
in January and that they would need about $8,000.00 to start.At
this point the presentation was turned over to the Survey
Representatives.
Mr.Hansen referred to the pro ject proposal.He explained they are
proposing a cooperative project involving DNR through the MD
Geological Survey,MDE and Washington County.He stated that
Maryland Geologic Survey is an applied research agency and
proceeded to explain what they do and some of the projects they are
currently involved in.He stated that their goal is to produce a
product to be used at the applied level.This project will focus
on the Hagerstown Valley because of the limestone,which is
susceptible to greater chemical erosion and is prone to the
formation of sink holes,collapsed structures and caves.Mr.
Hansen stated that the hydrogeologic structure affects the issues
of water supply,waste disposal and some engineering application
particularly with the formation of sink holes.He stated they are
proposing to better define the characteristics of the limestone;to
map the more susceptible units through field checks,aerial
photography,and topographic maps;and to map the distribution of
sink holes.This would be one phase of the project,designated as
the hydrogeologic phase.In addition they will be looking at the
flow system through the complex hydrogeologic formation of
limestone.In evaluating water quality,he stated they will be
looking at recharge and discharge areas,springs,and map the flow
system,rates of recharge,the pathways and time of travel.He
stated they will look at both the hydrogeologic framework and flow
system and will be working with the County and MDE to locate
potential sources of contamination such as stormwater infiltration
basins,lagoons and chemical storage sites.Mr.Hansen stated,
wi th the compilation of the three data bases,they can define
439
440
degrees of susceptibility that they feel will have application for
planning and development.The information compiled will be
produced both as a hard copy and in digital form that can be
incorporated into the County's GIS system.Mr.Hansen stated they
feel it is necessary for the length of the study to be 3 years so
that seasonal changes can be observed over 1 or 2 years and
information can be collected from stream flow and groundwater.
This enables them to factor out any abnormal seasonal changes that
might occur with shorter projects.He explained that the data
compilation and field work analysis will take approximately 2.5
years.The final 6 months of the project will involve generating
the map product.
A discussion followed regarding how this proposal came about,why
Washington County was chosen,the particular geology in Washington
County and problems in domestic wells.Mr.Hansen stated that the
Geological Survey has recently completed or is in the process of
completing a set of geologic maps at the scale of 1"=2000'of the
Hagerstown Valley.He stated that would provide an absolute basis
for many of the other maps they will be producing.He stated that
10 years ago they started a project in Washington County that
provided a database of water flow data,stream flow data and water
quali ty data.He stated that the Federal Geological survey is
involved in a groundwater study of the Potomac Basin and they have
collected information in the Hagerstown Valley and in addition MDE
has been looking at groundwater quality problems or potential
problems that may be associated with some of the public supply
systems in the County.He stated that the data base has reached
the point where the information could be integrated into a series
of maps that would have applied uses.
Mr,Arch stated that one of the questions that has come up in the
past is the difference between this study and one recently
completed.Mr.Hansen stated that 50 percent of the previously
completed County Water Resources Study focussed on stream flow
characteristics and proceeded to explain in detail what that
involved.He stated there is not much duplication in what they are
proposing to do in this study.He stated on the groundwater side
they were concerned with supply issues and developed statistical
information on how well yields relate to different geologic
formations,topographic studies,wells in the valley versus wells
on a hillside and how they related to geologic structures.He
stated that study was related to mostly domestic water supply
issues while this study will be orientated toward water quality
issues.Also,he noted it was not a map oriented study and that
they developed tables and statistics.The products of this study
are map oriented and will be formatted to be compatible with the
County's GIS system.A discussion followed regarding the
boundaries and size of the Hagerstown Valley,potential problems
outside of the Hagerstown Valley,the current soil survey study
being done,coordinating with other studies,funding,cost and
potential health problems.Mr.Iseminger asked what would be done
with the information once the study has been completed.Mr.Arch
stated they would use the information in the GIS system and when a
development was proposed in one of the identified areas,(areas
where underground flow directly affects a major water source)they
may require an additional way to mitigate any potential hazard i.e.
denitrification septic systems.A discussion followed.
Mr.MacRae of the Health Department brief ly commented on the
proposed study.He stated that to his knowledge there is no
specific public health issue that is motivating this.But instead
the survey representatives were looking for a place to do a study
and this looked like a good one and it was something the County
could make use of.He stated it is well known in the State that
the quality of groundwater is not what it could be.He feels it
will be a useful tool and will help in subdivision approval.Mr.
Arch stated that Elmer Weibley of Soil Conservation had expressed
interest and support for a study of this nature.
Mr.Spickler asked if there will be interim reports.Mr,Hansen
stated they do quarterly progress reports,a brief annual report
CD
~,.-
(Q
z
~
summarizing the data collection and analysis that occurred during
the year and will preview what they will be doing the following
year.He stated they could also make an annual presentation to the
Commission.A discussion followed regarding volunteer help,local
input,progress meetings and scheduling public information
meetings.
Mr.Atkinson from the Maryland Office of Planning stated that Ron
Kreitner has approved the project.He explained that their portion
of the cost will come from ARC funding,which is based on the
Federal fiscal year (September).If this project is to come out of
that commitment of funds,they would like to see a commitment from
the County as soon as possible.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Arch if
the Planning Commission approves proceeding with this project what
would be the next step.Mr.Arch stated he would send a memo to
Barry Teach,County Administrator,indicating that the Planning
Commission would be recommending that the Board of Commissioners
enter into an agreement to do this project and that the survey
representatives will have to make a presentation to the
Commissioners.Mr.Moser made a motion to strongly recommend to
the Commissioners to proceed with this project.Seconded by Mr.
Bowen.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
,/
rtrand L.
',,>
441
442
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETI.NG -AUGUST 1,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,August 1,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice-
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Robert
E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;
Edward J.Schreiber,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 Vice-Chairman at 7:04 p.m.
Mr.Spickler noted that the Chairman would be arriving a little
later.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of June 24,1994.Seconded
by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of July 7,1994.Seconded
by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch stated he would like
to make three changes to the agenda.Under Variances,Poyner was
being removed and would be replaced by Triad Properties and under
subdivisions add Huyetts Business Park,Lots 4-9.Mrs.Lampton
moved to amend the agenda as noted.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Robert Bisser:
Mr.Lung reminded the Planning Commission that they postponed
action on this variance at the June 6th meeting until comments were
received from the Boonsboro Fire Department and the County
Engineer.The property is located on the west side of Kaetzel Road
and the owner is proposing to create a lot without public road
frontage.The property consists of 7.3 acres and is zoned
Conservation.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission had
expressed concern with the safety factor.He referred to the
letter in the agenda packet to the Boonsboro Fire Company and noted
that the Fire Chief,Oley Griffith,met with Mr.Bisser at the
site.The fire chief is satisfied with the proposed access and
felt that they will be able to serve the property as long as there
is a turnaround area at the house.The fire department is willing
to inspect the driveway for its acceptability once it is built,
prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.Mr.Lung noted that
Engineering considers Kaetzel Road adequate for the proposed
subdivision,north of Brownsville Road.A discussion followed
regarding adding the 10 year family member statement,the type of
variance being granted,the Ordinance and the options available.
Mr.Ernst moved to grant the variance to create an immediate family
member lot without access to an existing lane,grant a variance to
create a lot without public road frontage,and with the conditions
that the 10 year family member statement be included on the plat
and approval of the access from the fire company prior to
occupancy.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.A vote was taken,Mr.Bowen,
Mr.Spickler,Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton voted 'aye'.Mr.Moser
voted 'nay'.So ordered.
(0
~,.....
coz
:'2:
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Randy DeShong:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Randy DeShong.The
property is located on the north side of Blue Heron Lane,a private
lane,off of Marsh Pike.The owner is proposing to create a lot
for a family member without road frontage and not fronting on an
existing lane or right-of-way.Mr.Schreiber noted that there is
an existing lane that goes to the existing house.Zoning is
Agriculture.He referred to the letters in the agenda packet from
the owners of the right-of-way stating that they do not have a
problem with the subdivision.He stated that Mr.Mayhew of the
Long Meadow Fire Company was originally opposed to the subdivision.
Mr.Mayhew met with Mr.DeShong at the site and indicated that he
would not be opposed to the variance if certain conditions were
met:1)House equipped with an automatic sprinkling system 2)
Signs be placed on the lane notifying where the house is located
3)The house have an alarm hooked up to a central monitoring
system.Mr.DeShong has agreed to those conditions.Mr.Schreiber
stated that the lane is paved to the house and will be paved to the
proposed lot.A discussion followed regarding Blue Heron Lane,the
number of existing homes fronting the lane and the design of the
lot.Mr.Spickler referred to the fire company's comments and felt
that imposing conditions pertaining to what goes in the house,
would be stretching the approval authority of the Commission.The
Planning Commission needs to know if the access is adequate for
access of the fire company equipment.Mr.Schreiber stated that
Mr.Mayhew did add that one way to alleviate problems with water
would be to create a pull off to access the nearby stream so that
a tanker could draw water and allow additional trucks go back and
forth.Mr.DeShong has agreed to create a parking pad.A
discussion followed regarding the fire department's comments,the
lot configuration and the immediate family member statement.Mr.
Spickler briefly reviewed the variance request with Mr.Iseminger.
Mrs.Lampton moved to grant a variance without public road frontage
with the condition that a parking pad be added and the addition of
signs along the lane.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.A vote was taken.
Mr.Bowen,Mr.Spickler,Mr.Iseminger and Mrs.Lampton voted
,aye'.Mr.Moser voted 'nay'and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Alix Elias:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Alix Elias.The property
is located on the west side of Park Hall Road.The variance is
requested from Section 405.11.b,lots created for immediate family
members without public road frontage shall front on an existing
lane or right-of-way.Before proceeding any further,Ms.Elias
presented'a drawing of a new configuration showing the proposed lot
fronting Park Hall Road.Mr.Schreiber stated that a variance
would not be required since it would now be fronting the road.Ms.
Elias explained that the purpose of creating the lot is for her
sister so that she can help care for their mother who lives across
the road ..Ms.Elias owns the existing house and is out of town a
lot.Mr.Schreiber stated that with this new design they were
creating a lot for an immediate family member with road frontage.
He stated there would be a problem with the APFO requirements,
which state that when a lot fronts on a public road,the road must
be at least 16 feet wide the entire stretch down to the next
adequate road.The APFO states that a lot can be subdivided for an
immediate family member if the existing lot of record has an
agricul tural assessment.Mr.Spickler stated that the Planning
Commission does not have the ability to grant a variance from the
APFO but that the Board of Appeals does.Mr.Schreiber stated that
the Planning Commission would have to deny it and then the
applicant could take their case to the Board of Appeals.Mr.Arch
stated that in the past the Planning Commission has sent a letter
to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning Commission does
not have a problem with the subdivision.A discussion followed
regarding the lot configuration and the next step after the
443
444
variance is denied.Mr.Iseminger moved to deny the exemption for
a variance from the APFO and that if the applicant appeals their
decision to the Board of Appeals that the Planning Commission does
not have any objection to it.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Floyd Kline:
Mr.Arch stated that this is a variance request to use the
simplified plat procedure to create a subdivision to transfer
property consisting of more than 3 acres and not for agricultural
purposes.The property is located along Hopewell Road and is zoned
HI.Mr.Moser moved to approve the variance request to utilize the
simplified plat procedure.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.
At this time,Mr.Iseminger returned to chair the meeting.
Triad Properties:
Mr.Arch stated that this request is similar to the previous
request.He stated this is Mr.Miller's farm that they had
received a rezoning request,that has since been withdrawn.Mr.
Miller wants to transfer the property to Triad Properties using the
simplified process for nonagricultural purposes.A discussion
followed regarding the rezoning.Mr.Moser moved to approve the
variance request to utilize the simplified plat procedure.
Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Mt.Zion Lutheran Church,preliminary Plat/Site Plan:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat/site plan.The
property is located on the south side of Locust Grove Road.The
zoning is Conservation.The purpose of the plat is to create a 3+
acre lot for a new fellowship hall for the church.There will be
18.5 acres of remaining lands.The site will be served by private
well and septic system,which the Health Department has approved.
He referred to the site plan and noted the location of the proposed
42'x 78'building.There will be 2 parking areas with a total of
69 spaces.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the landscaping and noted
that there is a future building shown on the site plan,which would
require another site plan for prior to construction.He stated
that the Forest Conservation payment in lieu of was approved by the
Planning Commission in February.He stated that there are a couple
of iteuls that need to be added to the plat that the consultant has
agreed to do:1)Add a note regarding recycling 2)Add building
mounted lights 3)Add a note to the plat stating that a site plan
will be required for the future building.
All the agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated that
they are requesting preliminary subdivision plat/site plan approval
and that staff be given the authority to approve the final
subdivision plat.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the Preliminary
Plat/Site Plan subject to the three conditions Mr.Lung outlined
and to give Staff the authority to grant final approval.Seconded
by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Goode's Haven,Preliminary/Final and Forest Conservation Plan:
Mr.Schreiber presented the Preliminary/Final and Forest
Conservation Plan for Goode's Haven,Lots 1-5 and Parcel A.He
referred to the Preliminary Consultation which originally proposed
24 lots and stated that the Planning Commission imposed additional
comments.Mr.Schreiber proceeded to review the Forest
Conservation Plan,based a 4 lot subdivision.The developer will
be required to afforest 1.94 acres.The developer is proposing to
plant off site on Lot 5 by moving an existing row of fairly good
mature trees from Parcel A to the eastern property line of Lot 5,
where there is an existing row of trees,which will create 2 acres
of forest.Mr.Schreiber explained that they are creating 4 lots
with a remainder and in addition there is Parcel A which consists
of 73 acres that will be transferred to a neighbor for agricultural
purposes.Mr.Schreiber stated that in order for the entire 73
co..q-
T"""
COz
::2:
acres to be utilized,the stand of trees would have to be removed
or transplanted.Mr.Schreiber stated that Lot 5 will be retained
by the Elders and there will be an easement on the property
protecting the forest.A discussion followed regarding the
afforestation and the boundaries.Mr.Schreiber stated that Mr.
Zoretich is proposing a bond in the amount of approximately
$8,450.00 based on the minimum of 10 cents a square foot.
Mr.Schreiber stated that Lots 1-4 would be exempt from the APFO
and that Parcel A will be conveyed to an adjacent property owner.
Lot 5,is an existing lot.Lots 1-4 will have wells and septics
and is in the Old Forge School District.Mr.Schreiber stated that
when the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Consultation,
they decided that prior to the subdivision of the 5th lot,any new
lots created after Lot 4 would be required to do a hydrogeologic
study and that the County Engineer may also require additional
information.Mr.Schreiber stated that the plan currently shows
the proposed remaining lands with no development rights.The
applicant wants to know since they are no longer proposing a 24 lot
subdivision,if they can subdivide 4 additional lots.
Mr.Schreiber stated there are some adjacent property owners
present.Mr.Bruce Barr who brought up some concerns when the
Preliminary Consultation was presented,prepared a map showing the
agricultural areas near the proposed subdivision.The map denotes
the Agricultural Preservation Districts,the proposed subdivision
and the Mennonite community,which is primarily in agricultural
use.
Mr.Spickler asked if another lot was subdivided from the remaining
lands what affect would the APFO have on the roads.Mr.Schreiber
stated there is a section of the road that is 16 -17 feet in
width.That area would have to be widened to 18 feet prior to the
subdivision of the 5th lot,per the Road Adequacy and Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.Schreiber stated they would not
have to meet any horizontal or vertical curve criteria until they
reached 25 lots.
Mr.Frederick,consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates
briefly spoke.He reviewed the Forest Conservation Plan and stated
that he spoke to Rod MacRae of the Health Department regarding
septic systems in that area.Mr.MacRae informed him that they do
not have a problem in that area and that the wells are good.Mr.
Frederick stated that he spoke to Mr.MacRae regarding the
denitrification septic systems and that he will be speaking to
someone from Anne Arundel County.Mr.MacRae informed him that the
units add $4,500.00 to the cost of every system and that they are
really not needed in that area.Mr.Frederick stated that the
Elders want to know what they will need to do for an additional 4
lots.
Mr.Barr,one of the neighbors,briefly spoke.He stated that he
did not want to see more than a 4 lot subdivision.He expressed
concern with the water table and feels that a hydrogeologic study
should still be done.Mr.Wes Churchey,of Jefferson House
Builders,stated that they are interested in purchasing the
remaining 5 acres depending on the Planning Commission's
stipulations and briefly commented on developing an additional 4
lots.Mr.Churchey stated that if they develop the 4 lots they
would like to add a deed restriction indicating that intensive
farming will be going on in that area.
Mr.Spickler s\mmarized that what they are dealing with is what
needs to be done in order to create 8 lots.He stated that the
conditions the Planning Commission placed on this development in
February were based on a 24 lot subdivision.He feels that the 8
lot subdivision should not require a hydrogeologic study and
expressed concern with doing the best they can within 1800 feet of
the trout stream.He feels it should be brought to the homeowners
attention that there is intensive agricultural industry in this
area.In addition,he feels the advanced septic systems should be
looked at and feels that widening the road is the most important
445
446
issue.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated he would like
a note added to the plat regarding the use of Urban Best Management
Practices.Mr.Arch suggested that if the property owners agree,
to have a sign in addition to the for sale sign indicating that
this lot is located in an active agricultural area.A discussion
followed regarding the use of denitrification septic systems.Mr.
Schreiber stated they are looking for Preliminary/Final plat
approval and Forest Conservation Plat approval on the 4 lots,Lot
5 and the remaining lands and parcel A to be conveyed.Mr.
Spickler moved to accept the Forest Conservation Plan and the bond
based on 10 cents a square foot.Seconded by Paula Lampton.So
ordered.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the preliminary/final
subdivision plat for lots 1-5 with the condition that a note be
added stating that it is in an intense agricultural area and there
may be possible conflicts,with the condition that the
denitrification septic systems be considered (by going back to Rod
MacRae for his advice)and that a note be added to use the Urban
Best Management Practices on Lots 1-5.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that for the additional 4 lots
they want the developer to meet the requirements of the APFO with
regards to the roads and schools and abide by the same requirements
applied to the other 4 lots and suggested placing a sign on the
property notifying potential homeowners that this is in an intense
agricultural area.
Huyetts Business Park Lots 4-9,Preliminary/Final Plat:
Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat for the
Huyetts Business Park Lots 4-9.Mr.Lung stated that this plan is
for 6 commercial lots on the west side of MD Rt.63 north of 1-70
interchange.The zoning is Highway Interchange.He stated that
three lots had previously been approved and that Business Parkway
has been built.The proposed lots are on the north side of the road
and range in size from 1 to 1.5 acres.Public water and sewer is
available to the entire site.Mr.Lung stated that this is a
subdivision plat and any development would require site plans and
there are notes to that effect on the plat.A payment in lieu of
using the Express Procedure of the Forest Conservation Ordinance
was approved.Written approvals have been received from the Water
Department,Sanitary District and the Health Department.He stated
that he has conditional written approval from the County Engineer
that storm water management will be addressed at the time of site
plan review and is requesting a regional storm water management
approach be considered,to be addressed at the site plan stage.He
stated that he has a verbal approval from State Highway
Administration.The Department of Permits and Inspections
requested that the adjacent properties be checked for dwellings and
that the 75 foot buffer yard requirement may apply.There is a
house adjacent and the buffer will be imposed on Lots 8 and 9,A
discussion followed regarding storm water management and the Forest
Conservation payment in lieu of.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary/final plat approval conditional upon receipt of agency
approvals.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained,So
ordered,
Forest Conservation:
Reforestation/Antietam Battlefield:
Mr.Goodrich reminded the Commission that the Forest Conservation
Ordinance contains provisions to allow certain developments to meet
their obligtions though payment of the in lieu of fees.The County
is then responsible for spending those funds on reforestation.The
Planning Commission has previously approved the concept of using
the in lieu of fees for reforestation at Antietam National
Battlefield.The Battlefield's recently approved General
Management Plan includes recreation of several large forested
areas.The Planning Staff provided Battlefield personnel with
guidelines from the Ordinance to use in developing a Reforestation
Plan,the draft of which will be presented this evening.He
introduced Joe Calzarette,Ed Wenschhof and John Howard from the
Battlefield.
."..
<.0..q
,.-
CDz
:2
Mr.Goodrich stated that this Plan addresses several of the goals
in the Ordinance.Specifically,creating buffers adjacent to
differing land uses and an overall increase in forest coverage in
the County.It also will contribute to an improvement in air and
water quality,prevent erosion and increase wildlife habitat.When
completed,the West Woods will contain approximately 70 acres of
forest.
Mr.Wenschhof proceeded to review the West Woods Reforestation Plan
and the maps.He stated that the General Management Plan is the
planning document for the next 15 to 20 years and outlines the
proposed restoration of approximately 345 acres of woodlands.He
explained that the West Woods is in the core of the Battlefield,
near the Visitor Center and is the location of some of the initial
action during the day of the battle.He proceeded to review their
revised plan,explaining the location of buildings,the wooded
areas,crop field,the West Woods and the area to be restored.The
area to be restored will be done in 4 phases.Mr.Wenschhof
proceeded to explain the phases.He stated they have an estimate
of $3,400.00 per acre for reforestation and that their goal is to
have a self-perpetuating wood lot with trees of uneven age in order
to have a natural look.He proceeded to review the species and
sizes which will be planted.The planting will be done by
volunteer groups (schools and local organizations).A discussion
followed regarding the types of trees to be planted,when planting
would begin and cost per acre.
Mr.Goodrich stated they would need a formal written agreement
between the Park Service and the County to cover the long term
maintenance and protection of the forest.Mr.Iseminger stated
that Ralph France needs to review the agreement before they sign
it.There was a brief discussion regarding documentation of
expenses.Mr.Moser made a recommendation to approve the plan as
presented to date and to give staff the authority to work out the
final details of the plan,include the Planning Commission members
names on the cover sheet and have Ralph France review any agreement
that may be required and proceed with it.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Demolition Permit -Steven Shifler:
Mr.Goodrich explained the County Commissioner's policy of 1989
regarding the review of demolition permit applications.Mr.
Goodrich stated that the subject property of the application being
presented tonight is on the Historic Site Survey and the
application has not yet been reviewed by the Historic District
Commission.He stated that in most instances the Planning
Commission has accepted the Historic District Commission's
recommendations.Mr.Goodrich stated that the building in question
is in poor condition and is not a "one of a kind"building.A
discussion followed regarding why the building was being removed.
Mr.Moser moved to defer the request to the Historic District
Commission and adopt their recommendation.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
A vote was taken:Mr.Iseminger,Mr.Spickler,Mr.Moser,Mr.Ernst
and Mrs.Lampton voted "aye".Mr.Bowen voted "nay".So ordered.
A discussion followed regarding the historic site survey and the
joint meeting between the two Commissions.
Sensitive Areas:
Mr.Goodrich referred to his memo included with the agenda material
which informed the Planning Commission that it is time to make a
decision on areas that should be included in the Sensitive Areas
Element amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.Commission members
had the benefit of the Public Information Meeting on July 7 and the
minutes from that meeting enclosed with this month's agenda.
During the discussion several member expressed an opinion that the
County should only include the 4 areas mandated by the '92 Planning
Act and their concern for over regulation.Mr.Arch said that the
requirements of the Planning Act could be addressed in many ways,
447
448
not necessarily with extensive regulation.The results may be a
series of maps or overlays that identify sensitive areas for
avoidance.He also stated that if the Commission is inclined to
address only the 4 mandated areas it should at least include the
Special Planning Areas that are already mentioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.Following discussion,the Commission reached
consensus that it would recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that the 4 mandated areas (steep slope,streams and
their buffers,floodplains and threatened and endangered species
habitat)and the Special Planning Areas already mentioned in the
Comprehensive Plan should be included in the Sensitive Area
Element.
Use of Cluster Concept in Conservation Areas:
Since this was an item that Mr.Bowers requested to be on the
agenda,it was decided to defer it to the next meeting.
Work Program:
Mr.Arch stated that he does not have anything prepared for the
work program at this time.
Mr.Arch stated he may schedule a work session with the Airport
Commission to discuss some of the things they have talked about
before.He stated they have been able to use the GIS system to do
a layout of that area and look at the zoning and the individual
parcels and the lines drawn for the flight patterns and will look
at possible ways to address their concerns.
Mr.Bowen commented in reference to the variance requests they are
reviewing.He feels that either the Ordinance needs to be revised
or the Planning Commission needs to take a different stand,because
they seem to be approving all of them.A discussion followed
regarding sending a letter to the consultants reminding them that
the variances are based on a definable hardship and that the
Planning Commission will be taking a close look at those hardships.
Mr.Arch stated he would do that and that at some point they will
be revising the Zoning Ordinance.He stated there may be the
ability to provide for more administrative variances.A discussion
followed.
Mr.Arch stated that they will be starting to sell a package
containing the Subdivision Ordinance,the APFO and the Forest
Conservation Ordinance for $10.00 or $12.00.
Mr.Arch stated that with the implementtion of new Sierra System
they have added an acceptance procedure to the processing
procedure.They are also working on a checklist,which will be
part of the submittal requirements.He stated that they are also
moving ahead with the GIS system.Mr.Arch stated he is trying to
schedule some additional meetings in September and October,
including a meeting with both the Hagerstown Planning Commission
and the Smithsburg Planning Commission.
Mr.Iseminger instructed Mr.Arch to go ahead an draft a policy on
the staff approval of technical variances for their review.
ADJOURNMENT:
adjourned at 10:05
~?S,.-d"v.v~,t\1\~01.-.)~
There being no further business,the meeting
p.m.
CDoo:;t,....
COz
:?E
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 12,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,September 12,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on
the second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,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;Timothy A.Lung,Edward J.Schreiber,Eric
Seifarth and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Paula
Lampton.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of July 11,1994.Seconded
by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
449
Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of
special meeting.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.
the August 1,
So ordered.
1994
Mr.Spickler stated for the minutes of the regular meeting of
August 1,1994 on page 3 after Floyd Kline a note should be added
indicating that Mr.Iseminger returned to chair the meeting.Mr.
Ernst moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.
Spickler.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Agricultural Districts:
Mr.Seifarth presented four applications for agricultural land
preservation districts:David A.Berger (AD-94-04),Harold and
Elsie Eby (AD-94-05),Robert A.Taulton (AD-94-06)and Robert and
Mary Hornbaker (AD-94-07).He stated they all comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and all four have been approved by the Advisory
Board.
Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
County Commissioners that inclusion of the David A.Berger tract in
the Agricultural Land Preservation District Program would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
County Commissioners that inciusion of the Harold and Elsie Eby
tract in the Agricultural Land Preservation District Program would
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
County Commissioners that inclusion of the Robert A.Taulton tract
and the Roger and Mary Hornbaker tract in the Agricultural Land
Preservation District Program would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.
So ordered.
450
Variances:
Dan and Carol Poyner:
Mr.Schreiber presented the variance for Dan and Carol Poyner.The
property is located on the east side of Mapleville Road.The road
classification is minor arterial and the property is zoned
Agriculture.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.11.g.
4 and 5,which states that a panhandle shall not be greater than
400 feet in length and discouraged the creation of three tiered
panhandle lots.Mr.Schreiber stated that the original parcel is
Lot 3 of Maple Valley Estates.The current owner would like to
create another lot which would leave the remaining lands as a third
tier panhandle with a panhandle of 580 feet.Mr.Schreiber
explained there is an existing house which uses a shared paved
driveway.Mr.Schreiber stated that he could not reach the
Boonsboro Fire Department but noted that the property is visible
from the road.The lot will not be conveyed to an immediate family
member.A discussion followed regarding the driveway,if the
adjoining properties had subdivision potential,if this request is
in keeping with the intent of the subdivision regulations,the
immediate family member statement and if there was a hardship.Mr.
Iseminger suggested having a workshop meeting/site inspection with
the County Engineer,Terry McGee and that the variance should be
tabled until after the workshop meeting.Mr.Bowers moved to table
the variance until the October meeting.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
David Slifer:
Mr.Lung presented the variance for David Slifer.The site is
located on the east side of Maryland Route 66 (Mapleville Road).
The road classification is minor arterial and the zoning is
Agricultural.The applicable restriction is from Section 405.11 b
of the Ordinance which states that all new lots shall front and
have access to a public road.The applicant is requesting to
reduce the access separation to 200 feet and to subdivide three new
lots utilizing a single common drive.The property contains 8
acres and is currently unimproved.Mr.Lung stated that staff
received a subdivision plat application to create Lot 1 to be
conveyed to an immediate family member.He stated that the
property owner has future plans to subdivide Lots 2 and 3 also for
immediate family members.Mr.Lung stated that due to topographic
conditions,State Highway will only approve one access point that
will require some grading.The consultant,Mr.Townsley of Fox and
Associates briefly spoke.He stated that the owner wants to create
Lot 1 first and that Lots 2 and 3 may never be done.A discussion
followed regarding access.Mr.Moser stated he did not have a
problem with creating Lot 1 and remaining lands,but that they
would have to come back later for the creation of Lot 3.Mr.
Iseminger suggested since this property is located near the
previous variance that they should also inspect this site with the
County Engineer.Mr.Spickler moved to grant a variance for Lot 1
from the access separation due to safety concerns.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Spickler moved to grant a variance so
that Lot I can be created without useable road frontage and to
utilize a common access on the remaining lands.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger advised the owner that they will
inspect the property and will table action on the other 2 lots to
the next meeting.
(0
~,.-
([l
z
~
Subdivisions:
Appalachian Orchard Estates,Final Plat:
Mr.Schreiber presented the preliminary/final plat for lots 1-19 of
Appalachian Orchard Estates.The property is located on the north
side of MD 77 approximately 3000 feet south of MD 64.The average
lot size is a little over an acre with approximately 70 acres
remaining.The afforestation of approximately 6 acres will be done
on the remaining lands and a bond for approximately $25,000.00 will
be posted.Mr.Schreiber stated that the last time this plat was
presented one of the issues that came up was the capacity of the
Smithsburg School district.He stated that there is a CIP project
for the Smithsburg Elementary School for approximately 2 million
dollars,which is in accordance with the APFO requirements.Mr.
Schreiber stated that the only other memo he does not have is from
the State Highway Administration.He stated that in conjunction
with the storm water management pond being built,the State Highway
Administration felt it was necessary to take the water running
along MD 77 and put it into a pipe to alleviate some of the
drainage problems.They currently have a project on the books and
plan to start the project sometime very soon.The developer has
agreed to contribute $15,000.00 to the project and has until
September 22nd to do that.Mr.Schreiber stated that there is also
a $40,000.00 bond that must be posted for the accel and decel
lanes.He informed the Commission that the property is going to
auction the next day and whoever is purchasing it may want to know
whether or not they will be purchasing an approved subdivision.He
stated that even if approval was granted,nothing would be signed
until the bonds were posted and that State Highway Administration
was satisfied that their conditions had been met.A discussion
followed regarding the upcoming auction,the remaining lands,the
responsibility of the afforestation and the bond,waiting to grant
approval until after the auction and the bond for the accel and
decel lanes.Mr.Moser moved to grant final approval subject to
all agency approvals and meeting all prior requirements of the
Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.A vote was taken.
Mr.Moser,Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Ernst voted 'aye'.Mr.Bowers,
Mr.Spickler and Mr.Bowen voted 'nay'.Mr.Iseminger stated that
final plat approval has not been granted.He stated that the
developer will have to meet the conditions and then come back for
final approval.
Red Fox Farms (Former Barkdoll Tract)Preliminary/Final Plat and
Forest Conservation Plan:
Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary/Final plat for Red Fox Farms.
The property is located along the southwest quadrant of Oak Ridge
Drive and Sharpsburg Pike and consists of approximately 61 acres.
The preliminary consultation was reviewed at the June 93 meeting
and at that time concerns were expressed regarding the design,the
number of cul-de-sacs and the single access to a majority of the
lots.In addition,the HI study was also discussed,which proposed
HI-1 for the site and concern was expressed regarding the location
of the lots to 1-70.Since that time the plan was revised reducing
the number of cul-de-sacs and provided an afforestation buffer area
along 1-70,which satisfied the Planning Commission.Mr.Lung
stated that the developer requested that the HI-1 designation be
changed to HI-1 and HI-2 to reflect the concept plan and that is
the way the HI study was approved.Mr.Lung stated that what is
being presented tonight is the preliminary/final plat and the
Forest Conservation Plan.
Mr.Lung proceeded to review the Forest Conservation Plan.The
owner will be required to reforest 3 acres and afforest 7.62 acres,
which will be spread throughout the site.Mr.Lung stated that the
afforestation not only addresses the Forest Conservation Ordinance
but also creates a buffer between the residential lots,the ramp
451
452
and 1-70;and provides a buffer between the residential portion and
the future commercial areas.The required 2 year management
agreement and long term protective agreement have been received.
The majority of the forested area is included in easements on the
individual lots.The developer is proposing to provide a financial
surety in the form of a bond for $46,260.72.Mr.Lung stated he
just received the protective agreements late on Friday and did not
have a chance to give them a thorough review,so staff would
recommend approval of the Forest Conservation Plan contingent upon
review of the protective agreements and receipt of the surety.
Mr.Lung proceeded to present the Preliminary/Final subdivision
plat.The developer is proposing 136 lots for single family
dwellings to be served by an internal public street system with
access points onto Oak Ridge Drive and Sharpsburg Pike.Parcels A
and B,containing 15 acres,will be future commercial development
and are covered by the forest plan.Soil Conservation has approved
the storm water management pond and have requested minor revisions
to the Sediment Erosion Control Plan.Public water and sewer is
available to the site.The Hagerstown Water Department has
approved the plan with conditions for minor revisions to the plan.
Water Pollution Control has also approved the plan.Sanitary
District issued conditional approval.
Mr.Lung stated that access is proposed by two new connections,one
onto Sharpsburg Pike and one onto Oak Ridge Drive.The traffic
studies requested by the State Highway Administration and the
County Engineer have been completed.The County Engineer is
requiring the developer to construct an accel/decel lane and a
bypass lane in the vicinity of the entrance location at Oak Ridge
Drive.Mr.Lung proceeded to review State Highway comments dated
September 7,1994.He stated that he met with the County Engineer
to discuss them.Mr.Lung stated that Mr.McGee is concerned with
item 3 regarding the width of Highsaddle Road and would like the
opportuni ty to discuss it with State Highway.He feels it would be
better to stay with what was originally proposed.Mr.Lung
reviewed item 4 which pertains to the relocation of an existing
driveway.The plan shows the driveway being relocated,but the
property owners have not yet agreed to the relocation.In order to
receive plat approval,the developer will need to obtain permission
to relocate the driveway.Item 7 deals with the results of the
traffic study and the impact this development will have on the
intersection of Oak Ridge Drive and Route 65.The traffic study
indicates this intersection is operating at a level of service C,
which is an acceptable level.The addition of this development
will reduce the level of service at this intersection to D which is
still acceptable.The study looked at the entire area and took
into consideration the other developments proposed on Route 65 and
determined that this intersection will eventually fail.State
Highway is requesting that the Planning Commission require the
developer to perform the recommended improvements at the OakRidge
Drive/MD 65 intersection.Mr.Lung stated in discussion with the
County Engineer they do not see how the Planning Commission has the
authority to impose those requirements on the developer because
this development alone will not cause the intersection to fail,
based on the information provided in the traffic study.Mr.Arch
stated that the intersection is controlled by the State and the
County APFO does not cover State roads.A discussion followed
regarding the intersection and how to improve it.The consultant,
Mr.Beall of Davis,Renn and Associates briefly commented on the
traffic study.He pointed out that the traffic engineer determined
that the intersection is adequate now and would still be adequate
at build out of this development.He stated that Terry McGee had
the traffic engineer make 5 year and 10 year projections.In
making the projections,the traffic engineer allowed for an
increase of 2.5 percent per year which is compounded and over 10
years there would be a 28 percent increase in the traffic at this
intersection.Mr.Beall pointed out that the Ordinance and the
APFO are clear that they cannot be held liable for something that
(0
~.,..-coz
~
is going to take place in the future.He also noted that studies
have been done in that area and that in one year there was not a
2.5 percent increase in traffic counts.
Mr.Lung briefly recapped what was before the Planning Commission.
A discussion followed regarding the plan and the accesses.Mr.
Iseminger requested the developer to submit a phasing schedule.A
discussion followed.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer will
not approve the access onto MD 65 with the existing driveway from
the Swain's property.The developer is showing a relocated
driveway on the plan,but the owner has not agreed to it.Mr.Lung
stated that if the owner does not agree to relocating his driveway,
then the road cannot be built because the County Engineer would not
approve it.A discussion followed with the developer,the
Commission and neighbors in the area regarding the traffic in the
area and the road system.Mr.Beall stated that they worked
closely with the County Engineer in designing the accel/decel lane
and stated they will widen 400 feet of West Oak Ridge Drive to be
4 lanes wide and will tie into their accel/decel.Mr.Iseminger
stated that he felt the Commission should make a recommendation to
the Board of Commissioners to take a look at that intersection .
Mr.Moser moved to approve the Forest Conservation Plan contingent
upon the outstanding items being addressed and the receipt of the
protective agreement and surety.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
Mr.Bowers moved to approve the preliminary/final plat contingent
upon agency comments being addressed,resolving the items that the
County Engineer requested,providing staff with a phasing schedule
tieing in the Oak Ridge and Route 65 accesses as soon as possible
and that the developer meet with the neighbors to insure that their
driveways are not impacted by the accel/decel lane.Seconded by
Mr.Ernst.So ordered.It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the
situation at MD 65 and Oak Ridge Drive and the Sharpsburg Pike
corridor warrants traffic improvements and that the State and
County need to work on a solution.
Potomac Manor Section G,Phase 2:
Mr.Lung presented the final plat for Potomac Manor Section G,
Phase 2.The property is located southwest of Eastern Boulevard
off of Chartridge Drive extended.The preliminary plat for
Sections G and H was approved by the planning Commission in June of
1991.The final plat for Section G,Phase 1 was approved on
November 21,1991.The developer is proposing 36 single family
lots on 11.4 acres.The zoning is Residential Urban and is located
inside the UGA.Mr.Lung stated that part of the preliminary
approval included a variance to allow 5 panhandle lots based on
excellence of design.The lots will be served by an extension of
Chartridge Drive.Public water and sewer is available from the
City of Hagerstown.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Moser moved
to grant final approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
Ralph Sterling:
Mr.Arch presented the preliminary/final plat for Ralph Sterling
Lots 1-3.The property is located on the southeast corner of MD 64
and Windy Haven Road intersection north of Smithsburg.All agency
approvals are in.The development meets the Express Procedure
guidelines.Therefore,the Forest Conservation requirement will be
met through the payment in lieu of.Mr.Moser moved to approve the
preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
453
454
White Oaks Preliminary Plat:
Mr.Goodrich presented the preliminary plat for White Oaks.The
development is located on the west side of MD 67.Mr.Goodrich
stated that the Planning Commission approved the cluster concept at
the May meeting,which allows the reduction of the individual lot
sizes and setbacks with the remaining land dedicated to open space
or recreational area for the benefit of the residents in the
subdivision.He stated that the cluster concept does not allow an
increase in density and explained that they have to calculate the
number of lots they would have under the zoning on the property and
stay with that number.The zoning is Conservation.The developer
is proposing 23 lots,which range in sizes from a little over an
acre to 3.3 acres.The remaining lands are in permanent open
space.The development will be served by wells and septics and is
subject to approval by the Health Department.The 29 acres in open
space will also meet the requirements for forest retention.
According to the Ordinance's formula for calculating the areas to
be retained,they are required to maintain a minimum of 20 acres
and they will have 26 wooded acres.He stated that several of the
lots have a significant amount of forest on them which is included
in the area that can be removed without mitigation.All of the
lots will front on the new road that is to be constructed.Mr.
Goodrich proceeded to explain the access to the open space area.
He reminded the Planning Commission that it decided to let the
Homeowners Association decide on the amenities to be provided in
the open space area.
Mr.Goodrich stated they have responses from all the agencies and
need some minor revisions.Staff is recommending preliminary plat
approval with the conditions that those items be addressed.Mr.
Iseminger stated he felt that some money should be set aside by the
developer for the amenities.The Planning Commission asked staff
for suggestions regarding the type of amenities they recommended.
Mr.Goodrich stated that for this type of development he suggested
picnic tables,possibly playground equipment,trails and benches.
Mr.Spickler stated that they have a natural forest and that the
less encroachment on that particular section the better off it is.
He stated that in this case the extra 6 acres they are providing
beyond the requirements could be in lieu of providing a great deal
of enticement to get the homeowners to use the property.He feels
the extra acreage would make up for the things they require other
developments to do.It was the consensus of tne Planning Commission
that they would not require a specific amenity but it should be
mentioned in the homeowners documents.Mr.Moser moved to grant
preliminary plat approval contingent on all agency approvals.
Seconded by Mr.Bowers.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Burger King:
Mr.Arch presented the site plan for a Burger King fast food
restaurant.He stated that a few months ago he presented a site
plan for the convenience store/gas station and there was a
subdivision for this site.The site plan being presented is for
the other half of the property.Mr.Arch stated that even though
the property was subdivided it will remain under control of one
owner (McTawes Limited Partnership).The property is located on
Sharpsburg Pike and is zoned HI-I.It will be served by public
water and sewer.Mr.Arch proceeded to explain the location of the
recycling bin,the stormwater management pond,parking,the traffic
flow,lighting and landscaping.Mr.Arch stated they requested the
developer to provide additional lane markings to help with the
traffic flow,there is a problem with the marking in the back
corner of the property.Staff made several suggestions to improve
the traffic flow to the developer.All agency approvals are in.
Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.
Bowers.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Bowen abstained.So ordered.
CD
~,.-
CD
Z
~
PUD:
Cedar Springs (Highland Manor East)Final Development Plan:
Mr.Lung presented the Final Development Plan for Cedar Springs
PUD.The property is located on the Greencastle Pike south of
Huyetts Crossroads and contains approximately 56 acres.The
developer is proposing 80 single family dwellings,100 semi-
detached units,96 apartment units,5.9 acres of commercial area,
and 15.5 acres of open space.Public water and sewer is available.
An existing package treatment plant on the site will serve the
first 80 units.After that point they will have to hook up to an
interceptor that will go into the Concococheague Plant.Mr.Lung
stated that there was a condition on the preliminary approval that
the details be worked out with the Sanitary District regarding the
construction of a pumping station and that has been worked out.He
stated when the Planning Commission reviewed the Concept Plan they
made recommendations for revisions,which are now reflected on the
Development Plan.Mr.Lung stated that when the Preliminary
Development Plan was approved in April of 1994 it was conditional
upon certain items being addressed that were outlined in the
Planning Director's letter of April 13th.Mr.Lung stated that a
major concern was the existing drainage problems in that area and
the impact this development would have on it.He stated that in
regards to the downstream drainage problem,the consultant is in
the process of obtaining permission from the owner of the
downstream property to get on the site to evaluate the problem.
The County Engineer stated in his approval of the Final Development
Plan that he would make the resolution of the problem a condition
of approval for any site plan or subdivision plat within this
development.In regards to the upstream drainage problem with
Highland Manor,Engineering Department informed him that work that
was originally stated that needed to be done has been completed.
Nothing has yet been submitted by the developer regarding on site
storm water management.The County Engineer stated that this work
would have to be reviewed and approved as part of the submission of
detail construction draWings.Mr.Lung stated that staff had some
comments regarding exterior lighting.The developer is proposing
to have security lighting in the vicinity of the apartment
buildings only.It is the staff's opinion with this type of
density that the Planning Commission should request street lighting
in the entire development.In regards to the ownership and
maintenance of the open space areas,there was a note on the plan
stating that it would be the County's responsibility.He stated
that the Parks Planner reviewed the plan and recommended to the
Parks Board that it was not a good idea and that the consultant had
been informed by the Parks Board Chairman that the County would not
consider taking over the park and that it should be handled
privately.Mr.Lung stated they will need homeowners association
documents prior to final development plan approval.A discussion
followed regarding the street lighting and a taxing district to
handle the street lighting expense.Mr.Moser explained that the
developer would be responsible to put in the wiring,the homeowners
documents could have provisions for taxin~district and at a later
time the home owners would need to petition the Commissioners for
future street lights.Further discussion followed with an
adjoining property owner and the consultant regarding the
downstream flooding problem.Mr.Iseminger advised the property
owner that the developer is required to address the upstream and
downstream drainage problems.He stated that the County Engineer
is requiring that the post development flow cannot be greater than
the predevelopment flow.Mr.Reichenbaugh stated that the upstream
pond is an earthen berm that has a gabion structure to control
water.He noted that gabion is porous and does not hold water in
the pond and that is why they are no longer allowed to be built and
that is why there is a problem downstream.A discussion followed
regarding the lighting and the storm water management problem.Mr.
Reichenbaugh stated he would meet with the adjacent property owner.
Mr.Spickler moved to grant Final Development Plan approval
conditional upon all agency approvals being received,the developer
455
456
installing the conduit for the lighting,receipt of homeoWners
association documents,and give staff final authority.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary consultation:
Schuster Properties:
Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary Consultation for Schuster
Properties.The developer is proposing a 58 lot subdivision west
of Maugansville Road.Mr.Lung explained that the development is
in two sections because it is split by a dry drainage swale.The
southernmost section contains 10 lots and the northern section
contains 48.Public water and sewer are available however,some of
the lots will have to be served by grinder pumps.The Engineering
Department wants to see closed section curb and gutter streets in
the northern section and will allow an open section street on the
south section due to the small number of lots and the fact that the
existing section of Green Mountain Drive is also open section.Mr.
Lung reviewed the planning staff's comments and recommendations.
He stated that the Planning staff wanted to see pedestrian access
maintained between the two sections.He explained that there is a
proposed storm water management area next to the dry swale and in
order to maintain pedestrian access between the two sections it
might be necessary to provide a path if the County requires the
storm water management area to be fenced.Mr.Lung stated they
will not know if that area will be fenced until the detailed site
work and design work is done on the storm water management
facility.He referred to a rough redesign of the northern section
by the staff included in the agenda packet.He explained that the
redesign eliminates two panhandle lots,eliminates the five private
residential access points along Reiff Church Road and eliminates
the residential stripping along Reiff Church Road.There is a
slight addition in street length.In addition,it takes into
consideration the forest conservation plan,which according to the
worksheet requires slightly over 3 acres of afforestation.He
stated there is no existing forest on the site and that the
developer is proposing to pay into the fund.Mr.Lung stated that
this site is not eligible for the Express Procedure,so it is up to
the Planning Commission to determine whether or not paying into the
fund is appropriate.Mr.Lung stated that the on site
afforestation area proposed by the staff establishes a forested
buffer adjacent to an intermittent stream which is priority number
one,establishes plantings to stabilize slopes of 25 percent or
greater,establishes a buffer adjacent to different land uses and
adjacent highway.A discussion followed regarding the location of
the development to the airport.Mr.Spickler stated he wanted to
see something on the plat advising lot purchasers that the property
is near an airport,add insulation or whatever to prevent having
problems in the future and feels the forestation on the site will
help towards doing that.Mr.Arch briefly commented on the staff
redesign.The consultant,Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and
Associates commented on the issues brought up by the Planning
Commission.Regarding the Delta (airport)study he stated that if
the decibel study indicates that insulation is needed,they will
comply.Mr.Iseminger stated that they want a note on the plat
indicating that this property is in an airport zone.In regards to
the redesign,Mr.Frederick stated he does not want to change the
houses fronting onto Reiff Church Road because that will make the
back yards small and may make the lots difficult to market.In
regards to the forestation,there are currently no trees on the
property and the site is in the Urban Growth Area.He referred to
the priority areas outlined in the Forest Conservation Ordinance
and staff's proposed afforestation design.He stated that in order
to meet the 3 acre requirement,they will be taking all of the rear
yards.The proposed development is aimed towards first time home
buyers and the lots will be 7500 square feet in size.The
developer feels that no one will want a lot with no rear yard.In
addition,Mr.Frederick stated he felt that to use forestation for
CD
~,.-
OJz
::2:
screening is not feasible.He stated that the forestation requires
that a minimum width be 35 feet and that is what the rear yard
setback is.They would prefer not to do forestation on the site
but if they had to,there are certain areas where they could plant
but would not total 3 acres.A discussion followed regarding
afforestation and subdivisions in that area.Mr.Frederick
proposed planting in the critical area by the stream and pay the
balance of approximately $8,000.00 into the fund.Mr.Arch asked
if they would consider screening the property lines between the
multi and single family homes and the road.A discussion followed
regarding the forestation,screening,stripping houses along Reiff
Church Road,access to interior streets,and connecting the two
sections.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a
note should be placed on the plat notifying purchasers of the
proximity to the airport,provide vegetative screening in suggested
areas and afforest where possible and pay in lieu of for the
balance,have all the lots access the internal streets and have a
pedestrian access between the two sections of the development.
OTHER BUSINESS:
APFO Determination -Mary Lewellyn Subdivision:
Mr.Arch referred to the information he passed out from the County
Engineer which includes a map for a proposed 4 lot subdivision
along Bob White Lane.Mr.Arch stated that the County has agreed
to improve approximately 660 feet of the road which would take it
to 60 feet of Lot 1 along Bob White Lane.Lots 2,3 and 4 are not
on the portion of Bob White Lane which would be improved by the
County.Based on review of this subdivision,the County Engineer
would deny the approval for Lots 2,3 and 4 based on the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.Arch stated that the cost for
upgrading this portion of the road would be quite high.Mr.Arch
stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to
grant variances from the APFO.He stated that in the past the
Planning Commission has denied similar requests and the variance
was then applied for through the Board of Appeals who then granted
it based on hardship conditions.Mr.Arch stated that the other
option would be if the road was vacated by the County then they
could create several lots or panhandles to the portion of Bob White
Lane to improved by the County.He stated he is not sure if that
will take place in the future and that all adjacent property owners
would have to agree.At this point only one owner has agreed.A
discussion followed regarding the road,the options available to
the Planning Commission,the authority of the Appeals Board and the
owners next step after denial by the Planning Commission.Mr.
Moser moved to deny the variance from the APFO.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.A vote was taken.Mr.Iseminger,Mr.Moser,Mr.Spickler,
Mr.Ernst and Mr.Bowen voted "aye".Mr.Bowers voted "nay".So
ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the request was denied and that
the next step would be to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
APFO Semi-Annual Report:
Mr.Arch presented the APFO six month report.Mr.Spickler moved
to recommend to the Commissioners to continue the APFO.Seconded
by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
RZ-94-04 -Text Amendment for Informational Signs:
Mr.Arch reviewed the changes made to the text amendment which
incorporates comments made by the Planning Commission.He stated
it separates them into permanent and temporary informational signs
and also explains the number and location where they can be
erected.Mr.Spickler stated that he felt the 1 mile radius
especially for rural areas is not enough and feels 4 miles would be
better.A discussion followed regarding the permanent and
457
458
temporary signs.Mr.Iseminger stated he had a problem with some
of the language and cited the definition of temporary and feels it
should be consistent.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved
to submit it to the Commissioners.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 11:30
p.m.
~/.
,~
B~':.~.-
CD
~,....
(0
z
:iE
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 3,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,October 3,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the
second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex-
Officio;Ronald L.Bowers,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,
IV.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 7:05 p.m.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Mr.Arch stated that
Appalachian Orchard Estates requested to be withdrawn at this time.
He stated that under Other Business -Albert Keyser has withdrawn
his request.Mr.Arch asked that a request to use the Express
Procedure for Maugans Meadows Lots 126 and 127,which has
environmental sensitive areas be added to the agenda.Mr.Moser
moved to add the Express Procedure request for Maugans Meadows at
the end of Other Business.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Variance -Dan and Carol Poyner:
Mr:Arch stated that the Planning Commission requested additional
information after the site inspection.He proceeded to explain the
triple decking of property off of Mapleville Road and the three
entrances onto Mapleville Road and State Highway's comments.State
Highway did not have a problem with an additional access but stated
that all three driveways must come out at the same point.Mr.Arch
stated that this variance request is to create a third tier effect
as part of the subdivision of the Poyner lot.A discussion
followed regarding one access point,three tiering and adding a
note to the plat stating that there will be no further subdivision
of the lots.Mr.Spickler stated that the Ordinance had been
amended in order to eliminate 3 tier lots and feels that they would
be going against the Ordinance if this variance was approved and
also noted that there is no physical hardship as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to
deny the variance request since the request did not meet the
hardship requirements for a subdivision.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.
Mrs.Lampton and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Poyner was
instructed that he could appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
Variance -David Slifer:
Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission took action at the
September meeting by allowing the owner to create one common access
to serve the proposed Lot 1 and the remaining lands.The
Commission deferred action on allowing a third lot to use the
access.The proposed access is located where the State Highway
Administration recommended for adequate sight distance.He stated
that the subdivision was designed to create 3 lots.Mr.Iseminger
stated that at the field inspection,Mr.McGee pointed out that the
location where State Highway wanted the access is not where the
applicant marked it and everyone in the field agreed that the
access should be in the location specified by State Highway and
also that the bank at the crest of the hill would have to be graded
and that should be done prior to issuing an access permit.A
discussion followed.Mr.Bowers moved to grant a variance to allow
for a third lot to utilize the common access point,with the
459
460
condition that a note be added to the plat stating that there can
be no other access to Mapleville Road from any other place on Lots
1 and 2 and with the condition that the 10 year family member
statement be added to the plat.Mr.Bowers moved to grant variance
approval with all stated stipulations.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.
Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Independent Cement:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Independent Cement
Corporation.He stated it is for three accessory structures
associated with the existing mineral extraction and processing
facili ty for Independent Cement.The property is located on
Securi ty Road extended south of CSX Railroad.The zoning is
Industrial Mineral.The site operates 24 hours a day and has 107
daylight shift employees.Mr.Lung stated that ICC is proposing to
construct a new 50'x 60'employee shower and locker room building,
a 20'x 20'comfort station and a small package treatment plant to
process the sewage and wastewater generated by the locker room,
shower and comfort station.He referred to the plat and pointed
out the location of the proposed structures.Mr.Lung stated he
has received verbal approval from the Health Department.They are
waiting upon an availability letter from the Water Department.A
discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan
approval subject to the receipt of the outstanding documents.
Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.A discussion followed
regarding the ICC property.Mr.Iseminger asked the Planning staff
to send a letter to ICC requesting them to prepare a site plan
showing all improvements and appear at a Planning Commission
meeting and that Mr.Prodonovich also be present to discuss
implementation of approved site plans.Mr.Moser suggested having
a special meeting to review it.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Carroll Boyer -APFO Determination:
Mr.Arch presented the request for Carroll Boyer for an APFO
determination.He stated that the Planning Commission would.need
to make a recommendation based on adequacy determination for Reno
Monument Road.He stated that the County Engineer feels it is
inadequate for meeting the width requirements and would have to be
upgraded.Mr.Arch stated that the other option would be to deny
the request based on the fact that it is inadequate,then the owner
would go to the Board of Appeals.Mr.Frederick and Mr.Boyer were
present.Mr.Frederick stated there are two lots now and that Mr.
Boyer wants to create 2 more.The property is zoned Agriculture.
Mr.Boyer briefly spoke.Mr.Arch stated that the Planning
Commission normally concurs with the report of the County Engineer.
A discussion followed regarding road work being done in that area
and whether this part of the road was on the schedule for widening.
Mr.Bowers stated that he was contacted by another neighbor in that
area regarding the same issue and suggested they have a meeting at
the site prior to presenting the case to the Board of Appeals.Mr.
Spickler moved to deny the request from APFO.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered.
Potomac Edison -Request for Text Amendment:
Mr.Arch referred to Potomac Edison's letter in the agenda packet
regarding a text amendment for Public Utility Buildings and
Structures.Mr.Arch stated that if the Planning Commission
desires,staff will prepare a draft of an amendment for their
review.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have
staff draft an amendment.
Subdivision Amendment to Address Quality Judgement:
461
Mr.Arch referred to the Declaratory
and stated they are required to
Subdivision Ordinance.
Judgment in the agenda packet
make an amendment to the
CD
"""....-
OJz
:2:
Maugans Meadows -Reguest for Express Procedure:
Mr.Lung stated that staff is currently processing a replat for the
Maugans Meadows subdivision.He stated that the replat will result
in the creation of 2 new lots.It was staff's determination that
the 2 lots would have to abide by the Forest Conservation
Ordinance.The developer is requesting to use the Express
Procedure for payment in lieu of afforestation in the amount of
$1,068.64.Mr.Lung stated that normally staff could approve this
type of request,however,since there are wetlands on the property,
they are required to bring it before the Commission.It is the
staff's opinion that the small amount of area involved is not
appropriate for on-site afforestation.Mr.Moser moved to grant
approval of the Express Procedure.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.
Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that the quarterly rezoning
hearing scheduled for November has been tentatively rescheduled for
January 16,1995 due to the upcoming elections.Mr.Arch stated
that Mr.France felt it should be postponed since there may be a
situation where someone who heard the rezoning may not be able to
vote on it.
Mr.Arch requested permission to schedule a special meeting for
Wednesday,October 12,1994 at 4:30 p.m or 5:00 p.m.One item on
that agenda may be the Forest Conservation Plan approval letter for
the Antietam Battlefield Reforestation Plan.
A discussion followed regarding the upcoming meeting on October
11th for the text amendment at 10:30 a.m.
Mr.Spickler stated that the University of Maryland offers a
workshop covering 66B and suggested having one after the elections.
It was the consensus of the Commission to do that.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
462
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING -OCTOBER 12,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on
Wednesday,October 12,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on
the second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard
Moser,Paula Lampton,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.
Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S.
Kirkpatrick.Absent were EX-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers and Vice
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:00 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Floyd Kline Investments/Blue Seal Feeds:
Mr.Arch presented a Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat/Site Plan
and Forest Conservation Plan for Blue Seal Feeds.He explained
that the property is currently owned by Floyd Kline and that Blue
Seal Feeds is the contract purchaser.Mr.Arch stated that the
proposed subdivision is for 2 lots.A 12 acre parcel will contain
the Blue Seal Feeds facility and a 5+acre parcel is also being
created,for which there are no plans for at this time.Mr.Arch
stated that the site plan will be for the 12 acre parcel and that
the Forest Conservation Plan will be for the entire 17.79 acres.
The zoning is Highway Interchange.The proposed use is an animal
feed manufacturing business,which is consistent with the IR
provisions in the HI zoning districts.Mr.Arch noted there will
be grain silos which will be higher than the allowed building
height and the silos will require a variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals.Any approvals will be contingent upon the developer
recei ving approval from the Board of Appeals.Mr.Arch referred to
the plat and explained the location of the proposed building.
There will initially be 50 employees with plans to expand up to
135.The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.The
building area is 23,500 square feet.Part of the bUilding will be
a canopy section over part of the railroad spur being constructed.
The property will be served by public water and sewer,which both
need to be extended to the site.No outside storage is proposed
except around the building and silos.There will be 2 entrances
one from Notley Road,which will be upgraded and the other from
Hopewell Road,both are County roads.There will be some
landscaping around the sign area and along the parking area.In
meeting the forest conservation obligations,the developer will
retain the forest shown in the front of the property (approximately
2.9 acres).Mr.Arch stated that 35 parking spaces are required
and 47 are provided.Storm water management will be addressed with
a pond.There are permanent easements for the forest areas which
will be included on the forest conservation plan and final plat as
well as the appropriate notes regarding no cutting of trees.All
required agency approvals are in except for the Health Department
and all comments have been addressed.A discussion followed
regarding the Forest Conservation Plan,the existing forest area,
the entrances,stormwater management and water quality.Mr.Moser
moved to grant approval of the Preliminary/Final subdivision plat.
Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.
Moser moved to grant Site Plan and Forest Conservation Plan
approval contingent upon the Health Department approval and
approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch reminded the
Wednesday,October 26th
Development Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commission
at about
of an upcoming meeting on
8:15 a.m.with the Economic
463
c:o
"'d",....
OJ
Z
~
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m .
."
Be~trand L.
~
464
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 7,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,November 7,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on
the second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were :Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Robert
E.Ernst,II and Ex-Officio;Ronald L.Bowers.Staff:Director;
Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate
Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
Absent was Andrew J.Bowen,IV.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of September 12,1994.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
of October 3,1994.
Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of October 12,1994.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch stated that under
Other Business,St.James Final Development Plan will not be
presented this evening and requested that two items be added.
Under Subdivisions -Dan Weaver (a 3 lot subdivision)and under
Site Plans -Gil Hunt.He stated both items are nearly complete
and are ready to be processed.Mr.Spickler moved to add the two
items to the agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Douglas and Suzanne Miss:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Douglas and Suzanne
Miss to create a lot without public road frontage.The site is
located on the north side of Leathers Road,south of Edgemont Road
and west of the CSX Railroad.The road classification is local and
the zoning is Agriculture.The applicable restriction is from
Section 405.11.B of the Ordinance which states that every lot shall
abut a minimum of 25 feet and shall have access to a road or street
that has been dedicated to public use and accepted for public
maintenance.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant is proposing to
subdivide the property into two lots with one lot having frontage
onto Leathers Road.The remaining lands will not have road
frontage.Mr.Lung noted that the remaining lands contain an
existing dwelling and an existing deeded right-of-way to Edgemont
Road approximately 130 feet in length which has been used for over
70 years as a means of access.He stated that staff feels that it
is the most logical way to access the property.A discussion
followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance.Seconded by
Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
CD
"'¢....-
OJz
:2:
Joel Repp:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Joel Repp to create a
lot without public road frontage for an immediate family member
with the proposed lot not having direct access to an existing
private lane.The property is located on Hicksville Road.The
zoning is Agricultural and the road classification is local.The
property consists of 2 acres with an existing house at the front of
the property.The proposed lot will be to the rear and is to be
conveyed to an immediate family member.There is no existing lane
or access to the rear of the property.Mr.Lung stated that the
owner intends to access the property by extending the driveway to
the existing house back to the proposed lot.He noted there is a
possibility to create a panhandle to this lot however,according to
the applicant,it would be difficult because of the location of the
well and the location of the Potomac Edison transformer.The other
side only has 30 feet from the property line to the corner of the
house,and would require going to the Board of Appeals for a
reduction in the side yard setback.A discussion followed
regarding the actual location of the well and relocating the
transformer.Mr.Spickler stated that he would like to see the
panhandle created for the future because the existing driveway goes
through a carport and feels that a panhandle would eliminate future
problems.Mr.Moser suggested creating the panhandle on the right
side of the property and stated that the transformer could be
moved.Mr.Ernst moved to deny the variance request to create a
lot without road frontage.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Schuster Properties:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Schuster Properties,
Inc.He stated that the applicant is requesting to use the
simplified plat process in order to transfer ownership to the
developer for nonagricultural purposes.Mr.Lung stated that staff
does not have a problem with the request,but does not have the
authority to approve it.Mr.Moser moved to grant approval to
allow the use of the simplified plat process.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Pemberton.Sections B &C Final Plat and Forest Conservation
Plan:
Mr.Lung presented the final plat and Forest Conservation Plan for
Pemberton,Sections B &C.He stated that the Planning Commission
granted Preliminary Plat approval in July contingent upon written
approval from the Health Department and that;water quality be
addressed per Soil Conservation's request.Mr.Lung stated that
the developer is proposing 23 residential lots off of Beaver Creek
Road.There will be two new streets and the lots will be served by
individual wells and septics.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning
Commission had requested that the developer consider the use of
denitrification septic systemo and encouraged the use of Urban Best
Management Practices and that notes to that effect have been placed
on the plat.He stated that a water quality element has been added
to the storm water management and has been approved by both Soil
Conservation and the Engineering Department.All approvals are in
except written Health Department approval and the Water Resources
Administration Certificate on the plat.
Mr.Lung proceeded to present the Forest Conservation Plan.He
stated that they did a forest stand delineation and that the
worksheet indicates they are required to afforest 6.24 acres.This
will be done on the 16 acre parcel of the remaining lands,which is
considered a high priority planting area.He proceeded to review
the types of trees to be planted and stated that the developer is
proposing a surety in the form of a bond in the amount of
$27,965.52 based on the 6.24 acres at a rate of 10 cents a square
foot.Mr.Lung stated that staff does not have a problem with the
465
466
plan and stated that they just received a revised 2 year management
agreement that they need to review prior to granting approval.He
requested that if the Planning Commission approves the Forest Plan
that they give staff time to review it.Mr.:Ii1oser moved to approve
the Forest Conservation Plan contingent on staff's final approval
of the documents.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.A discussion followed
regarding the note,the entrance and buffers.Mr.Spickler moved
to grant final subdivision approval contingent on placing the WRA
well Certificate on the plat and receipt of the Health Department's
final approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Dan Weaver:
Mr.Arch presented the subdivision plat for Dan Weaver.The
property is located on Royer Road in Cascade.The property
consists of two tracts (two lots)of land totalling 1.79 acres.
The owner is proposing to create a third lot.The property is
zoned Residential Rural and will be served by public water and
sewer.There are no wetlands or flood plains on the site.All
agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed.Mr.
Moser moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by
Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Site Plans:
BFI -Materials Recovery Facility:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Browning Ferris,Inc.'s
proposed materials recovery facility at the existing operation on
MD Route 63.The zoning is Highway Interchange.The entire site
contains 40+acres.The plan is for the construction of a
100'x 150'building along with an 60'x 20'office and truck
scale.The use of the main building is for a materials recovery
facility.Mr.Lung stated that a zoning appeal was granted for a
special exception in September to allow a material recovery
facili ty on the site.There will be no increase in employees
however 10 new parking spaces have been added.The existing
entrance will be used and improvements will be made per State
Highway requirements.Mr.Lung proceeded to explain the
landscaping and storm water management and noted that there is a
footprint for future expansion shown on the plan.The site will be
served by public water and sewer.Mr.Lung stated that one item
not addressed is the requirement in the HI zoning to hold at least
a 75 foot buffer when the property is adjacent to a lot occupied by
a dwelling,schools,institution or places of human care.Mr.Lung
stated that they will need to check into that and establish a 75
foot buffer yard and provide screen planting.The Planning
Commission can establish a larger buffer.He stated that it is
staff's opinion that if they provide screening,that a 75 foot
buffer would be adequate.A discussion followed regarding the
school in the area,the current operation,future expansion and
buffering.Mr.Lung stated that the owner needs to verify that
there are residences on the adjacent property.Mr.Spickler stated
that the 75 foot buffer with screening should be adequate now,
however any future expansion would require review by the Commission
for possible additional requirements.Mr.Lung stated they are
waiting for written approval from State Highway and staff's review
of the screening for the buffer.Mr.Bowers moved to grant site
plan approval contingent upon receipt of all outstanding agency
approvals.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Gil Hunt:
Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Gil Hunt.The property is
located on the north side of Mt.Aetna Road between the Dual
Highway and Antietam Creek.The property consists of 1.5 acres and
has an existing house.The zoning is Business General.Mr.Hunt
is proposing to convert the home to senior assisted living.There
will be 15 residents and 9 bedrooms.The property will be
<0
"¢,....
(Q
z
:2:
connected to public water and sewer.Mr.Goodrich stated that they
will utilize the current access and that the gravel area will be
reconfigured,turned into 8 parking spaces and will be paved.The
property will be fenced.All agency approvals have been received.
Mr.Goodrich stated that staff has provided comments to the
consultant and proceeded to review them.One was the location of
the sign,which does not meet the zoning Ordinance standards
regarding setback from the street and will be corrected.He stated
that staff expressed concern regarding delivery vehicles being able
to turn around and go down the driveway,which is steep.The
consultant stated there will be no large delivery vehicles.Mr.
Iseminger expressed concern regarding emergency vehicles being able
to turn around.A discussion followed regarding space for a turn
around.Mr.Frederick,consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and
Associates stated that they will look at the parking/turn around
area issue and will address them.A discussion followed regarding
buffering.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan approval
contingent on staff approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So
ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rezoning Recommendation -Gerald Spessard (RZ-94-06):
Mr.Lung stated he had nothing to add to the staff report following
the public hearing.Upon review and discussion of the proposed
rezoning case,staff report and testimony of the September 20,1994
public hearing,Mr.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the property owned by Gerald Spessard be
rezoned from Business Transitional to Business Local based on the
staff's findings of fact and based on the Commission's opinion that
the applicant proved that a change in the character of the
neighborhood had occurred and that the request is appropriate and
logical.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Moser
abstained.So ordered.
Rezoning Recommendation -Text Amendment (RZ-94-04):
Mr.Arch reviewed the changes made to the proposed text amendment.
Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that
they adopt RZ-94-04 with the proposed changes.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered.
Lehmans Mill Road.Lot 4 -Forest Conservation Plan:
Mr.Goodrich presented the Forest Conservation Plan for Lehmans
Mill Road,Lot 4.He stated that the Seller and the Purchaser have
chosen to do the afforestation on site.Approximately 4/10 of an
acre will need to be planted.They are proposing to plant 42 trees
ranging from 2 to 5 feet in size and an easement will be provided
for access.The proposed bond amount is equal to the cost of the
plant materials,which is $342.00.Mr.Goodrich stated that staff
recommends that the bond amount be increased since the purpose of
the bond is for the County to have the resources to plant the trees
if the developer does not follow through.Mr.Goodrich suggested
that the bond be more than just the cost of the trees and asked the
Planning Commission to require that it include labor costs as well.
Everything else on the plan is in order.A discussion followed
regarding using the payment in lieu of rate of 10 cents a square
foot to determine the bond amount.Mr.Moser moved to approve the
Forest Conservation Plan with the condition that the bond amount be
based on 10 cents per square foot.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.Further discussion followed.
467
468
Preliminary Consultation -FB-1 Limited Partnership:
Mr.Goodrich presented the preliminary consultation for FB-1
Limited Partnership,which was held on October 4,1994.The
property is located on the north side of Maugans Avenue west of
I-81.The site contains 51 acres and is zoned Highway Interchange.
The developer is proposing to create 15 single family lots,252
townhouse lots and 9.5 acres for future commercial and/or
residential development.
Mr.Goodrich said that the staff is seeking direction from the
Commission on two issues,the design of the public road system and
notes on plats and deeds regarding proximity to the Washington
County Regional Airport.The Engineering Department,the
Maugansville Fire Company and the Planning staff have all suggested
an interconnection of the roads in the two sections of the
development.The fire company and the Planning staff have further
suggested a continuous loop road through the rear of the western
section rather than the three cul-de-sacs shown.The Engineering
Department will not approve the road connection to Sunrise Drive
because the existing right of way is only 40 feet wide.The
Engineering Department and SHA will also require a traffic study.
Mr.Iseminger indicated the Planning Commission has consistently
supported the interconnection of streets and developments for
safety and convenience reasons.
With regard to the airport,the Planning staff and Airport Manager
expressed concerns for this type of development in close proximity
to the airport and the effects of noise on residents.Mr.Shoop
recommended notes on plats and deeds to advise all future owners.
It was noted that previous development proposals have been required
to have the notes on deeds and plats.
Mr.Goodrich highlighted other suggestions the Planning staff made
for the development such as using the required forest planting as
buffering between differing land uses,against the interstate and
as stream buffers,a pedestrian system within the development and
connection to the Maugansville Elementary School.He also
indicated that the developer had been advised of the section of the
Zoning Ordinance that allows use of innovative design techniques.
The developer was encouraged to use this section and the staff
offered ideas,in addition to those previously mentioned,such as
building orientation toward a community focal point and common
areas,encouraging pedestrians and de-emphasizing the automobile by
providing a walkway system and exploring reduced street design
requirements and par.king and auto access to the rear of the
properties rather than in the front.At this point Mr.Arch
commented that the historic aspects of the existing community of
Maugansville should also be factored into any site design.Mr.
Goodrich added that if the Planning Commission did not indicate
disagreement with the staff comments,concurrence would be assumed
and the staff would look for the suggested changes on future plan
submittals.
During the discussion that followed the Commission's concern for
adequate buffers along the interstate,stormwater management on
site,discharge to the school property and students walking to the
school were all mentioned.
The subjects of sidewalks,buffers and landscaping led Mr.Ernst to
indicate that developers have expressed concern and frustration for
the lack of specificity in the Zoning Ordinance regarding these
items.Other Commission members indicated that in the past this
has been viewed as flexibility.Mr.Arch reminded the Commission
that the Zoning Ordinance is over twenty years old and was written
for the more rural community of that time.It's flexible approach
may no longer be appropriate for the more urban Washington County
of today.
The lengthy discussion continued regarding the "flexible vs
specific"issue and included the preliminary consultation process
and a previous agreement with the City of Hagerstown regarding the
CD..q
,..-
o:Jz
:2:
requirement of sidewalks in developments of a certain density.
Messrs.Iseminger,Spickler and Moser all encouraged the staff to
prepare an appropriate list,plan or proposal to address this and
related concerns for the Commission's review at a future meeting.
To address the current proposal by FB-One Limited partnership the
Commission,by consensus,agreed and advised the consultant and the
applicant that they had the choice of using the section of the
Zoning Ordinance that allowed the use of innovative design concepts
where it could be shown that there will be no adverse effects on
adjacent properties (any new designs would have to be approved by
the Planning Commission)or follow the standard and specific
guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance.The Commission
indicated a preference for innovation but cannot require it.
Work Program:
Mr.Arch referred to the copy of the work program he passed out.
Re stated it is similar to what they had last year.Mr.Spickler
moved to adopt the work program as presented.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.So ordered .
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
"
469
470
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 5,1994
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting
on Monday,December 5,1994 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on
the second floor of the County Administration Building.
Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice
Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Robert
E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.
Arch,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Eric Seifarth,James P.
Brittain 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.
NEW BUSINESS:
Agricultural Districts:
Mr.Seifarth briefly reviewed the County's Ag Preservation Program.
A discussion followed regarding the program,the number of farms
currently in the program,problems with funding and the funding
provided by the State and county.Mr.Iseminger stated for the
record that he felt that the Commissioners should allocate the
funds necessary for the Ag Advisory Board to obtain these
easements.Mr.Moser agreed.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler
said he felt it was premature to take action on it at this time.
Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Seifarth to extend an invitation to the
Agricultural Advisory Board to meet with the Planning Commission to
discuss funding of the easements further.
Mr.Seifarth presented two applications for agricultural land
preservation districts:H.Marie Rinehart (AD-94-08 241.64 acres)
andH.Marie Rinehart (AD-94-09 120.41 acres).Mr.Spickler moved
that the Planning Commission recommend to the County Commissioners
to approve the application for H.Marie Rinehart (AD-94-08)because
it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
County Commissioners to approve the application for H.Marie
Rinehart (AD-94-09)because it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan for Washington County.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Variances:
Colonial Park East:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Colonial Park East.
He explained that Home Construction Corporation is requesting to
use the simplified plat process to subdivide a 9.59 acre parcel for
nonagricultural purposes.He stated that this parcel will
eventually be Colonial Park East Section C.At this point they
wish to record a plat showing this section in its entirety.Mr.
Jack Byers,President of Home Construction Corporation,the owner
proceeded to explain the history of the property and the reason for
the variance.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant
the variance.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
CD
~...-
CO
Z
~
Danny and Sharon Blickenstaff:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Danny and Sharon
Blickenstaff to use the simplified plat process in order to create
a lot for agricultural purposes only.The proposed lot is less
than 3 acres and the Ordinance states that if the simplified plat
process is used to convey land for Agricultural purposes it must be
3 acres or more.The total acreage of the property is 5.25 acres
and is zoned Agriculture.The property is located along the east
side of MD Route 63 near Huyetts Crossroads and is currently a
Christmas tree farm.The owner wishes to separate it from his home
for estate planning purposes.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser
moved to approve the variance request.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.
Tony R.and Cynthia L.Hollis:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Tony and Cynthia
Hollis.The variance request is from Section 405.11.G.1 and 5
pertaining to panhandles.The owner is proposing to create a new
residential lot utilizing an existing panhandle that was previously
restricted by the Planning Commission for farm use only and being
413 feet long and 20 feet wide at its narrowest point.The
property is located on the west side of Wheeler Road and is zoned
Agriculture.Mr.Lung explained that Mr.and Mrs.Hollis own a 12
acre lot that was created in 1990,the original developer of the
land also subdivided lots along Wheeler Road in the mid 70's and
created a panhandle to the 75 acres of remaining land.In 1990 a
subdivision plat was submitted to create this 12 acre parcel and at
that time they requested a variance to create a new,second
panhandle for access because of its location to the proposed house.
Mr.Lung stated that the variance was granted with the stipulation
that the original panhandle could only be utilized as a farm
access.He stated that in 1990 the Engineering Department checked
the site distance and suitability of this access to be used as
residential access and determined that either one were acceptable
accesses for this property.Mr.Lung stated that the Hollis'wish
to create a new 4 acre building lot and utilize the original
panhandle.No further subdivision of this property will be
possible.A discussion followed regarding the farm lane.Mr.
Spickler moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
A vote was taken.Mr.Spickler,Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton voted
aye.Mr.Bowen and Mr.Moser voted nay.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Magic Tunnel Car Wash:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Magic Tunnel Car Wash.
The property is located on the east side of Eastern Boulevard south
of Food Lion.The proposed use is for an automatic and self-serve
carwash.The property is zoned BG (Business General).The
facili ty will be used 24 hours a day.Mr.Lung proceeded to
explain the lighting,parking,traffic flow,storm water management
and landscaping.The site will be served by water and sewer
(provided by the City).All agency approvals are in.Mr.Spickler
moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So
ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
St.James Village North -Final Development Plan:
Mr.Brittain presented the final development plan for St.James
Village North.He stated that the preliminary development plan was
before the Commission in July and at that time there were several
items that staff had asked for;a)encourage additional circulation
through the open space and b)revise the Plan to move certain
intersections into other phases,all of which have been done.
471
472
Mr.Brittain proceeded to review the items required in the final
development plan stage as follows:1)Satisfy all agreements
necessary between the County and the developer regarding
maintenance of open space.This matter is addressed by the Home
Owners Association documents which the County Attorney has reviewed
and approved;2)Finalize any agreements necessary for the
construction and maintenance of off site and on site improvements.
With the adoption of the APFO this matter will be reviewed during
the subdivision and site plan review stage;3)In regards to
public water and sewer both agencies supplying the services have
signed off.The criteria for addressing stormwater management
concerns have been addressed and specific designs will be completed
during the development review phase;and 4)Traffic Impact Study
was reviewed by the County Engineer and State Highway
Administration and approved with certain conditions.Mr.Brittain
stated that the firm of Street Traffic Studies did the TIS and that
State Highway agrees with the study.The County Engineer granted
approval of the TIS and the development plan with a recommendation
that a signal warrant analysis be done at the completion of phase
2 and all phases thereafter for the intersections at Lyles Drive
and Rt.65 and College Road and Rt.65.Mr.Townsley,consultant,
of Fox and Associates stated he did not see a problem with that.
A discussion followed regarding the other proposed developments in
the area and the impact they may have on the traffic,the traffic
study and what it included and the County Engineer's request for
the signal warrant analysis.Mr.Brittain stated that the State
Highway Administrations'position is that Oak Ridge at Rt.65 and
Rench Road\Poffenburger Road at MD 65 be improved by the developer.
The County Engineer stated that the APFO does not give his office
the authority to mandate the improvements.The Planning Commission
and Planning staff face similar constraints as administrators of
the Ordinance.Further discussion followed regarding having the
different developers in the area be responsible for road
improvements and traffic problems in the area.Mr.Arch stated for
the record that even though additional off site traffic
improvements are not being required at this point,that the door is
still left of open because approved developments (not yet built)
may face future requirements.A discussion followed regarding
being more specific with the developers,alerting developers during
the process of potential problems down the road,the highway plan
and potential problems caused by the build out of the subdivisions
in that area.
Mr.Brittain stated that Health Department's approval is
outstanding.They will sign off once the water and sewer agencies
approval have been forwarded to their department.Mr.Bowen moved
to approve the final development plan contingent on the signal
warrant analysis being completed after each phase starting with
Phase 2 and Health Department approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.
So ordered.After a discussion regarding the homeowners
association and how they work in general,Mr.Iseminger requested
that the County Attorney,Ralph France attend one of the Planning
Commission meetings to discuss homeowners associations.
Van Lear Manor,Section 13 -One Year Recordation Extension:
Mr.Arch explained that the two year time period for an approved
plan to be recorded is up and that the developer is requesting an
extension of one year.Mr.Ernst moved to grant an extension of
one year.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.
Summary of Issues:
Mr.Arch referred to the memo he passed out regarding issues
brought up at previous Planning Commission meetings.He said that
he felt the review of these issues should be done at a workshop
meeting.After a discussion,it was the consensus of the
Commission to hold a workshop meeting on the 4th Monday of each
CD..q-
,.-
(D
z
~
month from 6:30 p.m.to 8:00 p.m.starting in February.A
discussion followed regarding some of the issues outlined in the
memo.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
473