Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 Minutes474 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 9,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 9,1995 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 EX-Officio;James R.Wade.Staff:Director; Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;James P.Brittain,Lisa Pietro, Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Robert E.Ernst,II. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of November 7,1994. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes of December 5,1994. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch stated that under Other Business,Kelbly APFO determination for Dellinger Road was being withdrawn.He requested that two items be added to the agenda.One under Other Business,Mr.Mark Michael,which is a request for a waiver from the 5 year immediate family member provision and the other under Variances -South Pointe PUD Phase 1, which is a request to use the simplified plat procedure to eliminate a recorded plat.Mr.Moser moved to add the two items to the agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Frank McKee: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Frank McKee.The property is located on the west side of White Hall Road approximately 2800 feet north of its intersection with Beaver Creek Road and is zoned Agriculture.The request is from Section 405.11 B of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires that all newly subdivided lots shall have a minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage.The owner is proposing to subdivide the 3.5 acre site, into two lots and is accessed by a 980 foot panhandle.One half is to be conveyed to his granddaughter and he will retain the remaining land.Mrs.Pietro stated that Engineering informed her that site distance at this point is adequate. Mr.McKee briefly spoke.He explained that when he sold his farm in the late 70's he retained the 3.5 acre lot with the intention that it stay in the family.His granddaughter wishes to build on the property but does not want the entire 3.5 acres.Mr.McKee stated that he would retain the other lot and did not have immediate plans to build on it.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger stated that in order to grant a variance,the applicant must show a hardship.He feels that has not been done and that what is being proposed goes against the Ordinance and noted that the lot was created in 1979 as one lot.A discussion followed regarding whether the property needs to be subdivided at this time since Mr.McKee did not intend-to build at this time.Mr. Iseminger explained to Mr.McKee that his granddaughter could build on the lot and he could hold onto the rest without subdividing.If (,0 --t,.-enz ~ Mr.McKee decides to build in the future,he will have to come back to the Planning Commission to create the other lot.Mr.Moser recommended that Mr.McKee withdraw his variance request,allow his granddaughter to build to the left side of the property and then come back in the future if he intends to build.Mr.Moser stated that under the Ordinance he would have a problem in granting this variance since the hardship presented tonight is self created.Mr. Arch stated that with Roberts Rules of Order it would be easier to deal with a variance request in the future if Mr.McKee withdrew the request than to turn it down.Mr.McKee stated he would wi thdraw his request.Mr.Iseminger asked the Commission if it was their consensus if Mr.McKee wanted to build in the future that they would grant the variance.After discussion it was the consensus not to make a decision until that time.Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance has been withdrawn and that Mr.McKee's granddaughter can build on the lot. Edwin Harold: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Edwin Harold.The property is located on the east side of Sharpsburg Pike south of Keedysville Road and is zoned Agriculture.The request is from Section 405.11 B of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that every lot shall abut a minimum of 25 feet and shall have access to a public road.Mr.Harold wants to purchase 1.5 acres from Mr. Kline (who owns 15 acres).The property is currently occupied by an existing mobile home and a steel building (housing a machine .shop business).Mr.Lung explained that the access to the dwelling and the business is across an existing gravel lane coming off of Sharpsburg Pike.He stated it passes through a lot owned by Samuel Harold (father of the applicant)which has an existing dwelling on it.Mr.Lung referred to the consultant's letter which states that the variance request is due to a safety hazard because of the alignment of the Sharpsburg Pike and that the location of the existing driveway is about the only place that a driveway could be obtained and meet the site distance regulations of the State Highway Administration.Mr.Lung stated that he has been unable to reach the State Highway representative to get a clarification.He also stated that he felt this was a self imposed hardship and suggested that if they do intend to subdivide the property that perhaps there should be a resubdivision of the lot to allow a shared common access in order to prevent potential problems in the future.A discussion followed with Mr.Townsley (consnltant),Mr. Harold and Mr.Cline regarding access,the proposed location of the lot,changing the location of the proposed lot and create a panhandle and adding a note to the plat that there would be no further subdivision.Mr.Spickler suggested that they withdraw the request and reconfigure the existing lot in order to provide road frontage to the new lot.Mr.Townsley noted that they will need a variance for the panhandle.Mr.Arch suggested to the Planning Commission that they give staff the authority to grant a variance on just the panhandle.Mr.Townsley requested to withdraw the variance and asked that the planning Commission consider a variance to create a panhandle in excess of 400 feet and give staff the authori ty to approve it.Mr.Moser moved to grant staff the authority to approve the variance for the panhandle.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Todd Hoffman: Mr.Brittain presented the variance request for Todd Hoffman.He stated that Frederick Seibert's office recently submitted a request for the subdivision of Lot 7.The proposed lot would be created for a mobile home for Mr.Hoffman's father.Mr.Brittain stated that in the review process,he noted that this lot had not been included in the previous consultation.The owner wishes to be granted a variance from the Preliminary Consultation requirement. Mr.Brittain stated the property owner does not foresee any further subdivision but if additional development is proposed the staff 475 476 will request a concept plan.Mr.Moser moved to approve the variance.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. South Pointe PUD: Mr.Arch presented the request for South Pointe PUD.The owner is requesting to use the simplified plat process to record a plat to eliminate previously recorded parcels and streets since he does not plan to do anything with this property at this time.The owner will replat it at a later date.Mr.Arch stated that since this is a PUD,he felt the Planning Commission should require the following:1)Add a statement that any significant deviation in the future would require a revised development plan being submitted to the Planning Commission,2)Future revisions could subject the PUD to comply with all applicable regulations in effect at that time, 3)That this action pertains only to vacating the interests the County has in the open space and streets and any private vested interest in these areas must be addressed by the applicant as needed. The consultant,Mr.Townsley,stated that the owner intends to comply with the PUD but does not plan to do anything in 5 years and that the purpose of this action is to save on taxes at this time. He stated that the developer plans to come back in 5 years and replat a little differently (less lots)but the streets will be the same.Mr.Townsley stated that the owner will probably go with one story homes instead of townhouses.Mr.Moser asked if they drop the lot lines and the developer comes back in 5 years would he be impacted by the traffic study and Forest Conservation Ordinance. Mr.Arch stated that if the developer comes back in 5 years with substantial changes,then they will have to submit a revised development plan to the Commission and would have to comply with any ordinances on the books.He further stated that if the developer comes back with basically the same design,only with a fewer number of lots then he would not be required to revise the traffic study and would be grandfathered from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance with the 3 conditions that Mr.Arch previously mentioned.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Subdivisions: Goodes Haven: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for 4 single family residential lots located on the northwest side of Durberry Road. The zoning is Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that this is the second phase of Goodes Haven.He stated that the first section was approved by the Commission in August 1994 and at that time the owner asked the Commission for their input regarding future development and that the Commission gave the go ahead for 4 additional lots along Durberry Road.The lots range in size from l+acres to 1.75 acres.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics and have been approved by the Health Department. Each lot will have its own driveway access onto Durberry Road and in order to meet the requirements of the APFO the developer was required to improve sections of Durberry Road to be 18 feet in width,which has been recently completed.He stated that Engineering Department has approved the plat.A forest conservation plat for the entire development was approved when the first section was approved.Mr.Lung stated that there were additional items discussed between the developer and the Planning Commission at the August meeting when the first 4 lots were approved.He stated that these 4 lots have been approved by the Health Department using conventional septic systems.He stated there had been discussion about using denitrification septic systems and on this particular site and location,the Health Department believes that denitrification septic systems are not necessary to protect the integrity of the stream.The developer has put notes on the plat regarding the use of Urban Best (0 ~,- CD Z ~ Management practices both for lawn and septic systems.Mr.Lung stated there was also mention during that meeting regarding a hydrogeologic study.At that time the Planning Commission did not feel that a hydrogeologic study was necessary for 8 lots.The developer had stated that he would place on the previously approved 4 lots,notification to purchasers indicating that intensive agricultural activities will be going on in the area and that he would place these notices in the deeds for the lots.Mr.Lung feels that should also apply to these 4 lots.He stated at the August meeting it was suggested that a sign be put on the property notifying potential property owners that this site is located in an intensive agricultural area.He stated that no sign has yet been posted.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung stated that the consultant and developer are present as well as an adjoining neighbor,Bruce Barr who would like to make a brief statement.A discussion followed regarding forestation and road improvements. Mr.Iseminger asked the consultant if he had any problem with carrying over the items Mr.Lung mentioned.Mr.Frederick stated that Mr.Fahey is the new owner/developer and did not know if he was made aware of the mentioned items.A discussion followed.Mr. Frederick stated that the urban best management practices note is on the plat as well as a note that the development is located in a heavy agricultural area.Mr.Fahey stated that he was not aware of having to put a sign on the property.After discussion it was decided that a sign was not necessary.Mr.Barr,an adjoining property owner made a brief statement.He expressed concern with getting enough information to the homeowners so they know what they are getting into as far as the farming that will be going on either side of them and would like to request that they include on the deeds for each lot an information statement incorporating what is on the plat now and be more specific about the practices in the area such as the application of crop protecting chemicals,manure spreading,dust,harvesting,etc.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler stated he was not sure that the Planning Commission has the authority to require information on deeds and feels they do need to look at how to take care of this problem.A discussion followed regarding the concerns expressed by the agricultliral community and requiring additional wording to the deed.Mr.Fahey agreed to include an informational paragraph in the deed for each lot referencing the record plat and stating that this lot is located in an intense agricultural area.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the preliminary/final plat carrying forward the same conditions as the first 4 lots and adding the note in the deed. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Colonial Park East,Section C: Mr.Lung presented the final plat for Colonial Park East,Section C.The property is located east of Route 40 and is zoned Residential Suburban.Section C consists of 29 lots on 7.95 acres. Mr.Lung stated that Engineering has approved the roadway construction drawings and that public water and sewer is provided by the City of Hagerstown.The entire development is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it was submitted prior to the effective date.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Spickler moved to grant final subdivision plat approval.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the simplified plat process used previously on this property. 477 478 Site Plans: Independent Cement: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Independent Cement Corporation.The property is located on Security Road extended, north of CSX Railroad.He stated they are proposing to build a single story office building to serve the existing mineral extraction operation and replace the existing office building.Mr. Lung proceeded to explain the parking,landscaping and lighting. He stated that the site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it is located on an existing lot of record.All approvals are in.Mr.Lung stated that one of the handicapped spaces needs to be reconfigured in order to meet code and add a note regarding how the recyclables will be handled.Mr.Arch stated per the Planning Commission's request,he did receive more plans from ICC showing their plan for the future but they are not all on one plan.He stated it shows the affected area as well as other buildings they may put in over a 5 year period ahd asked if what he presented met the Planning Commission's requirements.Mr. Iseminger stated yes.Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan contingent on adding the recycling note and revise the handicapped space.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Jerry Downs: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the preliminary consultation.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with the staff report. Sun Chemical Corporation: Mr.J"ung stated that Sun Chemical was not required to have a consultation but requested one through the Economic Development Commission so they would know what the County would require of them in their expansion.Mr.Lung stated that there were a couple of items that came up that they were not aware of:1)they will need a special exception for above ground storage tanks and 2)the design presented included truck maneuvering in a County right-of- way,which will need to be redesigned.The Planning Commission did not have anything else to add. OTHER BUSINESS: Mark Michael: Mr.Arch stated that they received a request from Mr.Michael requesting a waiver from the 5 year family member provision.The plat is for a 1 lot subdivision,which was approved July 17,1990. Mr.Michael is requesting the waiver because he is in the process of obtaining a divorce and needs to sell the home in order to keep up with expenses.Mr.Moser moved to grant the waiver from the 5 year family member statement.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch stated there will be a joint rezoning with the Board of County Commissioners on Monday,January 23,1995 at 7:00 p.m.in the Court House,Court Room No.1. Mr.Arch reminded the Commission that there will be a workshop meeting prior to the February 6,1995 regular meeting.There will be a presentation at 6:00 p.m.by representatives from Anne Arundel County to discuss denitrification septic systems. 479 There will also be a workshop meeting on February 27,1995 at 6:30 p.m.Mr.Arch stated that Shelly Wasserman and Nancy Ancel from State Planning will be talking about 66B and the Commissioners will be invited.Mr.Arch stated that at the March work session the Planning Commission will review a draft of the Environmental Sensitive Area Element. Mr.Arch stated he wants to schedule a meeting with the Airport Commission to address the Airport Preservation issue and will have the final drawings from the GIS system this week.He explained that it incorporates the revised zoning changes from the Highway Interchange study.He stated they will meet with the Airport Commission concerning different approaches which may be used for airport preservation planning purposes.Mr.Arch stated that in February they would like to hold a formal joint hearing on Group II of the Highway Interchange Study. Mr.Arch stated that the Planner II position well as a temporary GIS technician position. be starting on January 23rd. has been filled as Both employees will CD ~...- 0:1 Z :2E Mr.Arch said that the annual report and the forest conservation report have been completed.A discussion followed regarding the issue of a wellhead protection program for Boonsboro,scheduling a meeting with the Agricultural Advisory Board,Group II of the Highway Interchange Study and expanding the GIS system.Mr. Iseminger stated he received a letter from the City of Hagerstown regarding a workshop meeting they will be holding.He stated that t;he Maryland Association of Planners will be having a workshop meeting on January 28,1995 in Frostburg regarding regional issues and takings.Mr.Iseminger suggested having a public meeting with the Planning Commission and department heads to review the Annual Report and past year accomplishments and future needs.A discussion followed regarding the type of format for the meeting. Mr.Arch stated he received an application for a transportation grant and was considering submitting it for the Rt.65 corridor. He stated he is thinking of applying for a specific grant to look at developing an overall plan including a funding scheme between the developers,the County and State.A discussion followed regarding the transportation grant,the potential traffic problems on Sharpsburg Pike and the approved subdivisions along Rt.65, funding for improvements,growth restrictions in the APFO,items to be covered in the upcoming workshop meetings,rezonings and restrictions in other counties. ADJOURNMENT: ~ There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 480 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JANUARY 9,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,January 9,1995 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 EX-Officio;James R.Wade.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present, County Attorney;Ralph France.Absent was Robert E.Ernst,II. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:30 p.m. Homeowners Association Documents: Mr.France,County Attorney,stated he received a memo from Mr. Arch stating that the Planning Commission had some questions regarding the review process of homeowners association documents as well as case law on the power of the Planning Commission regarding access to state highways from Don Spickler.Mr.France stated the only problem he saw with the Planning Commission regulating access to State Highways,would be if they tried to access a state highway and were denied by the State.Mr.France stated that there is nothing specific in the Zoning Ordinance for standards in reviewing the homeowners association documents.He explained that homeowners association documents are articles of incorporation filed in the Circuit Court and with the State Department of Assessment and Taxation.He stated they are bylaws of how the homeowners association will be governed and include the conditions or restrictions which are made public record.Mr.France explained that his review is limited to determining what obligations the homeowners association may be imposing on the County.He further stated that the agreement between the homeowners association and the property owners is private and that the County should not get involved in that.Mr.France explained that if he does see something that he feels is unusual he will contact the attorney who wrote the document. Mr.France referred to a handout regarding property owners associations from Frederick City and stated that he did not know if Washington County has the authority to do the same thing and that he would have to check into that.Mr.Spickler stated that his main concern is with the open space and amenities that are given to the homeowners association for upkeep without having obligations with the County.The Planning Commission wants to know how to insure that the amenities stay in place.Mr.France stated that the homeowners association documents are recorded and a matter of record.He further stated that all documents he has reviewed require a monthly fee to the homeowners association for the maintenance of the open space areas.Mr.Spickler asked when the homeowners association becomes a legal entity.Mr.France stated it is a legal entity as soon as it is accepted by the Department of Assessments and Taxation in Baltimore.A discussion followed regarding when the homeowners association acquires ownership of the property,concern with responsibilities of maintaining open space in a PUD,the number of homeowners associations in the County that have assumed responsibility of the development and whether or not the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to be more specific in the requirements of the homeowners documents.Mr.Arch stated that there should be something in the Ordinance listing the items to be addressed in order to insure consistency of review.Further discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,at 6:45 p.m. rand L:Iseminger,YChairman co..q- ,.- CDz::a: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 6,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday February 6,1995 in the Commissioners meeting room on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Paula Lampton,Bernard Moser,James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Also present,Elmer Weibley and Jim Schlossnagle of Soil Conservation District,Rod MacRae and Dave Barnhart of the Washington County Health Department.Absent was Vice Chairman; Donald L.Spickler. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Mr.Arch at 6:15 p.m.,since the Chairman arrived late. Denitrification Septic Systems: Mr.Barnhart of the Health Department introduced Richard Piluk, Public Health Engineer from Anne Arundel County Health Department. He explained that Mr.Piluk has developed a recycling "denitrification addition to septic systems and is here to explain the process. Mr.piluk stated that he is a public health engineer working for the Anne Arundel Health Department for over 20 years.He briefly reviewed his background and experience.He stated he has been working since 1986 on a nitrogen removal system for individual homes.He proceeded with his slide presentation and spoke about Anne Arundel County and how they are using this technology.He explained that Anne Arundel County has a lot of water front properties and that communities were developed on septic systems. By present day standards a lot of the sites are not suitable for septic systems and public sewer is not available for many of these areas.He stated that because a lot of the sites are not suitable they have failing systems and proceeded to explain the function of the septic system and types of septic tanks.One problem with septic tanks is maintaining a water tight seal.Mr.Piluk stated that years ago in Anne Arundel County when they had failing septic systems they implemented a practice called ground water penetration,whereby they would dig a trench down to the groundwater and allow septic tank effluent be discharged directly into the groundwater without the required 4 foot treatment zone. This was only done in repair situations,when there was an overflowing or backing up septic system and was done at the time with the approval of the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.He stated that on sites where they do not have soils to treat water it is possible to bring material,such as sands to clean up the waste water.He proceeded to show examples of sand filters open to the atmosphere.A problem with this system is that since it is open to the sunlight,it promotes algae growth on the surface of the sand,which creates a clogging and maintenance problem.He proceeded to show samples of effluent taken from a home with the circulating sand filter and one with a standard septic tank.In addition to the difference in color,they found they could remove 98 percent of the BOD (biological oxygen demand),95 percent of suspended solids and about 99 percent of fecal coliform.He noted that the sand filter is not a disinfection unit and there are still bacteria and viruses to be concerned about.He stated they found with the recirculation that they can reduce about 60 percent of the total amount of nitrogen that comes out of the septic tank.The sand filter is about the size of a hot tub and the main concern with the design is odor control.Mr.Piluk said that in many cases he is working with 481 482 small lot areas and needs to put the filters in areas where people congregate,such as decks.He stated what they use is half of a concrete septic tank which contains gravel and sand.He proceeded to show examples of different designs of flow patterns he has been working with.The systems all require one single pump.The system is based on the idea that part of the flow that goes to the sand filter is recirculated back to mix with the septic tank effluent. The recirculating sand filter is a biological nitrogen reducing system.Mr.Piluk stated they are using bacteria in 2 steps to convert ammonia to nitrates then to nitrogen gas.He proceeded to explain the process in detail,the construction of the tank and top,the materials used,elgin end drains (a filtering device), controlling the odors and how the recirculating system works.Mr. Piluk showed several examples of how the denitrification septic system has been used,flow patterns and several examples of location of the system and blending it in with its surrounding.He stated they have found that by cleaning up the wastewater with the sand filter and having cleaner effluent,it is easier to get rid of the sand filter effluent than it is to get rid of the septic tank effluent.They have found that they can work with very shallow, very short drain fields using infiltrators as plastic devices instead of gravel in the trench and keeping the drain field close to the surface.He stated that the sand filter does not take up a lot of room and showed several examples of repair jobs.He said that the sand filter is designed with a pump and a programmable timer which is set to allow the waste water to pump for short periods of time to the sand filter then rest.The reason for the programmable timer is that with a small sand filter in order to maximize the treatment in the sand filter they do not want to pump too much water through at one time because it will not get the treatment.The timer also controls the flow out of the household. By working with the programmable timer,they can allow the water to flow slowly through the system. Mr.Piluk state that Anne Arundel County has developed a policy that will allow owners to do limited additions to their home even though it may not be suitable by present day standards for a septic system,as long as they update their septic systems with the sand filter.They will allow them to add no more than a 50 percent increase in the square footage of the house and no increase in the number of bedrooms.The septic system must be installed prior to receiving a permit for remodeling.Mr.Arch asked if this system can be used for multiple units.Mr.Piluk explained that they use the same size tank for all homes and that they have one where there are 7 or 8 people living in the house,which produces about 350 gallons of water a day.He feels they may not be able to get more than 400 gallons of water a day per unit and that it is typically 50 gallons of water per person per household.All the filters installed in Anne Arundel County are designed by the County Health Department.They do not require professional engineers to design them.There are approximately 150 of these systems in the ground at this time.By using the same size tank and design of sand filter it simplifies the review process without having to drive up the expense.A discussion followed. Mr.piluk stated that they also allow these systems to be used for new construction.They are able to do that because their plumbing code is more restrictive than the State COMAR code when it comes to sizing a septic system.He proceeded to show a sample of expanded shale that he is experimenting with instead of sand and feels it may be better since it is lighter it will be easier to construct the filters. The cost for a sand filter system is approximately $8,000 to $9,000.The average system costs about $4,000 to $5,000.Mr. Piluk stated that by doing pretreatment the system will last longer and reviewed the advantages of the programmable timer and some of the problems he has encountered with septic tanks not being water tight.He stated before using an advanced system,you must be sure that the septic tank is water tight.He gave examples of what can be done if there is a leaking tank such as using french drains and clay.He showed an example of a different design of a tank made in Oregon. must be process. Mr.Piluk stated it is a requirement that all septic tanks water tight and explained the testing and inspection 483 At this point Mr.Piluk took questions from the audience..A discussion followed regarding the price,infiltrators,maintenance of the systems,the benefits of putting the system in areas with good peres,the benefits of the smaller size of the sand filter, the environmental benefits of the sand filter system and other innovative and alternative systems that will be tested in Anne Arundel County. ADJOURNMENT: CD..q.,.... c::cz ~ There being no further business, ~ rned at 7:30 p.m. ~~<w~ Iseming~r,Chairman 484 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 6,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 6,1995 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,Ex-Officio;James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen, IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch, Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planner;Timothy A. Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of January 9,1995.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of January 9,1995.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch asked to add Group II of the Highway Interchange Study under Other Business.Mr.Ernst moved to add the item to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Moser. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Charles and Letitia Gardner: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Charles and Letitia Gardner.The property is located on the west side of Hilltop Road south of Maryland Route 550 in the Highfield-Blue Ridge Summit area and is zoned Residential Rural.The request is from Section 405.11.G 3 and 5,which states that no more than two panhandles can be located side by side and that panhandle length shall not exceed 400 feet.Mr.Lung explained that the property contains a total of 26 acres.Public water and sewer is available.Mr.Lung referred to the plat and noted that part of the property is in Frederick County.He stated that he has been working in conjunction with Frederick County and the consultant to determine the County line and that this has been done.The developer is proposing to create 4 lots in Washington County.Mr.Lung explained that part of the property has access to Water Company Road,the County Engineer has determined that it is inadequate and will not approve any new lots accessing it.He stated that both the County Engineer and Frederick County encourages the proposed design.Mr.Lung stated that the request is based on the configuration of the property.He stated that there are 4 panhandles,side by side and that there is a clump of trees near the north property line that will need to be cleared for sight distance.Mr.Iseminger asked if some of the accesses will be shared.Mr.Lung stated they will encourage the use of two common accesses instead of 4 separate driveways.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance request with a condition that the clump of trees near the north property line be removed for sight distance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. CD..q ,.- COz ::2 Subdivisions: Walnut Point Heights,preliminary Plat and Final Plat Section 1,Lots 1 through 45: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Walnut Point Heights and the final plat for Section 1,Lots 1 through 45.The property is located west of MD Route 63,north of I-70,east of Walnut Point Road.Mr.Lung stated that the property was rezoned to Residential Rural about a year ago.He stated they have a preliminary plat for 183 residential lots on 133 acres.He stated they also have an application for final plat approval on Section 1,Lots 1 through 45.He stated that when the agenda was prepared,all agency approvals were in for the preliminary plat and that on the final plat for Section 1 they had all the approvals except for the County Engineer and State Highway Administration.The County Engineer was waiting until the Soil Conservation Service had signed off on the construction drawings for the stormwater management and roadway construction.Based on information provided by the consultant, they thought that Soil Conservation's review was routine.Mr.Lung stated they learned that the plan had to be routed to the Department of Natural Resources for review due to the type of stormwater management system that was proposed along with the classification of the receiving waters.He was informed by DNR that as part of their review they discovered wetlands on the site both in the stormwater management pond and in an area in Section 1 involving approximately 10 lots and a Section of Azalea Drive. The wetlands will need to be delineated before the Department of Natural Resources will continue their review to determine whether the plan will need to be redesigned.Based on this information,it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission defer any action on both of these plats until they receive more information from DNR.A discussion followed regarding the wetlands,when the delineation would be completed and the shale extraction operation on the front of the property.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Davis,the consultant,that when they come back for approval,to find out how long they will be doing the shale extraction.There was further discussion regarding accessing Walnut Point Road and the condition on the rezoning.Mr.Davis,stated he would speak to the County Engineer regarding Walnut Point Road.Mr.Moser moved to defer action on the preliminary plan and the final plat for Section 1. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Site Plans: Bowman Development Corporation -Trendlines: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Bowman Development Corporation -Trend1ines.The property is located in the Interstate Industrial Park on the northwest side of Governor Lane Boulevard in the Interstate Industrial Park.The property is about 14.5 acres in size and is zoned Planned Industrial.Mr.Goodrich stated that the site contains a 51,000 square foot building.He proceeded to review the location of the building,parking and access road.Trendlines manufactures cabinets.The proposal is to expand the Trendlines building by 39,000 square feet and add 151,000 square feet of warehouse and a truck terminal in two phases.The warehouse facility will be for Bowman Development. Mr.Goodrich explained the location of the parking,the additional parking lot and that there will be a total of 143 employees.The site will be served by public water and sewer. Mr.Goodrich stated that the stormwater management area that exists now is not functioning as well as it could and with the additional development of this site and on the other side of the road,the storm water management pond will need to be rebuilt or retrofitted and that design is going on at this time.Mr.Goodrich referred to the L-shaped piece of property on the plat,which contains a pumping station owned by the Sanitary District.In order to fully utilize the site,part of the access road is on the property owned by the Sanitary District and that there is an arrangement for 485 486 transfer of property from the Sanitary Commission to Bowman.Mr. Goodrich stated there is a subdivision plat under review. Mr.Goodrich stated that all the agencies have responded and that some of them have asked for revisions.During staff review,one comment was made regarding the view from the interstate.He noted that this will be a huge increase in building size and concern was expressed regarding landscaping.The plan proposes a berm planted wi th forsythia.A discussion followed regarding the proposed landscaping and trees in the area.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation will also review this plan and have deed restrictions regarding landscaping that they enforce,but that he had not yet received comments from them and if they do require them it will have to be done whether or not the Commission recommends it.Mr.Iseminger asked the developer if he would consider adding flowering trees such as dogwoods.The developer agreed to do so.A discussion followed regarding the storm water management plan.Mr.Wade moved to grant site plan approval contingent on receipt of outstanding agency approvals. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Gil Hunt: Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Hunt is asking to revise his previously approved site plan of November 7,1994.The property is located alongMt.Aetna Road.The approved site plan is for an assisted care facility and shows that it will be served by public water. ~r.Hunt is requesting to revise the site plan to be served by a private well.Mr.Lung stated that the County Water and Sewer Plan classifies this property as W-l which means that public water is available or under construction.According to the Hagerstown Water Department,the existing line ends about 350 feet from the corner of the site.Water line extension plans to extend an 8 inch line from that point were approved,but upon receiving estimate~,Mr. Hunt determined that it would be cost prohibitive and would rather serve the site with a well.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the W-l classification requirements regarding interim water systems.Mr. Lung noted that this area has been classified W-1 for some time. In addition to this parcel,there are 4 unimproved lots and about 2 single family dwellings that are not currently served by public water.The rest of the area is served by public water.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission needs to make a determination of whether or not service is available and allow to built the well. Mr.Lung said that he spoke to Dave Barnhart of the Health Department who told him that the only way to determine if a well can adequately serve this property is for them to drill a test well,test the water and see if it is usable.Mr.Lung stated one question raised concerned fire protection.In talking to the Water Department an individual well can be constructed to meet code requirements for fire protection.Mr.Moser asked if what he is telling the Commission is that water is available and it is a question of economics.Mr.Arch stated that in the City CIP the Water Department project an extension of the line in 1999 and at that time all residences will be charged a fee to hook up.Mr. Lung stated in the Water and Sewer Plan the W-3 classification applies to situations where water is projected in the CIP and feels this may apply and that this is an odd situation since a 2 inch line did serve the property at one time.A discussion followed. Mr.Lung stated that an adjacent property owner has indicated that he would pay 1/6 of the fee.Mr.Hunt is approximately 350 feet from the 8 inch line and it would cost approximately $51,000 to $81,000 to extend the line up to the house.Mr.Iseminger feels they should be able to negotiate with the City or when it goes to the CIP recoup their loss.A discussion followed regarding comments from the City.Mr.Iseminger stated he does not see how they can approve a well in the Urban Growth Area.He asked if the Planning Commission could speak to the City on behalf of Mr.Hunt to try to resolve something by the March meeting.Mr.Moser moved to defer approval of the revised site plan until the March meeting. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. c:.o """",.- CCl Z ~ JRA Executive Air Hangar II: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for JRA Executive Air Hangar II. The property is located at the airport and contains 1.1 acres.The zoning is AP.The hangar is being built by the County and will be leased to JRA.Both the Engineering Department and Soil Conservation have signed off.Paul Prodonovich had some comments regarding labeling and signing for the handicapped spaces. Stormwater management will be handled as part of the airport.Mr. Arch reviewed the parking,lighting and landscaping.The hours of operation will be from 8:00 a.m.until 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday with approximately 10 employees.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Maugans Meadows: Mr.Lung reviewed his memo in the agenda packet.He stated that sometime ago the Planning Commission allowed the Express Procedure for two additional lots in Maugans Meadows.The subdivision is located south of the Village of Maugansville on the west side of Maugansville Road.Mr.Lung explained that when the two previous lots were approved,the developer replatted the originally approved lots and reconfigured the lot lines to get additional lots.The zoning is Agricultural which allows for 20,000 square foot minimum lot size.Public water and sewer is available.The original subdivision was approved prior to the Forest Conservation Ordinance but the reconfiguration of lot lines invokes the Forest Conservation requirements.Mr.Lung stated that the developer would like to use the Express Procedure,which allows a payment in lieu of afforestation for up to 5 lots.Mr.Lung stated that the developer has already been granted the use of the Express Procedure for 2 lots.He referred to the agenda packet and explained that Site 1 involves the reconfiguration of 5 lots to yield 1 additional lot at the end of Scarlet Sage Court.Site 2 involves the reconfiguration of 6 lots to yield an additional 2 lots.Mr.Lung stated that the Forest Conservation Ordinance states that when priority areas are involved,the use of the Express Procedure must be approved by the Planning Commission.Site 1 does not contain any priority areas.Site 2 does contain wetlands and hydric soils and an intermittent stream.Mr.Lung stated that the developer has received permits from the Corp of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources for working in the wetlands and to cross the stream and grading work.A discussion followed.Concern was expressed by the Planning Commission for Site 2 regarding creating additional lots in the wetlands areas and that was the reason for the creation of larger lots.They did not have a problem with Site 1.Mr.Arch stated that the request for Site 1 can be approved by Staff since it does not contain any sensitive areas.Mr.Moser moved to deny the request for the use of the Express Procedure for payment in lieu of for Site 2 due to the sensitive area.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: William Boddicker -Reguest for Clarification of Section 405.11.B.1: Mr.Arch presented the request from Fred Frederick of Frederick, Seibert and Associates for clarification of Section 405.11.B.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance and proceeded to review it.He explained that the request is in regards to whether a farm lane can be used to create a lot for an immediate family member without road frontage.Mr.Boddicker is the contract purchaser of a 41 acre parcel located off of MD Rt.67.He would like to subdivide the property into 4 lots (3 lots and the remaining lands with the existing house for himself).Mr.Frederick made his presentation 487 488 and explained that these lots would all be for immediate family members.He stated that he spoke to State Highway and was informed that they will allow up to 5 lots off a private drive.Mr.Lung stated that John Wolford told him they want to see lots access at one point.After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger stated that the Section 405.11.B.1 of the Ordinance is for farmers who want to subdivide their farm.He further stated that he did not have a problem with granting a variance to subdivide 4 lots without public road frontage with no further subdivision.Mr.Iseminger suggested that they come back with a variance request at the workshop meeting scheduled for February 27,1995. Auction Square,Boonsboro (Septic System Location Off Site): Mr.Arch stated that this is a subdivision of the Auction Square property in Boonsboro,where the Boonsboro Flea Market and Hollis Country Restaurant are located.The owner wants to subdivide the property because he is selling the restaurant and is requesting to locate the septic system on the remaining lands.Mr.Frederick, consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates stated that the Health Department is requesting a 20,000 square foot septic reserve area and explained that this is the only area where it can be placed.Mr.Frederick stated that there will be a note on the subdivision plat stating that when water and sewer are available that they must connect and that the proposed area will be reserved until public water and sewer serves the site.He stated that the reason they located the septic system on the remainder of the property is that it is the only area they could get a perc.A discussion followed regarding the availability of water and sewer to the site.Mr.Wade moved to approve the request to locate the septic system off site with the stipulation that they will hook up to water and sewer when it is available.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Group II -Hiqhway Interchange: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the changes made in Group II of the Highway Interchange Study.He stated that if the Commission is in agreement,he will present the proposed changes to the Commissioners tomorrow at their regular meeting and that they will hold a joint meeting on March 13th.Mr.Moser moved to proceed with Group II.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting ad' 489 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 27,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,February 27,1995 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,Bernard Moser,Ex- Officio James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II. Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Absent was Bernard Moser.Also present were:R.Lee Downey,County.Commissioner;Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections;Reno S.Powell and Donna M.Smith,Board of Appeals and Bill Atkinson,Maryland Office of Planning. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:00 p.m. 1992 Planning Act: Mr.Iseminger explained that the speakers scheduled to discuss 66B, the Enabling Legislation,were unable to attend and will have to reschedule.He stated that Bill Atkinson of the Maryland Office of Planning was present to discuss the 1992 Planning Act. Mr.Atkinson explained that since the creation of the Planning Act of 1992,that the majority of jurisdictions are complying with it with the exception of a few cities.The Planning Act outlined certain guidelines that the jurisdictions would have to follow for the future.The main one is the adoption of new Comprehensive Plans by 1997.In updating the Comprehensive Plan,the plan would have to be looked at to see what needs to be changed,amended or adopted in order to make it comply with the Growth Act and with what the jurisdiction sees as its future as well as to make sure that all the data is updated.Mr.Atkinson added that a lot of things in the plan may already meet the requirements of the Planning Act.He stated that the Planning Act incorporated the 7 visions and requires that the Comprehensive Plan will contain a Sensitive Area Element.The Sensitive Area Element outlines that the following 4 sensitive areas will be protected by the law: floodplains,streams and their buffers,habitat of endangered species and steep slopes.Mr.Atkinson briefly reviewed how these areas are being addressed by the different jurisdictions.He stated that once the plan is adopted by the local municipality it then goes to the Office of Planning to insure it meets the minimum requirements of the law.The State does offer assistance and the amount of funding received is based on population.Mr.Atkinson stated that some of the counties are doing their plans in house and some are u:sing consultants ..He proceeded to review what some of the towns are doing.A discussion followed regarding the County planning and zoning maintaining a relationship with the neighboring towns.Mr.Arch stated that the Office of Planning requested that the County provide some additional assistance to the towns with maps and that they have maps from the Department of Planning on the GIS that shows the streams and rough boundary.In addition,they will be providing them with flood plain maps,and endangered species data.This work should be completed within 30 to 60 days. A discussion followed. Mr.Spickler asked if 66B will be updated.Mr.Atkinson stated yes and that a subcommittee from the State Planning Commission is looking at it and they are getting input from the different towns and counties and will make a staff recommendation to the State's Planning Commission.Mr.Iseminger noted they are still in the first stage of the process.A discussion followed regarding 490 updating the Comprehensive Plan and the review process.Mr.Arch stated that based on the recommendation of the Planning Act,they will be addressing the 4 issues required by law as well as a 5th issue which deals with the special planning areas already identified in the Comprehensive Plan.He feels they may expand to a 6th one -well head protection because of the situation in Boonsboro.Mr.Arch mentioned that last fall the Planning Commission endorsed and the County Commissioners authorized participation with the Geological Survey in a karst geological study.A discussion followed regarding ARC funding,which may be eliminated and the fate of the project. Mr.Downey asked how the County was handling their Comprehensive Plan update.Mr.Arch said they are updating some data now and are incorporating the Environmental Sensitive Areas and hope to have a public hearing by mid summer.They intend to incorporate the 7 visions and since they have the growth areas in place they do not have to do a rewrite.The other major area of deficiency is the transportation plan which is being addressed through the transportation study.The final element of that study will not be compiled until late 1995 or early 1996.Mr.Arch stated they will look at some of the goals and objectives.He stated there will be land use maps showing growth over the next 20 years based on projections.A discussion followed regarding comprehensive zonings done by other counties and Washington County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Spickler asked Mr.Atkinson what he thinks will happen to the visions that did not get approved from the 2020 act.Mr.Atkinson stated he is not sure if they have enough data to say whether anything in the Planning Act needs to be changed.He stated they hopefully will see where municipalities and jurisdictions have found it easy to follow the Planning Act and where there are some problems.He does not see it coming to the 2020 legislation by putting in any restrictions.They are finding that the jurisdictions are doing it on their own.He stated that part of the legislation states that if they do not have a plan adopted by 1997 and do not have measures for protecting the sensitive areas, the State will have -a plan ready for them and that will become their measure for protecting the sensitive areas by 1997.He stated that after 1997 they will look at the legislation and see where the caps are.He stated that it was intended to be a guide to make the jurisdictions look at themselves again.He stated many of them had adopted a plan in 1973 and never looked at it again. He stated many of the jurisdictions are getting creative on their own and that is what it was intended to do.A discussion followed regarding what the other counties are doing,recorded subdivisions not yet developed and 66B. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:45 pm. c.o..q,..... CCI Z ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 6,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 6,1995 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,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst, II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. 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 the workshop meeting of February 6,1995.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Gil Hunt: Mr.Lung stated that no new information had been made available since the last meeting and briefly reviewed the request.He explained that when the site plan was originally approved it was to be served by public water.The developer has learned that it would be cost prohibitive to hook up to the water line at this time and is requesting to be allowed to have a well serve the property until the City extends the line.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the Water and Sewer classification and the authority which allows the Commission to permit a well in a case like this.Mr.Lung stated that the Water Department will not allow Mr.Hunt to reconnect to the 2 inch line and that they informed him that the extension of the 8 inch line is projected for 1999 in their CIP.A discussion followed regarding allowing a Group home to operate on a well in the Urban Growth Area and testing the water quality of the well. Mr.Hunt stated that the water is tested every year by the Commission on Aging.Mr.Ernst moved,due the circumstances in this case,to allow the well to be used with the condition that any development activity on the adjoining lots owned by Mr.Hunt would require him to hook up to public water,or when the water line is extended or by 1999 that he hook up to water,whichever comes first and that the well will be tested on a quarterly basis.If the well fails,Mr.Hunt will be required to abandon it and hook up to public water.A discussion followed.The motion was seconded by Mr.Spickler.Further discussion followed.Mr.Lung stated he contacted the Health Department and was informed they cannot comment on the water quality until the well is drilled and tested. He spoke to Dave Barnhart of the Health Department,who suggested that they go ahead with a test well and if the water passes they can turn it into a production well.Mr.Iseminger stated if the water does not test out,then Mr.Hunt will have to hook up to the water line.He stated they may not drill another well and that approval will be contingent upon the Health Department approving the well.Mr.Iseminger reviewed the motion.They will allow the use of a well but at such time that someone else extends the public water line,or if the City extends it,or if there is development or subdivision activity on the adjacent lots Mr.Hunt owns or 1999, whichever comes first or if the well fails he will be required to hook up to the public water.A vote was taken.Mr.Bowen,Mr. Spickler,Mr.Wade,Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr. Moser voted nay.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that approval of the site plan revision is granted contingent on the items discussed. 491 492 NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Wagamans Glenn: Mr.Lung explained that this request is associated with a Preliminary Consultation and proceeded to review it.The property is located on the south side of Wagaman Road east of CSX Railroad and contains 45 acres zoned Agricultural.The developer is proposing 25 single family lots ranging in size from 1 to 4 acres. An on site forest retention area is proposed.The property will be served by wells and septics.Public water and sewer is in the vicinity but is not adjacent to this property.Mr.Lung stated there is a new public street proposed off of Wagaman Road with a long cul-de-sac and a smaller cul-de-sac off of that.The street design meets the County standards.Mr.Lung explained the design of the subdivision and proceeded to review the concerns expressed at the preliminary Consultation.He stated that one concern was the tight building envelopes on some of the lots containing the forest retention areas (Lots 22 and 23).In addition,the Planning Department received verbal comments from Jeb Eckstine of the Funkstown Fire Department on Friday,March 3rd.The Fire Department expressed concern with the length of the cul-de-sac which is 1700 feet.They cannot turn a ladder truck around in a cul-de-sac even though it meets the County's design standards. Normally in a cul-de-sac street they back up the truck however in this case they are concerned about the distance that they would ~ave to back up.Without public water they will have to truck in water by tanker and this would also require considerable backing up.They also mentioned the lack of fire hydrants along Rt.65. They suggested that street signs be placed on the street prior to construction as well as having house numbers placed on the lots prior to construction.The Planning staff commented on an existing dwelling located on a lot which is not part of this property.Mr. Lung stated it currently has access across the railroad tracks on a private lane that goes back into the Clover Heights Development. It is the Planning Staff's suggestion that this lot be given access off the new County road to eliminate the railroad crossing and use of a private lane.The developer did not have a problem with that. The only concern is that this access would bring the number of trips to over 25 which would trigger another level of review criteria from the A.P.F.O.road adequacy policy.The County Engineer stated that in this situation he would not count the trip generation from this existing dwelling and that it makes more sense for the house to access the new road.Mr.Lung proceeded to present the variance request.He explained the configuration of the subdivision.There are 5 panhandle lots proposed.The maximum allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance ie 4.The developer feels that the physical features of the site,the location of the forest area to be retained,and the rock outcroppings,makes this design necessary.A discussion followed regarding the railroad,the Fire Department comments,the possibility of eliminating Lots 22 and 23, the possibility of building a common drive for Lots 22 and 23 for fire equipment turning,and increasing the radius of the 1700 foot cul-de-sac.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance for the fifth panhandle with the condition that consideration for the safety factor of the fire company be considered in the two panhandles that serve Lots 22 and 23.Seconded by Paula Lampton.Before a vote was taken,the developer,Mr.Shank,had a question regarding relocating the turnaround.After a discussion regarding the turnaround and the topography,the motion was withdrawn.Mr. Spickler made a motion to grant the variance for the fifth panhandle lot.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance for the fifth panhandle lot was granted.He said that the Planning Commission also has the responsibility to comment on the preliminary consultation and that is where the safety issue has been raised. He stated that the Planning Commission is concerned with the safety issue regarding the turning of fire fighting apparatus and have made the developer and consultant aware.He said that when they come back for preliminary plat approval the issue should be co...q- ,..- OJ Z ~ addressed and if it cannot,the developer should be prepared to explain why.Further discussion followed regarding the fire company's comments. Barbara Powell: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Barbara Powell.The property is located on the east side of Roessner Avenue in the Halfway area. The property contains 3.5 acres and is zoned Residential Suburban. The applicant is proposing to create 3 lots.Public water and sewer is available.The request is from Section 405.ll.G.3 of the Ordinance which states that no more than two (2)panhandle lots may have adjoining driveway entrances to a public right-of-way.The site is currently improved with a single family dwelling in the front and a duplex to the rear of the property.The single family dwelling has its own driveway onto Roessner Avenue and the driveway access for the duplex crosses an existing lot.The proposed design includes 3 panhandles.One panhandle for the existing duplex and 2 panhandles for the proposed lots to the rear.The developer has stated that they are willing to include a 50 foot wide easement on the panhandles to Lots C and D.This will be wide enough for a local street so at such time either of the two lots are further subdivided,the easement could be used to build a public street to County standards and the existing entrances to Roessner Avenue would be abandoned.Another alternative would be instead of giving the duplex lot a 25 foot panhandle there may be enough room,if the panhandle width requirement was reduced from 25 feet to 20 or 15 feet,to still provide the duplex lot with road frontage and meet the 8 foot side yard requirements for the existing dwelling.A discussion followed regarding building the street now,how building the street now is not cost affective and financial hardship not being justification for granting a variance.Mr.Iseminger asked if they deeded the right-of-way for a future public road and put in a common driveway for all of the lots to access,would that satisfy the problem until there was further subdivision.Mr.Arch suggested that if they are going to create a lot around the existing duplex,the Commission could grant them the ability to create this lot without road frontage and keep the access as it is. This would eliminate the need for the panhandle variance.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger explained to the applicant that they are proposing to deny the variance request for the panhandles and will consider a variance request to create a lot without public road frontage.If the proposed lots in the rear are further subdivided they will have to build a public street for access and the existing lots would be required to use the new street.The owner,Mrs.Powell agreed to it.Mr.Spickler moved to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Mrs.Powell requested a variance to create a lot without public road frontage.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance request to create a lot without public road frontage with the condition that the two lots to be created in the rear shall use a shared driveway and that any further subdivision of these two lots would require the construction of a street to County standards and at such time of the construction of the public street the existing lots would access off of it.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.A vote was taken. Mr.Bowen,Mr.Spickler,Mr.Wade,Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr.Moser voted nay.So ordered. Colonial Park East Subdivision: Mr.Arch presented the variance request fJ-')T!l Home Construction for a one year extension of preliminary plat .:lpp':ov"ll for Colonial Park East.Mr.Moser moved to grant the varia:,.::e request and along with that action approve a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. 493 494 William Boddicker: Mr.Arch presented the variance request for William Boddicker.He stated that at last month's meeting this property was before the Planning Commission to make a ruling on the interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance.At that time the Planning Commission suggested that the owner come back with a variance request to create 3 lots without public road frontage.Mr.Boddicker stated that he spoke to both the fire department and State Highway and was informed by both that he could have a 4th lot.The Planning Commission told him that they agreed to only 3 lots.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant the variance to create 3 lots without public road frontage with the condition that there be no further subdivision.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Subdivisions: Kings Crest,Section B,Phase 1,Revised Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the revised final plat for Kings Crest PUD, Section B,Phase 1.He stated that the Planning Commission had previously approved a PUD development plan and a preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for this property which is located in the vicinity of the Hagerstown Junior College off of Robinwood. A final subdivision plat for Section B,Phase 1 for 9 lots was also submitted at that time.Mr.Lung stated that building setbacks were established for the lots and recorded on the final plat.He ~xplained that the revised plat is to change some of the setbacks due to the size of the homes being designed for the lots.They are single family dwellings utilizing 0 lot lines.He stated that on Lots 24, 25,26 and 27 there is a request in the reduction on the front yard setbacks from 13 feet to 10 feet,rear yard setbacks from 25 feet to 20 feet.For Lots 19,20,21,22 and 23 they are requesting to reduce the front setbacks from 13 feet to 10 feet, rear yard setbacks from 30 feet to O.Mr.Lung stated he sent the revisions to the reviewing agencies and had not received any objections.The Permits Department did express concern with the building code which states when constructing a dwelling on 0 lot line of the property that the wall facing the 0 lot line has to be a fire wall which basically means it would be a blank wall -no windows.He stated in this case they would have two walls that were completely blank and that will not work with the proposed design.The Permits office stated they could approve a 0 lot line setback and not require a fire wall as long as there were stipulations and notes on the final plat that the rear lot line abuts the common open space and there would be no building in this area.There would also be provisions in the Homeowners Association Documents and on the plat providing an easement over the adjacent properties and opert space areas for building maintenance. Mr.Bowen said that one of the concerns that came up originally was that the driveways were so short that a car parked in the driveway would stick out in the street and expressed concern with reducing the setback to 10 feet.Mr.Lung stated that this issue came up when they were discussing the sidewalk requirement.He said the concern was that if the sidewalks were required on an open section street,it would push the sidewalk into the yard of the house and shorten the driveways.The final decision of the Planning Commission was that sidewalks would not be required in this development so they would not run into that problem.A discussion followed regarding the driveways,building setback,drainage easement and cars parked in the driveway.being in easement areas. Mr.Iseminger stated a parked car would stick out past the building setback and would be in the drainage easement.He stated that one of the reasons they did not require sidewalks was that they were sure there was enough space for people to get around without the need for sidewalks.He stated that ons of the reasons they originally approved the density in this development was that all these things were in place.Further discussion followed regarding having a utility easement up to the building line and concern with firewalls not being required.Mr.Spickler asked why the request CD..q,..... COz :2 is being made at this time.Mr.Weikert consultant for the developer stated that the reason is to increase the building envelope in order to build a larger house.Mr.Moser asked if that is appropriate.Mr.Weikert stated that the idea is that:most of the maintenance around the house would be eliminated and for security reasons and that this development is geared towards the elderly and retired persons.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern with the elimination of the firewalls especially with elderly residents and asked him to review the comments from the Permits Department. A discussion followed regarding the 10 foot utility easement and the 6 foot shoulders.Mr.Iseminger asked the consultant how this request will affect the rest of the development.Mr.Weikert stated they will request a 0 lot line for lots abutting the open space around the outside of the circle.Mr.Moser moved to deny the request.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the revised subdivision plat approval is denied.Mr.Weikert asked if he could request at this time a variance for different setbacks.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the developer come back at the next meeting to present his case. Site Plans: Way of Truth Industries: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Way of Truth Industries,Lot 1.The property is located on the north side of Cearfoss Pike (Route 58).The site plan is for a residence and an .auto body repair facility.The zoning is Highway Interchange.The size of the property is 1 acre.Mrs.Pietro stated.there is an existing dwelling and garage on the site,which will stay.The developer is proposing to add an automobile collision repair facility to the site.She proceeded to review the location of the proposed building,parking area,lighting,recyclable material area and landscaping.The site will be served by well and septic.All agency approvals are in.The payment in lieu of fee for the forest conservation has been paid.Mr.Weikert of Fox and Associates, consultant,asked the Commission that if the project is abandoned would they return the payment in lieu of fee.Mrs.Pietro stated she spoke to Mr.Arch who told her that is possible but the developer would be given a time limit and if the money was returned "to the developer,the site plan would become null and void.Mr. Iseminger agreed that if they request the money back the site plan approval will become null and void and added that if it is past the time limit they will forfeit the fee.Mr.Iseminger instructed Mrs.Pietro to check it out and they will act on this issue separately.Mrs.Pietro stated that she had asked for additional screening but there is no place for it.Mr.Iseminger stated that staff will get back to them regarding the Forest Conservation money.Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Allegheny Dental Care: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Allegheny Dental Care.The site is located on Virginia Avenue and is zoned Business Local. The developer is proposing to create a two level office building 2200 square feet in size with dental offices on the second level and tenant space below.The site will contain 27 parking spaces and will have sidewalks in the front and rear of the property.The hours of operation are 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.Monday through Friday.There will be six employees.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the solid waste and recycling area,the lighting,signage and landscaping.All approvals except for Permits have been received.The Permits Department commented that they were concerned with the impervious area.Mrs.Pietro explained that the site consists of 2 parcels and the Permits Department expressed concern over the maximum impervious percentage being met if the adjacent parcel was sold.The consultant has revised the impervious area on the plan so that the subject parcel with the 495 496 proposed dental office will comply.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from Permits Department.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Chester Martin -Fairhaven Homes: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Fairhaven Homes.He stated that the developer is proposing to build three additional quadplex rental units.The property is located on the south side of Shawley Drive and fronts both Maugansville Road and Shawley Drive and contains 12.6 acres.The zoning is Highway Interchange.Mr.Lung noted that this area is part of the Highway Interchange Group II rezoning and this area is proposed for HI-2 zoning.He explained that this is an expansion of the existing use of the site which is rental housing.Two previous quadplexes were built in 1987. Revisions were received after the agenda was sent out addressing most of the agency and Planning Department's comments.Mr.Lung stated that the existing access road off of Shawley Drive will continue to be used.The existing parking area is to be expanded and landscaped islands will be added as well as additional landscaping around the buildings.Since this is in the Highway Interchange District there will be a 75 foot buffer yard required. This was also imposed on the previous two units.Under the proposed HI-2 zoning the buffer yard requirements will go down to 25 feet.He stated that under the Zoning Ordinance requirements for rental apartment units tot lots may be required.Based on the number of units the Ordinance states they need 250 square feet of tot lots.In this case,the use is for elderly housing so tot lots may not be appropriate.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to impose something more appropriate. The developer has provided 12 garden plots 10.'x 20 'each.Mr. Lung stated that Staff believes that this could be considered an alternative amenity,however,for those people not interested in gardening something else should be provided such as a picnic pavilion,benches or shuffleboard.He stated that the developer did add two benches and it is up to the Planning Commission to determine if that is sufficient.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Iseminger asked how many units are they planning to build altogether.Mr.Lung stated 20 units.Mr.Moser asked about the remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated it is currently a farm.A discussion followed regarding what had been presented at the preliminary consultation which showed the ultimate build out,the access onto Shawley Drive,the need for a centrally located amenity if there is further development and the possibility of having an access directly to Maugansville Road if the entire tract is built out.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Moser moved to grant si·te plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Stitzel Property: Mrs.Pietro presented the consultation summary of the Stitzel Property and proceeded to review the main points.The property is located off of Barnhart Road in Clear Spring.The developer is proposing to create 117 single family lots out of a total of 259 acres.The zoning is Agriculture.She referred to the Health Department's comments and said that all testing will follow the On Site Sewage Ordinance,a hydrogeolic study will be required and that perc testing must be conducted during the restricted season. The Health Department will conduct a water study in the area and will require several test wells. Mrs.Pietro said the Engineering Department is requiring a detailed Traffic Impact Study,an origination/Destination Study and is requiring that all residents within 4,000 feet in all directions from the intersection of Barnhart Road and Mercersburg Road must be canvassed.Also,grading plans will be required for Lots 67 through 73 as well as storm water management.Mrs.Pietro stated CD """~ COz ::2: that the Planning Commission would like to see all lots access onto an interior street system and not Mercersburg Road.She noted that one street proposes to cross a stream and they will have to contact Water Resources.The Forest Conservation Delineation shows that 48 acres of forest is required for planting.Mrs.Pietro pointed to the easement areas and recommended putting some of the forest along the stream,the farm house and the storm water management areas. She stated that some of the neighbors,who have concerns with the proposed development attended the Preliminary Consultation and are present this evening.Mrs.Pietro said that she told the neighbors that if they had any comments that they could request to have a representative speak when the Planning Commission reviews the plan at their regular meeting.She stated that they have requested Philip Downs to represent them this evening. A discussion followed regarding the capacity of the schools,the existing forest,the forest conservation area,the location of the drain fields and planting in priority areas of the forest conservation planting.Mr.Iseminger stated he noticed that water quality is a concern for this area.He said that if there is a problem that the Planning Commission can require the use of the denitrification septic systems as they have done in a special planning area. Mr.Spickler noted that part of this site has been developed along Barnhart Road and Mercersburg Road in small areas and the roads have been widened to meet the APFO requirements.Mr.Iseminger further reviewed the Health Department's comments and stated he s~ares the same concerns.Mr.Reichenbaugh stated he spoke to the developer after the consultation and they are proceeding with the hydrogeologic study and the Origination/Destination study.After they are completed they will come back with the first phase.'Mr. Reichenbaugh pointed out that this project will not be built out in a short time and that the developer is willing to work with the comments.Mr.Iseminger stated they received correspondence regarding the historical significance of the site and asked if the developer was prepared to do some research into that.Mr.Arch stated that in addition,the traffic survey may be required to provide additional traffic counts for peak hour/peak season.Mr. Moser referred to comments from the Agricultural Advisory Board regarding a buffer around the development and asked if the developer would consider it.Mr.Reichenbaugh stated he met with the neighbors after the preliminary consultation to find out their concerns.He stated that the traffic and buffer areas were their concerns and that the developer is willing to create a buffer.Mr. Iseminger suggested that they also add a note to the plat advising the property owner that the lots are located in an agricultural intensive area and feels that should be a requirement.Mr. Spickler stated that he noted in the minutes that it was not clear who would have the responsibility of the drainage easements.Mr. Reichenbaugh stated that would be the lot owners responsibility. Mr.Iseminger stated he would now take comments from the audience. Mr.Philip Downs,representing the property owners in that area briefly spoke.He passed out a copy of a petition with 250 signatures in opposition to this proposed development along with a copy of their concerns and proceeded to review them.He noted that this area contains the largest number of contiguous acres in agricultural preservation in the County and that there is a potential for conflict with new homeowners within an agriculturally intensive area due to daily agricultural operation.Mr.Downs proceeded to review his written comments which outlined the impact on the agricultural community with regards to their daily practices conflicting with potential homeowners (i.e.dust,smell,etc)., the fact that a development could decrease the value of agricultural land,the potential for groundwater contamination,the concern that there is an adequate amount of groundwater available especially during the summer months,surface runoff,traffic,the overcrowding of the schools,having a development in a historical area,the affect on the quality of life,the proximity of hunting clubs in the area,and whose responsibility it would be if a problem occurred after the development was built. 497 498 Mr.Iseminger noted that the concerns expressed in the staff report and some of those of the neighbors are shared by the Planning Commission. Mr.Wantz,attorney for Mr.Downs and Mr.Belz,gave a brief statement.He referred to the 7 visions of the Planning Act and noted that this development is outside of the Urban Growth Area. He suggested that an archeological study be done to see if there are any slave cemeteries and asked for buffers.He also feels that the schools were not designed to handle this type of urban development and feels that the roads are already burdened by recreational traffic. Mr.Steve Ernst of the Agricultural Land Preservation Board briefly reviewed the environmental restrictions that farmers have to follow.He expressed concern that the quality of the water remains as it is in the area.Several other neighbors expressed their concern and commented on the existing problem in the area with contaminated wells,the traffic in the area and stormwater management problems.Mr.Spickler explained that the Planning Commission works under the law as it exists now and in an agricultural zoning one of the problems they have is that they can subdivide one lot per acre.He noted that if the developer meets the requirements,they can expect to be approved.He feels that they need to make sure that the requirements made in the initial consultation be met.Further testimony was taken f rom several neighboring property owners regarding property rights and responsibility,the water problems,drainage tile on the property qnd surface water problems in the area.Mr.Iseminger explained the process of the preliminary consultation.He stated that the developer has been put on notice that they are requiring some extensive reports.Mr.Iseminger stated he also shares their concerns with perc tests and the cumulative affect of the number of septic systems.A discussion followed regarding the Well Head Protection Ordinance the State is proposing,the Agricultural Land Preservation program as an alternative and what happens if there is still a question of contamination of wells.Mr.Iseminger informed the neighbors that they were welcome to send written comments to the Planning Commi.ssion. WCF Pondsville Tracts: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary consultation for the WCF Pondsville tracts.He referred to a the letter from the developer in the agenda packet which states that the project for the first 7 lots along Crystal Falls Drive is being abandoned at this time.He stated even though it is being abandoned,the Planning Commission may want to make comments since the consultation did review the development of the entire tract.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the comments from the consultation.He stated that the staff discouraged stripping the lots along Crystal Falls Drive.Mr. Spickler asked if it would be sufficient if they acknowledged the withdrawal of the Preliminary Consultation as it stands.Mr. Iseminger wants to leave open the opportunity to add further comments.Mr.Spickler stated that the items mentioned should be a guide for the future.Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission acknowledges that the original plans have been withdrawn· and that the comments from the Preliminary Consultation will be retained for future reference and that the Planning Commission reserves the right to make further comments on any revised plan. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton abstained'.So ordered. Robert L.Millard: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary consultation for Robert Millard. The developer is proposing to create a 9 lot residential subdivision out of a total of 145 acres.The property is located between Gapland Road and the south side of Townsend Road and is zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung stated that his main concern is that the property is located outside of the growth area in a historic <0 ".t,..... COz :2: and agricultural area.He stated that this property had previously been subdivided along Gapland Road in the forested area prior to the Forest Conservation Act.Mr.Lung stated that staff had suggested that the developer consider clustering in order to reduce the impact.Clustering and the use of 1 acre lots may be difficult in the area proposed for development due to the hilly topography and the requirements for individual septic areas.Mr.Lung stated that the developer stated that at this point in time this was all he was considering and did not have plans to develop the entire area.Mr.Lung noted there are numerous historic sites in the area.He stated there is a cemetery on the remaining lands that is on the historic site list.A discussion followed regarding road access.Mr.Spickler asked that the developer consider the cluster concept.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with the comments expressed in the minutes of the Preliminary Consultation.A discussion followed regarding the historic area. OTHER BUSINESS: APFO Determination -Ferguson/Kuhn,White Hall Road: Mrs.Pietro referred to her memo in the agenda packet and stated that the Fergusons wish to subdivide but that White Hall Road is inadequate and that it does not meet either of the 2 exemptions outlined in the County Engineer's memo.She stated that they need the Planning Commission's decision before they can proceed to the .Board of Appeals.Mr.Moser moved to deny the request for exemption.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that it is not exempt from the Public Facilities Ordinance and that their next step would be to take it before the Board of Appeals.A discussion followed regarding an amendment to the Ordinance. Rezoning Recommendation,RZ-94-07: Mr.Lung stated he did not have any additional comments and referred to the staff report and analysis following the public hearing.Mr.Iseminger stated that at the public hearing the Planning Commission had asked staff to find out how the existing use on the property would be treated.He said that they received an opinion from Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections,that it will be treated as a principle permitted use under the BT zoning.After consideration of the testimony pres~nted at the public hearing,written comments received during the lO-day comment period,and staff reports,Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that RZ-94-07 be denied based on the fact that the applicant did not prove that there has been a substantial change in character in the neighborhood.Seconded by Mr.Moser.A discussion followed.On a call for the vote;Mr.Moser and Mr.Bowen voted aye;Mr.Ernst, Mr.Iseminger and Mrs.Lampton voted nay.Mr.Spickler and Mr. Wade abstained.So ordered.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recornn~nd approval to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-94-07 based on findings of fact presented in the staff report,the applicant's tp.stimony at the public hearing demonstrating a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the request for rezoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mrs,Lampton,On a call for the vote;Mrs.Lampton,Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Ernst voted aye;Mr. Moser and Mr.Bowen voted nay.Mr.Spickler and Mr,Wade abstained.So ordered. Rezoning Recommendation,RZ-94-08: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the text amendment.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ- 94-08 based on the fact that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr. Moser abstained.So ordered. 499 500 Dale Ausherman,Preliminary Plat Extension for FMW Partnership: Mr.Arch explained that this was a request to extend the preliminary plat approval for another year.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant approval to extend the preliminary plat approval for one year.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the upcoming meetings.The quarterly joint rezoning will be held on Monday,March 13,1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the Hagerstown Junior College.The monthly workshop meeting is scheduled for Monday,March 27,1995 at 6:00 p.m.and the topic will be Environmental Sensitive Areas.A workshop meeting with the Maryland Office of Planning has tentatively been scheduled for Wednesday,March 29th at noon.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -MARCH 27,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,March 27,1995 in the third floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Ex-Officio James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E. Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner; Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Bill Stachoviak and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Paula Lampton and Donald Spickler. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Kings Crest,Section B,Phase 1,Revised Final Plat: Mr.Lung briefly reviewed the request for a revision to the Kings Crest PUD Section B final plat.The original request made at the March 6,1995 meeting was for lots 24,25,26 and 27 to reduce the front yard setback from 13 feet to 10 feet and the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet,and on Lots 19,20,21, 22,23 to reduce the front yard setback from 13 feet to 10 feet and rear yard setback from 3 feet to 0 feet.Mr.Lung stated that at the March 6th meeting the Planning Commission expressed concern with the requested reduction in the front yard setbacks due to the reduced driveway lengths and the utility easements.The Commission denied the request,however,gave the applicant permission to resubmit a revised plat.Mr.Lung presented a revised plat and reviewed the changes as follows:Lots 24 -27 reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet with no change in the front yard setback.For Lots 19 -23 the lot depth has been increased from 55 feet to 58 feet,with a 0 rear yard setback and no change to the front yard setback.Mr.Lung stated that the staff and the other review agencies are not opposed to the changes,the increase in the lot sizes on Lots 19 -23 will have a minor impact on the amount of common open space.He noted that the overall development plan calls for 30 percent open space,25 percent is the minimum required.He stated even though this minor reduction in the open space will not bring them below the minimum,staff recommends that the concept plan be revised to show the correct open space ratio. Also the change in the rear lot line appears to get into the slope of a drainage swale.He spoke to the County Engineering Department and they do not feel 'that this will impact the design of the stormwater channel since there will not be any basements.The Permits Department would like to see a more descriptive note indicating that no development will be permitted in the open space area adjacent to the lots with no rear yard setback.They do not have a problem with the 0 lot line as long as the note is on the plat.Mr.Lung stated that if the developer is considering changing setbacks on any of the other lots it may be a good idea for them to make that request now so that it can be taken care of it at one time.After a discussion,Mr.Iseminger stated that he wants to deal with only what is before them at this time and that he felt the Commission would not approve a front yard setback below 13 feet,nor do they want the open space affected.He said that the Planning Commission's main concern was with the front yard setback being below 13 feet and as long as that is maintained and that the other agencies do not have a problem and that a note is placed on the plat that there will be no building behind the 5 lots.Mr.Stan Valentine,the developer and Mr.Bill Weikert, 2 consultant,explained the proposed changes.A discussion followed regarding the revisions,dealing with just the 9 lots,the size of the houses to be built,the density,and the original development plan.Mr.Iseminger stated that if the developer wants revisions in addition to the 9 lots presented he will have to justify changes to what the Planning Commission originally approved.Mr.Iseminger stated they are looking at a revision for 9 lots with reduction in setbacks.Mr.Moser moved for approval of the variance from the rear yard setbacks subject to staff and agency comments with the condition that a note be added indicating that no development will be permitted in the open space adjacent to the a foot lot line lots.Seconded by Mr.Wade.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. sensitive Areas: Mr.Arch stated that the Sensitive Area element of the Comprehensive Plan needs input from the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners before finalizing a proposal and proceeding to a public hearing. Mr.Goodrich explained the staff's review process and reminded the Commission that it decided to address only the mandated areas and the special planning areas.He referred to the summary of the draft in the agenda and reviewed the activity to date ..Mr. Iseminger suggested restating the goal in a more positive manner. Mr.Goodrich then proceeded to review the options for definitions and protection measures. Mr.Goodrich reviewed the definition for buffers and stated that the Planning Commission needs to decide on the width for the buffer areas and methods of protection.He said that 50 and 100 feet seem to be the most logical.Research indicates that 100 feet is sufficient to provide the desired buffering benefits.One option would be to have two widths ~50 in the growth area and 100 in the rural area.Mr.Arch stated that even if they have 100 feet in the rural area they could still allow the farmer to use that area for farming.He said this would establish an area on both sides of the stream to stay out of but the Planning Commission could still allow certain activiti.es to occur as long as they minimize an adverse effect.A discussion followed regarding the widths,the terrain, the number of streams in the County and what constitutes a stream, using the Natural Stream classifications that DNR uses and setting up an appeals or waiver system. Commission members and staff engaged in a lengthy discussion that included a variety of options such as a standard buffer width versus a variable width depending on stream size,use of the stream order concept to determine buffer width,minimum widths with options to increase in the presence of additional environmental factors,concerns for having an absolute use restriction within a buffer and the concept of a 100'buffer for structures with the requirement for BMP's applicable to other uses such as farming within the buffer. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to use a 100 foot width at this time,have a way to increase or decrease it when merited and to allow certain uses with best management practices. The requirements should be flexible,easily understood and predictable.A discussion followed regarding mapping the streams, what Frederick County is doing and well head protection. Mr.Goodrich reviewed the proposed definition of steep slope,a slope of 25 percent or more.The County's current On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance,Forest Conservation Regulations and several other Counties use the same definition.He presented several diagrams showing options for slopes within stream buffers.It was decided not to do anything until the stream buffer definition is decided on and include it then. 3 Mr.Goodrich stated that with the threatened or endangered species they are dealing with their habitat.He explained the choice of the Federal or State lists.The Federal list indicates 3 endangered species in the County.The State list has 83 endangered species in Washington County.He referred to a map delineating generalized locations of endangered species habitat.After a discussion it was the consensus to use the State list for now, subject to public input and to review of the actual list of the endangered species.Mr.Bowen went on record that he was in favor of using the Federal list. Mr.Goodrich explained the Special Planning Areas which include Edgemont and Smithsburg Watersheds,Appalachian Trail and Upper Beaver Creek Basin.He reviewed the additional protection measures and mentioned the option of limiting the density of residential development.A discussion followed regarding Conservation zoning, restricting certain things in critical areas,wellhead protection and permitted uses.Mr.Arch stated that they already have special planning areas defined and can create within the Zoning Ordinance an overlay to address this issue.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to define the Special Planning Areas as mentioned having an overlay to require best management practices in all development.Mr.Iseminger stated he would also like staff to look at the Conservation Zoning within the Special Planning Areas. Mr.Arch stated that staff intends to look at where it overlaps and what mayor may not be appropriate development within sensitive areas whether zoned Agricultural or Conservation.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Chairman 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 3,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,April 3,1995 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;James R. Wade,Andrew J.Bowen IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich, Associate Planners;James T.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro 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.Iseminger stated he wanted a clarification for the minutes of the February 6,1995 regular meeting.He said that for the Gardner variance the minutes should state that when the motion was granted it was with a condition that the clump of trees near the north property line needed to be removed for sight distance.Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Moser. So ordered. Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of the February 27th workshop meeting.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated that for the minutes of the regular meeting of March 6,1995,for the rezoning recommendation for RZ-94-07 the motion to approve the rezoning by Mr.Ernst should also include that there was a change in the character of the neighborhood demonstrated and that the request for rezoning is logical and appropriate.Mr.Iseminger stated that the recommendation for RZ-94-08 should also include "based on the fact that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan."Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Before proceeding with the meeting,Mr.Arch stated that Mr. Carbaugh has withdrawn his variance request.He stated he would like to add under subdivisions Walnut Point Heights,Preliminary Plat.Mr.Ernst moved to add Walnut Point Heights to the agenda. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Land Preservation District: AD-95-01,Elsworth D.and Elfleta E.Reeder: Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the County's Agricultural Preservation Program.He stated that an application has been submitted by the Reeders.The property contains 181 acres and is located along both sides of Maryland Route 68 at its intersection with Barnes Road.It is a crop and dairy operation.Mr.Goodrich stated that it meets the program criteria and is located outside of any urban or town growth area.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Reeder farm (AD-95-01)be included in the Agricultural Preservation program since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the adjacent property. 5 Variances: Lewis M.Kefauver: Mr.Brittain presented the variance request for Lewis M.Kefauver. He stated there is an existing fee simple driveway that goes back to 27.44 acre parcel.The property is located southwest of Porterstown Road and is zoned Conservation.The request is from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Ordinance which states that the length of each panhandle shall not exceed four hundred (400)feet.Mr. Brittain explained that the owner wants to subdivide his property, which contains 27.44 acres into two lots.The hardship is the configuration of the existing lot created in 1986 prior to the limit on the panhandle length. Mr.Kefauver,the owner,briefly spoke.He explained he purchased the property at public auction in June of 1990 and presented a copy of the approved 1986 subdivision plat.The access lane from Porterstown Road at that time was nearly unpassable.Because of the condition of the road and in compliance with the road maintenance agreement that was on the property when he purchased it,he improved the road.Mr.Kefauver proceeded to explain in detail the improvements he made.He said the road maintenance agreement pertains to the 5 contiguous property owners and himself. Even though the agreement states that the cost of the road maintenance would be shared equally among the property owners,only one neighbor was able to contribute.Mr.Kefauver said he is asking for the creation of one new lot approximately 12 to 14 acres in size with no further subdivision of the lots in order to cover the costs he incurred in constructing the road.He said he has received satisfactory percs and is proposing to split the road access in half instead of creating a lot without road frontage. A discussion followed regarding who has the right to use the road, who is responsible for maintenance of the road and the lots accessing his road.Mr.Benner,Chief of the Sharpsburg Fire Department briefly spoke.He stated that he inspected the property and took their largest piece of equipment to see if he could access it.He explained that this drive exceeds a lot of farm lanes they deal with.He explained there is a turnaround that is wide enough and feels the upgrades made regarding the drainage will protect it from possible erosion and deterioration over a period of time.He noted there is a pond nearby that they can use for a water supply and feels it will not be a problem to get a ladder truck in,.He stated that one of the homeowners fronting Burnside Bridge Road contacted him 6 months ago and asked him to check his driveway. The property owner was concerned that the fire company may not be able to get up the road but indicated that there was a lane off of Porterstown Road he could access.Chief Benner stated he took a piece of equipment and had difficulty accessing the property off of Burnside Bridge Road and felt that larger equipment including an ambulance would not be able to access it.He felt the best way to access the property would be to use Mr.Keefaufer's access road. A discussion followed regarding the length of the road, maintenance,possible problems if ownership of the road is split, creating a lot without public road frontage,whether the contiguous property owners could subdivide and the extenuating circumstances. Mr.Moser moved to deny the variance request for panhandle length. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Keefauver modified his variance request to create a lot without public road frontage. This would allow the ownership of the access road would stay under the control of one property owner.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance to create one lot without public road frontage conditioned upon that access continues to be provided to lots fronting on Burnside Bridge Road and that there will be no further subdivision of the proposed lot or remaining lands.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.' 6 Dale Ford: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Dale Ford.The property is located on the east side of U.S.Route 40A south of Mill Point Road.The property contains 4.93 acres and is zoned Agricultural.The request is from Section 40S.2A of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that there shall be a minimum access separation of 500 feet on a Minor Arterial Highway.The owner is proposing to create a 3 lot subdivision using a common access point 290 feet from an existing access point.State Highway encourages this design.Mr.Lung said that a public street to serve 3 lots would not be appropriate or practical since there is no potential for further subdivision and that the farm in the rear of the property is in permanent agricultural preservation.The State Highway Administration has approved this access point and all 3 lots will have public road frontage but will be required to utilize one access point.Mr.Lung stated that the request before them is to allow this entrance to be less than 500 feet from an existing entrance and to give staff the authority to approve the subdivision.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance due to safety reasons.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Moser moved to grant staff the authority to approve the subdivision plat contingent on all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Charles and Susan Blake: M'r.Lung presented the variance request for Charles and Susan Blake.The property consists of 3 acres,is zoned Conservation and is located on the east side of Crystal Falls Drive.The request is from Section 40S.11.B of the Ordinance which states that all lots shall abut and have access to a public road.There is an existing house occupied by the Blakes along the front portion of the parcel. Mr.Lung explained that the original parcel was created prior to zoning and contained .81 acre.In 1987 a simplified plat was approved to add an additional 2.9 acres to the .81 acre parcel to create a 3 acre parcel.The owner is now proposing to create 2 building lots approximately 1 acre each to the rear of their existing dwelling.Since the zoning is Conservation,they will have to go to the Board of Appeals to request a variance for the reduction in lot size and reduction in lot width.The proposed lots will not have public road frontage and the access is proposed by connecting with the Blake's existing driveway.Mr.Lung stated there is another way to access this property off of Crystal Falls Drive by using Hidden Valley Road,which serves several existing dwellings.He explained the Blakes wanted to avoid confusion and complication with accessing that private road.Mr.Lung stated that according to the application,the hardship is that the nature and narrowness of the property does not provide road frontage to these lots.A discussion followed regarding when the 3 acre lot was created,the topography and the similar configuration of the adjacent properties. Mr.Blake briefly spoke.He explained that his property was originally part of his wife's grandfather's 14 acre farm.He said that over the years lots were created for family members and that only two homes front on Hidden Valley Drive and they are both owned by family members.He further stated that he and his wife want to create the two lots for their children.A discussion followed regarding what would happen if any of the properties were sold outside of the family and developing a common access.Mr. Iseminger expressed concern that there is the same situation next to this property and if this was approved the Planning Commission would be compelled to approve the one next to it.Further discussion followed regarding the subdivision of this property,the location of the property to the watershed area and the fact that there is no hardship.Mr.Ernst moved to deny the variance. Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. 7 Subdivisions: Broad Creek.preliminary Plat.Lots 2-18 and Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat and preliminary forest conservation plan for Broad Creek lots 2-18.The property is located on the south side of Broadfording Road and is zoned Agricul ture.The developer is proposing to create 17 single family lots ranging from 1 to 4.5 acres.The total acreage of the site is 32 acres.The lots will be served by wells and septics and all lots but 2 will be served by a new County road.Mrs.Pietro referred to the location of the storm water management area and the mapped wetlands on the plat.There will be a note on the plat stating that there will be no development in the wetland area. Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the preliminary Forest Conservation Plan.She stated that the developer will not have to plant anything because there is enough forest on the site and referred to priority areas 1 and 2.All approvals are in.Mrs.Pietro said that there are some final things that need to be done before they receive final engineering approval and they do not have to be addressed until the final plat is in.A discussion followed regarding the forest conservation areas,ownership of the lot containing the stormwater management pond and the wetlands.Mr. Spickler moved to approve the preliminary plan for Lots 2-18 and the Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Wade. Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. wagamans Glenn.Preliminary Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Wagamans Glenn.The developer is proposing 25 single family lots on 45 acres.The zoning is Agriculture.The property is located off the south side of Wagaman Road east of Route 65.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission saw this plan at the March meeting for a variance and preliminary consultation review.The site will be served by individual wells and septics.The perc tests passed and have been approved.The Health Department asked for 2 test wells to be drilled and that has been done.Mr.Lung stated that the Health Department requested revisions to the reserve ares in the vicinity of Lots 1 and 2 to accomodate a nearby drainage swale. The revisions were received today and need to be routed out to the Health Department.The proposed lots will be served by a new public street built to County standards and dedicated to the County.The County Engineering Department has asked for a revision to the construction drawings prior to approval of the preliminary plat.Mr.Lung stated they are waiting for the revised construction drawings.The County Engineer does not anticipate any changes.Mr.Lung stated that at the March meeting the Planning Commission made comments regarding the Funkstown Fire Department comments and that no changes have been made to address these comments.A discussion followed regarding adding a small "hammerhead"turnaround in the area near the proposed storm water management facilities,and have the Fire and Rescue Coordinator review the specs for the County fire trucks for the manufacturer turning radius to see if it matches what is in the Ordinance to insure consistency.Mr.Lung reviewed the other agency comments. He stated that the Forest Stand Delineation was approved and the Forest Conservation Plan proposes retention of approximately 10 acres of existing forest to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. He stated there will be no disturbance allowed in this area and there will be notes required on the final plat and in each deed for these lots explaining what they can and cannot do within the forest retention area.Mr.Lung stated that frontage and access to the existing lot and dwelling near the railroad currently has a private drive across the railroad and the developer has offered an additional piece of land to this lot to give it access onto the new public street.The developer,John Shank stated that at this time, the owner of the existing dwelling will continue to use his 8 existing access across the railroad.Mr.Lung stated that a revision needs to be routed to the Health Department for their review,the County Engineer still has comments on the construction drawings and the Health Department needs to approve the test wells. He said that the developer is requesting preliminary plat approval contingent upon the agency approvals and asked that staff be given the authority to approve the final plat as well as the Forest Conservation Plan.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval and to give staff the authority to approve the final plat and Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. St.James Village North,preliminary Plat: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary plat for Phase 1 of the St. James Village North PUD.He explained that this is the first phase of 6 phases of the PUD and that no commercial development is being proposed at this time.He proceeded to review the streets to be built and stated that the storm water management area located within Phase I is required to be constructed in its entirety at this time.The majority of the open space west of Olivewood Drive is wooded and will contain a trail and picnic area.The only disturbance to this area is the construction of a sewerage line. A stormwater management drainage swale and easement will be established that the County will control because it drains the upstream future commercial area and the existing MD 65 drainage. This phase contains 71 lots,65 will be single family the other will be semi-detached.The average lot size is approximately 8500 square feet with semi-detached lots being 5,000 square feet.All agencies have either granted approval of the preliminary plat or they have approved it with conditions.All the conditions relate to the construction drawings,which are being reviewed now.The developer's consultant is asking for preliminary plat approval of Phase 1 and has requested that staff be given the authority to approve the final plat if there were no major changes.Mr. Spickler moved to approve the preliminary plat for Phase 1 contingent on all agency approvals and to give staff the authority to approve the final plat.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. walnut Point Heights,Preliminary Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Walnut Point Heights. The site is located west of MD Route 63,north of Williamsport.It contains 133 acres and is zoned Residential Rural.Mr.Lung said that in February this plat was presented and action was deferred because there was a discovery of wetlands which needed to be reviewed and approved by DNR.He said that since that time the delineation has been done.The plat has been revised to avoid disturbing the wetlands and the number of proposed lots reduced. DNR has verbally approved the design.A permit will be required to cross the wetlands with a street.The subdivision contains 215 lots with a mixture of single family and semi detached dwellings. The subdivision will be served by a public street system and the lots will be served by public water and sewer and those agencies had granted their approval on the previous plat.He stated that the revised plan was just submitted to the Planning Commission for routing last week and the department has received some verbal comments.Revised construction drawings were also submitted for review.Mr.Lung said they have received preliminary plat approval from Soil Conservation,verbal approval from the Hagerstown Water Department and comments from the County Engineer stating that the proposed lot layout appears to be acceptable however,they are still reviewing the revised construction drawings.The Permits Department has expressed concern about the ownership of the wetlands area,which has been addressed.The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval contingent on agency approvals 9 and request that staff be given the authority to approve the final plat for Section 1.Mr.Lung stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission asked Mr.Davis to look into the Walnut Point Road situation and he has not heard anything on it.A discussion followed regarding the wetlands,the remaining lands and stormwater management maintenance.Mr.Moser asked about the shale extraction operation.Mr.Johnson said that they are grading.Mr.Davis stated they should be completed within a year.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission needs to know when the grading will be completed.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval contingent on all agency approvals and to give staff the authority to grant final plat approval on Phase 1.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.So ordered. Site Plans: Washington County Agricultural Center: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for the Washington County Agricultural Center.It is a 55 acre site located on the east side of MD 65 north of Keedysville Road and is part of the University of Maryland Experimental Farm.The site is proposed to be developed as an agricultural education and demonstration area.Mr.Goodrich explained that what is before the Commission is Phase 1,which includes the entrance,the storm water management area,several parking lots for 360 vehicles,the road to serve the parking area and structures in the back.He explained that in the future the road will loop around and there will be additional parking totalling 860 spaces,a picnic area,future planting area and a future building.The site will be served by an onsite septic system and an on-site well.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Forest Stand Delineation identifies 12.8 acres of forest.Phase I will only disturb .25 of an acre which will not create a need for any planting in this phase.Staff recommends that as a condition of approval,the owner be made aware that Forest Conservation Ordinance planting requirements are waived in this phase.When forest clearing exceeds the specified threshold,the planting will be required.Staff has also commented on the need for green areas wi thin the impervious areas.The Engineering Department has approved the plan as well as State Highway.Mr.Arch stated they will need DNR delegating review authority for forest conservation because State funding is involved.A discussion followed regarding the adjacent property and the forestation and the forest plan.Mr. Ernst moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr. Spickler abstained.So ordered.Mr.Ernst moved to give staff the authori ty to develop and approve the forest conservation plan. Seconded by Mr.Wade.Mr.Spickler abstained.So ordered. USA Cartage: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for USA Cartage.The site is located on the south side of Governor Lane Boulevard in the Interstate Industrial Park on 2.9 acres.The zoning is Planned Industrial.The site is currently a trucking terminal.The developer is proposing a 3200 square foot addition to the existing building which encompasses 12000 square feet.There will be 52 employees with 25 -30 persons per shift.The hours of operation will be 24 hours a day,7 days a week.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the parking,the location of the dumpsters for solid waste and recycling,lighting and signage.She stated that a variance was granted by the Board of Appeals to allow a reduction in the rear setback from 75 feet to 67 feet.All approvals are in.Mr. Spickler moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. So ordered. 10 Old Forge Elementary School: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the addition to the Old Forge Elementary School.The site is located on the south side of Old Forge Road and is zoned Agricultural.The School Board is proposing to add 4 portable classrooms at the rear of the school. The classrooms will be a total area of 4900 feet.They will include boys and girls bathrooms and a janitorial closet.Mrs. Pietro explained that the plan was routed out last week so not all of the approvals are in.Mr.Moser moved to approve the site plan. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.A vote was taken.Mr.Moser,Mr.Bowen, Mr.Ernst and Mr.Spickler voted aye.Mr.Wade voted nay.So ordered. Thompson Gas and Electric: Mr.Brittain presented the site plan which is proposing an addition of 4000 square feet.The site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of MD Route 40A and MD Route 67.No additional parking or landscaping will be required.All approvals are in. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Wade. So ordered. HJC Amphitheater: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for the HJC Amphitheater.The site is located off of Robinwood Drive.Approvals have been received from both the Engineering Department and Soil Conserva tion.Mr.Arch explained that with the Forest Stand Delineation since there are State funds associated with it they would have control.He stated that they he wrote to·them requesting that they give the County control and they have done that.Mr.Arch said there is only a small amount of forest that will be impacted so they will be exempted.Mr.Arch stated if additional development occurs that will impact it,they will have to deal with it at that time.Mr.Arch proceeded to review the location of the amphitheater,stage and bleachers.The site location is near the ballfields.He explained the parking area for the performers.There will be a lighted walkway leading to the parking area at the ARC building.The site will be served by public water and will have the provision for public sewerage facilities.The zoning is RS and is inside the Urban Growth area and contains 3.7 acres.Mr.Arch explained the landscaping and solid waste management.A discussion followed.He said that Mr. Prodonovich has reviewed the plan and some parking will have to be noted as handicapped and any action by the Commission will need to be contingent on that.Mr.Zoretich,consultant,of Frederick, Seibert and Associates stated he will be meeting with Paul Prodonovich.Mr.Arch stated he will also need a note on the plat regarding the impact of this facility on the entire site for Soil Conservation.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the site plan contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: J.Michael Stouffer: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they did not have any comments to add to those made in the staff report. David and Shirley Boyd: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they did not have any comments to add to those made in the staff report. 11 OTHER BUSINESS: Christopher Best -Waiver of the 10 Year Immediate Family Member Statement: Mr.Arch referred to the letter in the agenda packet.Mr.Best is requesting a waiver from the 10 year family member statement.Mr. Arch explained that Mr.Best is employed by Amtrak and is being transferred to philadelphia.Mr.Iseminger stated that he wants verification of that from Amtrack that this will be a permanent transfer.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the request of the waiver from the 10 year family member statement contingent on verification in writing from Amtrack.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. CIP: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the CIP for 1996 -2001.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved that the Planning Commission finds the CIP to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: Tpere being no further business,the meeting adj~u~ed at 9:45 p.m. '- 12 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -APRIL 27,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Thursday,April 27,1995 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 and Andrew J.Bowen, IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Absent were Bernard Moser,Robert E.Ernst,II and Ex-Officio James R.Wade.Also present were:Nancy Ancel,Bill Atkinson and Scribner Sheafor,Maryland Office of Planning;Shelly Wasserman,legal council for Maryland Office of Planning and Harold Boyer,Chairman Board of Appeals. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 12:00 p.m. Article 66B: Mr.Iseminger stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Article 66B,the enabling legislation.Mr.Spickler explained that he requested this meeting because he felt there have been some changes in 66B over the years and thought it would also be beneficial for the new Commission members. Mrs.Wasserman stated that she is also part of the State Planning Commission and that they are currently looking at 66B and making some changes.She explained she is part of a subcommittee of the Planning Commission created by the Commission and is reviewing the Planning and zoning enabling laws in Maryland with a view towards implementing visions.She noted that things have changed since the Planning Act and the requirement for streamlining,clustering and moving towards improving economic development.The meetings are held the second Wednesday of the month at 4:00 p.m.in the O£fice of Planning and are open to the public. Mrs.Wasserman explained that there are 3 main elements in 66B. Planning,Zoning and Subdivision.In Planning,the responsibility of the Planning Commission is to develop general master plans for an area with recommendations for the area's growth and development and must be based on the knowledge of the resources of the area and future needs.Zoning is primarily concerned with the use of property and reviewed the different types of zoning -Euclidian (fixed zones)and Noneuclidian (overlay and floating), comprehensive and piecemeal and the rules that apply.The subdivision provision is more specific.The Planning Commission's responsibility is to prepare and approve plans which are sent to the County Commissioners for adoption.In 66B the County Commissioners must adopt the plan they get from the Planning Commission.Mrs.Wasserman said they have very little latitude to amend it.The Planning Commission is the powerhouse behind the master plan.The County Commissioners role is more limited.The requirement that the local legislative body adopt the plan was a result of the 1970 change and the purpose of it was to give the plan more legal effect.With the 1992 Planning Act there is a specific change that states that local land use regulations shall be consistent with the Plan.Mr.Arch stated they have several amendments coming up to the Comprehensive Plan because of the Act and wanted to know who's responsibility it would be to hold the hearings.Mrs.Wasserman stated it would be the Planning Commission and they would draft the amendments,adopt them and then submit them to the Commissioners.Mr.Arch asked if the Commissioners would then hold a hearing.Mr.Sheafor stated the general practice has been to hold a hearing as they might in other 13 kinds of things of this type or join with the Planning Commission. Mrs.Wasserman stated that this is one of the areas where 66B should be clearer and that the Planning Commission still has the authority over the plan.There is another section of 66B which is difficult to read but is important regarding the Planning Commission's role relative to public structures,roads,rights-of- way and public utilities.The Planning Commission must review and either approve or disapprove any public facility whether it is publicly or privately owned before it is built,including Federal, State or Utilities.The Planning Commission has the authority to make sure that the location and structure is consistent with the plan.Mrs.Wasserman said there is an override provision and gave an example of a Federal Building.A discussion followed regarding what is currently done. In regards to zoning,Mrs.Wasserman said the responsibility of the Planning Commission is not as strong.For original zoning the Planning Commission has the responsibility to make recommendations on boundaries and regulations of zoning districts.Once the jurisdiction has enacted zoning,the responsibility of the Planning Commission is limited to making recommendations to the local elected body on proposed zoning amendments (boundaries and changing districts)and in piece meal.The primary responsibility of zoning falls to the County Commissioners.With subdivision regulations, the Planning Commission is to prepare the regulations,which would then be adopted by the local legislative body.Once the ~egulations are adopted,the Planning Commission has the responsibility to review and approve all subdivision applications. The Planning Commission may authorize administrative approval for minor subdivision (plats of 5 lots or less).Mrs.Wasserman stated it is important for the Planning Commission to consider what is in the plan and there is a court case that says that even if the zoning is appropriate that the Planning Commission can deny subdivision approval for failure to meet the requirements of the Plan (Gaster Case).She said that even though the plan is considered to be advisory in nature with regards to zoning,it is more powerful with regards to subdivision regulations.Mr. Iseminger asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to turn down subdivision activity if it is their opinion the plan is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.Mrs.Wasserman said yes.Mr.Arch asked if that is so if all the regulations for the zoning of the subdivision have been met.Mrs.Wasserman proceeded to explain the Gaster case which proposed a high density development,consistent with its zoning.The plan was turned down because the Master Plan called for low density zoning and what was proposed would be incompatible.The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch stated that Washington County's Comprehensive Plan is so broad that it does not define low or high density and basically is whether it is inside or outside of the Urban Growth Area.Mrs.Wasserman suggested that they look at those issues when updating the Comprehensive Plan so all the Ordinances will be consistent.A discussion followed regarding developments in Agricultural areas,takings,making sure the Comprehensive Plan -Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Regulations are clear,rezoning hearings and findings of fact and wording the rezoning resolutions to prevail the Board of Appeals. Mrs.Wasserman stated that according to 66B the Planning Commission's recommendation on a rezoning is to be based upon the plan and that the issues they are to look at should be is it consistent with the goals and elements of the Master Plan.The Commissioners are still the ones that are supposed to be the findings of fact and can take the Planning Commission's recommendation into consideration but it is only one factor they will be looking at.She feels that the Planning Commission should be looking at the areas of consistency or inconsistency of the plan.She reviewed the change or mistake rule.It is a condition precedent for the Commissioners.It does not make any difference whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the Plan and is one of the drawbacks of the change or mistake rule.The change or mistake rule says they can only grant a piece meal rezoning if 14 there is a change or mistake.Mr.Arch asked if the Planning Commission should comment with regard to a change or mistake or should their comment be limited to consistency with the Plan.Mrs. Wasserman stated that they should comment on it but that the burden is on the applicant to prove it.A discussion followed on how Washington County handles rezonings and whether the Planning Commission should allow more time for staff to prepare the final document (opinion).Mr.Iseminger suggested that they follow the procedure the Board of Appeals used to do where the Commission members would take turns in writing the opinion and then formally adopt it or have the staff write it.A discussion followed regarding the procedure the Planning Commission follows for a rezoning,as far as staff reports,the reviewing process,the zoning cycles and zoning examiners. Mr.Arch noted that 66B does not have a lot of information addressing variances to the Subdivision Ordinance.Mrs.Wasserman stated one thing is whether or not it is a question of terminology. Should the term variance be limited to a variance from the Zoning Ordinance ilnd if what the Planning Commission is doing with Subdivision Regulations should be called a variance.She does not think that 66B addresses that.She stated that one of the things that has come up with variances from zoning is whether or not there should be administrative variances for minor items.She feels the trend would be to allow the Planning Commission to do what it is doing but that they should adopt rules so it is consistent.Mr. Arch asked if the ability to grant an administrative variance is legal.Mrs.Wasserman stated that there is no provision at this time for administrative areas and it is one of the areas they are discussing with the subcommittee.A discussion followed regarding doing the small variances in office.Mr.Iseminger stated that they came up with a policy to allow staff to go ahead and grant variances that meet a certain criteria.Mr.Iseminger stated they have delegated responsibility to the staff and the Zoning Administrator and they also have the ability to override or take back their decision making ability and cited an example where they overruled the Zoning Administrator.Mrs.Wasserman stated if they do not have a specific process in writing they may want to do that such as "the decision of the Zoning Administrator or whoever the decision was delegated to is final unless the Planning Commission Acts within 30 days."This way the Planning Commission would retain their authority and would use it sparingly.She said another item not specific is with the Board of Appeals is the ability of the Board of Appeals to reconsider something within a certain period of time.Mr.Arch stated they follow the adopted Robert Rules of Order and asked if it is legal for the Board of Appeals to deal with more than Zoning Appeals for subdivisions and the APFO.Mrs.Wasserman stated in 1969 the responsibility of Board of Appeals in the version of 66B said that the jurisdiction of the Board of Zoning Appeals was over zoning.In 1970 the Law Study Commission adopted a lot of changes but kept the wording of that section.The following year in a corrected bill which normally deals with things that were plural or mistakes in spelling,changed the word Subtitle to Article which gave the Board of Appeals jurisdiction over everything in 66B including subdivisions and all other kinds of land use laws.In certain jurisdictions that is a concern.They feel that the Board of Appeals should be limited to zoning and that the Planning Commission is specifically knowledgeable in subdivisions,so why should it go to the Board of Appeals.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler asked what did 66B envision as changes in separation and how strong should that be if the Planning Commission member is asked to serve by the Board what is their role.Mrs.Wasserman stated they are supposed to be independent and that is why the maximum number of membership from the local legislative body on the Planning Commission is one.The intent of 66B is to not allow the County Commissioners to serve also as the Planning Commission.Mr. Arch explained that the Planning Department acts as a support service to the Planning COmmission but the direction comes from the Board of Commissioners down through the chain of command through 15 the County Administrator down to the department head to the department,with the Planning Department functioning directly under the two of them and acting as a support service to the Planning Commission.Mrs.Wasserman stated that is typical.The intent is to provide some other voice not just political but with experience and expertise.Mr.Arch stated he has talked to the Board of Commissioners and something they are considering is a semi-annual meeting with the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission so they would have an opportunity to provide direction and feels that would be helpful.Mr.Spickler suggested following up with talking about some of the procedures and some of the things discussed today that 66B does not address procedurally.A discussion followed.It was the consensus to have a workshop meeting with the Board of Commissioners,Planning Commission and zoning Board of Appeals. A discussion followed regarding special exceptions pertaining to the Board of Appeals and APFO variances.Mr.Arch stated they are in the process of making a revision to the APFO to go directly to the Board of Appeals.A discussion followed regarding preliminary consultations.Mr.Boyer asked if there is conditional zoning in Maryland.Mrs.Wasserman said no but in addition there is a developers agreement which has been approved.It is one of three pieces of legislation that has been passed amending 66B allowing a local jurisdiction to enter into a developer agreement specifically putting in conditions which could be in conjunction with rezoning. A discussion followed regarding conditional zoning,sensitive .areas and buffers,and takings. Ms.Ancel briefly spoke about the Citizens Planners Association and explained its function.She explained that they go around the State and have meetings for Planning Commission members. They have a winter tour they take around the State usually on Saturday mornings and is usually held at a community college.The purpose is to discuss planning issues of concern to the jurisdiction.They County chooses the topic and the Citizens Planners Association will provide the speakers and people with knowledge to help them understand the issue so they can make their own decisions.In addition,they hold an annual meeting which will be held this year in Hagerstown on October 13th and 14th.The theme is revitalizing Maryland's communities.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m. /\- '~J~~ (~nd L.Iseminge ------- 16 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MAY I,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May I,1995 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;James R. Wade and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch, Associate Planners;James T.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Paula Lampton and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of March 27,1995.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Carroll Boyer: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Carroll Boyer.The site is located on Reno Monument Road and is zoned Agriculture.The request is from Section 405.11.B which states that all new lots shall abut and have access to a public road.Mr.Lung explained that the site contains 10 acres.In 19B7 the Planning Commission approved a subdivision plat that split the parcel into 2 building lots.Both lots had public road frontage and approved access locations onto Reno Monument Road.Mr.Lung stated that the original plat also shows a right-of-way over an existing driveway and crossing an adjacent property to serve Lots I and 2.There is an existing dwelling on Lot 2 with a driveway,Lot 1 is undeveloped.The owner wants to resubdivide and create 2 additional lots.Lot 1 would be reconfigured without public road frontage.Lot 2 would be reconfigured but would retain its road frontage.Lots 3 and 4 would front Reno Monument Road and use the previously approved driveways.Mr.Lung said that the Board of Appeals granted a variance from the APFO for the reduction in the road width requirement.He stated that he received a call from the Boonsboro Fire Chief regarding adequacy of private lanes.It is Boonsboro's policy for liability reasons not to respond officially regarding the adequacy of private lanes for fire protection.In addition,since it is a volunteer company they do not have the manpower or time to check the properties individually.Mr.Lung stated that Chief Griffith did give him the specifications for the type of equipment that would be responding to the site.He said that Chief Griffith also recommended that the applicant's engineer certify that the lane is adequate.Mr.Frederick,consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,Inc.,briefly spoke.He said that he will review the lane to be sure it is sufficient and will provide the Commission with a letter.He stated that the hardship is due to topography and that there will be no further subdivision. A discussion followed regarding the right-of-way.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the variance contingent upon receipt of a letter from the consultant certifying the adequacy of the lane for emergency equipment and conditional upon obtaining a right-of-way to access the three lots.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered.A discussion 17 followed regarding having the fire companies provide the Planning Commission with the specifications of their equipment. Eugene Albert (Sterling Oaks): Mr.Arch explained that this variance request is for a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval for Sterling Oaks subdivision.He stated that ownership was recently transferred and the new owner is asking for an extension and will come back with a revised development plan.Mr.Moser moved to extend the preliminary plat approval for Sterling Oaks for one year.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Subdivisions: South Pointe.Preliminary Plat.Phase 2.Block B: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for South Pointe PUD, Phase 2,Block B.The property is located on the north side of Oak Ridge Drive and is zoned Residential Suburban -Planned Unit Development.The developer is proposing to create 50 lots for townhouses.The minimum lot size is 3,150 square feet.The site will be served by public water and sewer.All approvals are in. Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval of South Pointe, P~ase 2,Block B.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained. So ordered. Rowland Ridge.Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat and forest conservation plan for Rowland Ridge.The property is located on the east side of Hilltop Road in the Highfield area and is zoned Residential Rural.The owner is proposing to subdivide a 7.5 acres parcel into 4 lots.Public water and sewer are available ..Mr. Lung noted that this plan was before the Commission in February for a variance for 4 panhandles to access Hilltop Road.As part of the approval,the Commission asked that the subdivision be designed to utilize 2 shared driveways.All approvals except for the Sanitary District are in.They still need to work out some details with the developer regarding the service connection.Mr.Lung stated that the site is nearly covered in forest and that easements will be established on the lots.Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent upon Sanitary District approval and to grant approval of the forest conservation plan. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mary Llewellyn.Preliminary/Final Plat.Lots 1-4 and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung explained that when this item was placed on the agenda because the staff thought that everything would be ready by the time of the meeting.He referred to a memo from the County Engineer and noted that since some of the property owners along Bobwhite Lane are unwilling to give up the necessary right-of-way for road improvements,he is unable to approve the subdivisipn at this time.Mr.Spickler moved to postpone action at this time. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Washington Sguare Pizza Hut: Mrs.Pietro presented the plat for the North Village Pizza Hut, Lots 1 and 2.The property is zoned Planned Business.The developer is proposing to subdivide the property into 2 lots.Lot 1 will contain the Pizza Hut and consists of .73 acres.Lot 2 will 18 contain 1 acre and there are no plans for development at this time. Both lots will be served by public facilities and all accesses will be from the rear.All approving agencies have responded.Mrs. Pietro said that State Highway requested minor revisions.Mr. Moser moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on State Highway approval.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Black Rock Estates,Section B: Mr.Lung presented the forest conservation plan for Black Rock Estates,Section B,located on the north side of Mt.Aetna Road. He said that Section B consists of 23 lots on 22 acres.He proceeded to review the history of the property.The developer is proposing to use off site afforestation on a property he owns in the Smithsburg area.Mr.Lung said that the forest delineation for Section B shows no existing forest on the Black Rock Estates site nor were there any priority areas identified.Mr.Lung stated there are a cluster of existing dwellings near the road that are listed in the historic site survey and are considered historic. The plat indicates that these building are to be demolished.Mr. Weikert,consultant,of Fox and Associates stated that the note was an error and that the main dwelling is to be preserved.Mr.Lung ~tated that Section B requires 4 acres of afforestation and that the property near Smithsburg contains 70 acres,which is adequate for the entire development.A discussion followed regarding planting off site,the adjacent properties and the possibility of buffering on the Black Rock Estates site for the future sections. Mr.Moser moved to approve off site afforestation.Seconded!::ly Mr. Spickler.So ordered. Development Plan: st.James Village North,Final Development Plan: Mr.Brittain referred to the memo in the agenda regarding the proposed revisions and proceeded to review them.He said the revisions entailed upgrading the open space amenities (swimming pool,pool.house,2 tennis courts,2 basketball courts,tot lot and parking area)and including this open space area in Phase II.As a result there will be an increase in the amount of maintained open space to be available sooner to the residents of the PUD.Mr. Moser moved to approve the revised Final Development Plan. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Truman Martin,RZ-95-01 Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Arch stated he had nothing to add to the staff report following the public hearing and that there was no additional testimony and that the property owner substantiated a change in the character of the neighborhood.Mr.Iseminger referred to page 3 of the staff report.He said that under "Staff Response"instead of "there was a mistake ..."it should read "there was a change in the character of the neighborhood".Mr.Spickler moved to recommend that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-95-01 based on the staff's findings of fact,based on the applicant demonstrating a change of character in the neighborhood and that the request is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. 19 Group II Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the staff report,the testimony received and requests for changes in the zoning.He said that for the I-81 and Mason-Dixon Road interchange that the designation for the Eshleman property would be changed from Residential Rural to Agricultural.The other change is for the interchange at I-81 and Maugans Avenue.Mr.Arch said that staff is proposing to change the designation of the area between the railroad tracks, Maugansville Road and Shawley Drive containing the Caleb Martin property,Fire Department property and Sanitary District property from HI-2 to HI-I.The interchange at 1-81 and Showalter Road will not be changed.A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved in response to the public hearing on RZ-95-02.1,RZ-95-02.2 and RZ-94- 02.3 that a resolution be prepared for adoption by the Board of Commissioners for this Comprehensive Rezoning being that they are all consistent wit the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Oakleigh Estates - 1 year Final Approval Extension: Mr.Arch stated that the developer for Oakleigh Estates is requesting a 1 year extension of final approval.Mr.Moser moved to extend final plat approval for Oakleigh Estates for 1 year. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. APFO -Semi-Annual Report: Mr.Arch stated that staff recommends that they maintain the APFO and are proposing 4 changes for this cycle.Mr.Arch reviewed the 4 changes coming up in July that will be proposed.One change will be with the capacity figure as directed by the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Arch stated that the Board had instructed him last July to change the formula to reflect the actual capacity that the school district use for each school instead of the lAC capacity figure as now used.The second change will address the problem they have with sending an applicant for a variance back and forth to the different boards.If the applicant brings in all the information for the staff to review and the County Engineer turns it down,the staff can generate the denial letter for the applicant to go to the Board of Appeals for a variance.The third one is a clerical change replacing road specification standards with the "Policy for Evaluation of Existing Roads".The last change expands the APFO to cover state roads intersections with County roads.The Ordinance restricts the Planning Commission's application of the APFO to county roads and this would extend the application to where a County road intersects with a State road.Mr.Arch requested the endorsement of the Commission to proceed with these changes.A discussion followed regarding the proposed changes.Mr.Iseminger requested expansion of the amendment to cover all state road~not just intersections of County and State roads.A discussion followed regarding impact fees and the numbers used for the school capaci ties.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend the need for the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to the County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they continue to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Mr.Moser recommended that the Commissioners look at reforming the Impact Fee committee.A discussion followed.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Spickler recommended to proceed with the 4 recommendations.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, /L~ ~ertrand L. 20 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -MAY 22,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,May 22,1995 in the 3rd floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade,Robert E.Ernst II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Reid's Elevator Service -Site Plan: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for Reid's Elevator Service.'The property is located in the Huyetts Business Park on Business Parkway and contains 1 acre.Mr.Arch said that the Planning Commission approved a subdivision for this business park about a year ago.The owner is proposing to build a warehouse on Lot 5. The property is zoned Highway Interchange and is inside the Urban Growth Area.All agency approvals have been received.There were some minor comments regarding signs and the plan has been revised accordingly.Mr.Arch said that a Forest Conservation payment in lieu of fee was paid one year ago.He proceeded to explain the parking area,landscaping and signage.A brief discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Environmental Sensitive Areas: Mr.Arch said that Mr.Goodrich was unable to attend the meeting and that this item would be added to the agenda for the regular June meeting for discussion.He stated that the Planning Commission made references to things they would like to see.In doing some research,staff found that the way it is handled in Baltimore County is similar to some of the Planning Commission's comments.He said they are working toward different layers of buffering depending on use.The other item staff is working on is a revision to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the visions.A discussion followed regarding other ordinance reviews.Mr.Arch explained in updating the Comprehensive Plan that staff will most likely look at developing a land use plan map. Mr.Arch said that the Planning Commission at their last meeting recommended,as part of the approval process for the APFO report, that the Board of Commissioners re-establish the committee to investigate impact fees.The Board of Commissioners took action and approved that request.Mr.Iseminger asked if we were still planning on having Jim Shaw,Frederick County Planning Director make a presentation and suggested that if that committee is formed by then to have them present.A discussion followed regarding: impact fees and how they may affect growth,the impact of municipalities on schools,adoption of a land use plan,developing a Comprehensive Plan for growth in the County and having an affective APFO.A discussion followed regarding the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Plan of 1972 and looking towards the future and Agricultural zoning outside the UGA. Mr.Moser briefly reviewed how the town of Boonsboro developed their growth study and that they looked at specific land uses in 21 formulating their growth area.He said they worked with the people on a case by case basis and that they know what is expected up front.He said they were able to get an idea of what they will be faced with for the next 20 years when they adopted it and planned accordingly.Mr.Arch stated that staff projected a need for about 16,000 units to meet demand up to the year 2020 and that they have about 8,000 units approved now.A discussion followed.Mr. Spickler feels they need to take a hard look on how they will proceed from here and suggested directing their meetings towards a specific issue.A discussion followed regarding a land use study and ag land preservation and equity of ag land.Mr.Arch stated they are working on the ag land study and will come up with a program to address it and will present something to the Planning Commission,possibly in July.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch feels they should have a meeting between the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners regarding issues.Mr.Iseminger asked if staff could come up with a map showing development patterns.Mr.Arch stated they do not have that ability at this time.A discussion followed regarding setting up a t:ime line.Mr. Arch felt the first item the Planning Commission should work on is the Agricultural issue.He also suggested for their June workshop meeting to discuss the environmental sensitive areas if they are not covered at the regular meeting or else they will discuss variances.Mr.Iseminger suggested planning to discuss the issue of Agricultural zoning in July and suggested that each member bring an idea to the meeting to discuss what direction they should go in. Mr.Spickler suggested that the Planning Commission Chair should be more visible at the Board of Commissioners meetings making reports on what they are doing instead of staff.Mr.Arch feels there should be quarterly meetings between the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Iseminger asked if they were still planning on having a meeting with the Planning Commission as the lead agency having a meeting at the Junior College with the department heads an annual meeting with various agencies.Mr.Arch stated he has not yet scheduled anything.A discussion followed regarding the sensitive area aspect of the Comprehensive Plan and the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Moser feels they need to address the problem in Agriculture zoning first before they can do the Land Use Plan with the current Agricultural zoning.A discussion followed regarding the equity issue,impact fee study group,determining the most pressing problem and dealing with it first and the status of the Highway Interchange Study. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 22 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 5,1995 The Washington county Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 5,1995 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;James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst, II.Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner; Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of April 3,1995.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes of April 27,1995. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr.Moser made a motion to nominate Bertrand L.Iseminger as Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Spickler moved to close the nominations for Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Mr.Moser made a motion to nominate Donald L.Spickler as Vice- Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Ernst moved to close the nominations for Vice-Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Bowen. So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Charles and Susan Dunn: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for Charles and Susan Dunn.The site is located on the northwest side of Boyd Road near Clear Spring and is zoned Conservation.The owner is proposing to create a 3 acre lot out of an 11 acre parcel for his son.The frontage area is not sufficient to create another lot along Boyd Road; therefore,the lot was created to the rear with a panhandle in excess of 1000 feet in length.The request is from Section 405.ll.G5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that the length of each panhandle shall not exceed 400 feet.Mrs.Pietro stated she sent a copy of the information to the County Engineer who stated that the sight distance is adequate and that they have no problem with any proposed development along Boyd Road but noted that the drive is fairly steep and there maybe problems with access in bad weather.Mrs.Pietro said that information was also sent to the Clear Spring Fire Department as well as a follow-up call,with no response.She said that Mr.Dunn's son is present.A discussion followed regarding the topography,the configuration of the lot and the location of the lot.Mr.Spickler suggested straightening the left property line,increase the size of the lot and have a 396 foot panhandle.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Dunn if his father would have a problem with that.Mr.Dunn stated no.A discussion followed configuration.Mr. request. Potomac Manor: regarding the proposed change in Dunn requested to withdraw the 23 the lot variance Mr.Arch explained that this variance request is for a one year extension of preliminary plat approval of Section H of Potomac Manor.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Subdivisions: South Pointe PUD,Phase 2,Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the final plat for South Pointe,Phase 2, Lots 31 -60.The zoning is Residential Suburban PUD.The site is located on the north side of East Oak Ridge Drive and is for 30 single family lots.The total acreage is 13 acres with 77 acres remaining.The property will be served by public water and sewer and by a new public street.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser moved to grant final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Wade.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. "Frank Johnson,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Frank Johnson for Lots 1 -3.The zoning is Agricultural.The property is located on the south side of Spielman Road.The lots are approximately 1 acre each and the total site is 2.9 acres.The property will be served by private well and septic.All approvals have been received.Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mrs.Pietro noted that the forest conservation plan has been submitted and that they will be making a payment in lieu of in the amount of $2,570.04. Preliminary Consultations: Allen Martin: Mr.Lung referred to the summary in the agenda packet and stated he wanted to review a few items with the Planning Commission.A Consultation was held in April for 79 acres along the west side of Paradise Church Road north of Longmeadow Road.The concept plan shows between 141 and 147 single family lots.The zoning is Residential Suburban and the site will be served by public water and sewer.The phasing plan calls for 25 lots in the first phase with the remaining lots developed later.The first 25 lots are off of Paradise Church Road and will be 15,000 square feet and larger. He proceeded to review the concerns expressed by some of the agencies. Mr.Lung said that the sewer is controlled by the Washington County Sanitary District and the sewage is treated by the City of Hagerstown plant.Recently the State issued a consent order on the City regarding the amount of sewage flow into the interceptor line that serves this area.The consent order requires State approval of any new flow above 10,000 gallons.He said that is equivalent to about 50 dwelling units.The first phase of 25 units will not require the additional State approval,however,the Sanitary District did express concern.The County Engineer was generally satisfied with the proposed road layout and the provisions for connections to adjacent tracts.There is a tie in to the existing North Village Subdivision (Fountain Head West)as well as a tie in to the proposed development on the west side.Mr.Lung said that 24 this property was rezoned in 1993 and at that time there were conditions placed on the rezoning by the County Commissioners which asked that the Planning Commission require that notes be placed on the plat regarding the proximity of this development to the airport,airport noise and the use of insulation materials in the homes for sound proofing or reducing the noise impact in the homes. Mr.Lung said that in regards to forest conservation,there was a Forest Stand Delineation prepared which showed no existing forest on the site.He noted there is a priority area on the site.The FEMA 100 year flood plain on the northwest corner.A Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan was recently submitted and shows 2.21 acres of afforestation to be located in the flood plan area that would handle the first 25 lots proposed in phase 1.There appears to be an existing stand of forest on the adjacent property owned by Potomac Edison.Another priority area would be to consider afforestation to increase the size of the existing forest.Mr. Lung said at the consultation there was some discussion that the developer may consider requesting using the payment in lieu of for the remaining lots.He noted that the proposed development is inside the Urban Growth Area.A discussion followed regarding afforestation for the entire site.Mr.Spickler wants the developer to look at planting as much as possible on site and considering planting the rest off site.A discussion followed regarding the authority of the Planning Commission to require notes "on the plats.Mr.Iseminger agreed with the suggestion to plant as much as possible on site and plant the rest off site. Rosewood Estates: Mr.Lung reviewed the summary of the consultation for Rosewood Estates PUD for Manny Shaool.He said that Mr.Shaool has applied for PUD rezoning on approximately 75 acres located along Robinwood Drive.The majority of the property is located on the west side of Robinwood Drive and there is a 3.5 acre parcel on the east side of Robinwood Drive.Mr.Lung explained that the Preliminary Consul tation is the first step in the PUD review process.The purpose of the concept plan review is to provide an exchange of information between the developer and the Planning Commission with the intent that the developer provide the Commission with general information for the layout,densities and specific uses.The Commission will then provide the developer with corresponding comments.He said at this stage the developer is not asking for approval of this plan,that will occur after the public hearing if the rezoning is approved.The purpose of this step of the process is for the developer and the Planning Commission to discuss the proposal and for the Planning Commission to make any recommendations or comments to the developer prior to the public hearing (June 12,1995)so any necessary changes can be made.Mr. Lung explained that if the rezoning is approved,it will constitute tentative approval of density and design features as shown on the Concept Plan.Mr.Lung noted that the Concept Plan submitted was more detailed than what is generally required at this step in the review process.He said that what they are looking for at this point is the spacial arrangement of the different land uses,the apartments versus the townhouses,versus the commercial area and the disbursement of the open space,the general arrangement of the streets,the overall density,the open space ratio and the commercial ratio.. Mr.Lung stated that some changes have been made since the Preliminary Consultation to address comments made at the Consultation.He said he has not yet seen the changes and that his review is based on the original plan.The developer is proposing a mixture of residential and commercial development.The residential portion calls for 527 dwelling units with a mixture of townhouses,apartments and dormitory apartments.The townhouses will be owned fee simple and the developer will control the 25 architectural design.Forty-seven townhouses are proposed.One hundred and fifty-six apartment units are proposed (14 -12 unit buildings),24 dormitory apartments.Mr.Lung referred to the plan and pointed out the location of the various housing types.He said that the gross residential density will be approximately 7 dwelling units per acre (12 dwelling units per acre is the maximum).Mr. Lung said that commercial development is located in several different areas and amounts to a total of 7.5 acres (10 percent of the total site -maximum amount allowed).He pointed out the location of the retail commercial area in the front of the development consisting of 1.1 acres,a commercial area of 4.3 acres located near the center of the development and a 2.1 acre commercial area adjacent to Robinwood Drive (which has its own private access onto Robinwood Drive).Mr.Lung said there is approximately 19 acres of open space provided.Mr.Lung explained the location of the open space and said that it is spread throughout the development and contains a mixture of both active and passive recreational amenities including tennis courts, swimming pool and a community building.There are play and tot lots spread throughout the development as well as a pedestrian walkway system through the development.Mr.Lung said it is not complete and there are some pedestrian walkways that do attach to a loop around the permanent pond,which serves as storm water retention and a permanent wet pond. Mr.Lung said that the Forest Stand Delineation indicated that there were no existing tree cover on the site that would constitute a forest.The required afforestation area is 11.3 acres.Mr.Lung said the developer is proposing to locate the afforestation area throughout the development and tried to locate it in areas required for buffering between different uses on site and buffering for adjacent uses.The site will be served by public water and sewer. A public road system is proposed that will serve the development. There are two access points on Robinwood Drive,one is a private access for the commercial area.There is a connection proposed for the future connector road between Robinwood Drive and Eastern Boulevard.Mr.Lung said that connection is also shown on the original subdivision plat for Rosewood Estates.He proceeded to explain the road system.Mr.Lung said that the developer has not yet indicated if they will put in sidewalks.The County Engineer has stated that he will require closed section curb and gutter streets. Mr.Lung said that this development will be subject to the requirements of the APFO.He explained that even though the site is located inside the Urban Growth Area,the public school adequacy section of the APFO would apply since all the residential development proposed is considered multi-family (only single family and semi-detached dwellings are exempted from the school element when inside UGA).Mr.Lung said that the 74 single family lots that do have final approval on the existing Rosewood Estates plat would also be exempt from the APFO.He said that any approval of the rezoning would do away with the previous plat.The APFO was adopted before the PUD section of Zoning Ordinance was adopted and the PUD section does make reference to adequacy of schools and streets.It is the staff's opinion that the APFO would have to be addressed at the Final Development Plan review stage.Based on the information from the Board of Education it would be appropriate for the developer to be put on notice that there will be a capacity problem at the time of final review and he should be prepared at that time to enter into negotiations with the County regarding how he plans to resolve the problem.He said that same requirement would apply to the road system.The County Engineer is requiring a Traffic Impact Study to determine the impact this development will have on the road system.Mr.Lung said that any off site improvements required would have to be negotiated between the developer and the County prior to Final Development Plan approval. Mr.Lung said that another concern of the County Engineer was the private commercial access on Robinwood Drive.He said it does not meet the County's access separation spacing requirements on a 26 collector highway and the County Engineer does not want to see another private entrance onto Robinwood Drive when it appears it can be served by an internal street.Mr.Lung said another concern was the relationship of this development to the proposed new road. Mr.Lung said that the centerline has not yet been established but there have been preliminary plans developed for a road from Robinwood Drive to Eastern Boulevard.Mr.Lung said that the staff had a discussion with the County Engineer regarding this road and there may be a way to try to do some redesign of road layout and to allow the developer to construct the first part of the road in order to eliminate one of the additional accesses onto Robinwood Drive.Mr.Lung said there was some concern expressed by the County Engineer regarding storm water management.He is concerned with the ability for the wet pond to handle the stormwater generated by the development.Mr.Lung said there was also discussion about the Junior College's proposal for some stormwater management on their site and tieing it into the proposed development. Mr.Lung said they did receive comments from the Junior College which are included in the agenda packet.He said they deal with the density,the future road connection and storm water management. Mr.Lung said the Planning Department was concerned with the street layout and the orientation of the townhouses in a long strip along the collector highway with individual driveways.The County Engineer indicated he would approve on street parking in this development however,this would not count towards the parking requirements per the Zoning Ordinance.He explained that for townhouses you need 1.8 parking spaces per townhouse not including on street parking.He said that the Planning Department is also concerned with access onto Robinwood Drive.He said they would also like to see pedestrian access throughout the development, possibly sidewalks. Mr.Spickler said that in the summary it was mentioned that the Board of Trustees at the Junior College would be meeting on May 23rd and would forward official responses and asked if that had been done.Mr.Lung stated that it was his understanding that they intend to testify at the public hearing.Mr.Arch stated that the issue regarding regional transportation is important and if this project moves forward it will be an issue they will be looking at closely.Mr.Moser asked if the Park Board has been involved in reviewing the amenities as they have done with similar developments in the past.It was his opinion that what is being proposed is not adequate for the density.Mr.Lung said he has not done so •.Mr. Moser noted according to the plan,that some of the townhouses are in the flood plain.Mr.Lung said that was brought up at the consultation that there was a discrepancy with the flood plain information used by the consultant.Mr.Moser also commented on the sidewalks and noted there is a school nearby and felt that sidewalks are important.He asked if the children would be bused to school.He feels there should be sidewalks with this density. Mr.Lung noted there is undeveloped land between the proposed development and Eastern Elementary and there could eventually be connections.A discussion followed regarding reserving future right-of-ways to connect to the school and the future connecting road to Eastern Boulevard,the capacity of Eastern Elementary School,redistricting and addressing the school capacity issue now. Mr.Wade expressed concern with the school capacity and felt it should be addressed now.Further discussion followed regarding the school capacity and the APFO. Mr.Schlossburg,attorney for the developer,briefly spoke.He said he noted the comments just made and agreed that they will have major issues to consider regarding the schools,roads,forestation and storm water management.He stated that if they create stress on the County's systems in any of these areas they understand they need to address them.He said that in the PUD process this is something that is spread out in four distinct phases over a lengthy period of time before the first spade of earth is turned and they 27 should bear in mind where they are now.He said that what is before them now is the preliminary consultation which is a detailed concept plan.He noted that when there is so much detail at the concept stage it is important not to let it confuse the issues before them.He said the issues before the Planning Commission at this stage are ones of density and general conceptual framework for the development and that this is a 4 phase process that will take a couple of years.He said they have attempted to address the concerns expressed at the consultation on the revised plan (which he presented to the Commission).Mr.Schlossburg said that a concern was raised regarding the townhouse driveways and Varsity Drive being too close to the other access onto Robinwood Drive.He said they met with the adjoining property owner and have shifted the access and showed the new access for the commercial area.He referred to the access points at the top of the plan at Kennedy Drive and said they have now created a service road behind it with off street parking and presented an example of a development using a similar design.He said at this stage they need to know from the Planning Commission if they have the go ahead to develop it in this fashion.He noted Mr.Moser's comments regarding the tot lots and amenities being inadequate.He said there is space for them and this is still in the preliminary stage and at the final stage they will show everything.He stated that concern was expressed at the consultation regarding the design of the townhomes.He said they will be upscale brick townhomes. Mr.Spickler referred to the former subdivision layout and the Junior College's comments regarding the right-of-way across their property for the sewer line was based on the concept plan for the 75 lots.He said that a concern is that when they make this kind of change moving from low density to a higher density this may cause some problems.He feels the developer should keep in mind how they fit in with the community.Mr.Schlossburg said that since the consultation,his clients have met with Dr.Elliott and his staff and said that the Planning Commission will be receiving revised comments from the Junior College.He said that the Junior College was very concerned with the type of development they were proposing.A discussion followed regarding the sewer pumping station capacity.Mr.Iseminger stated that the developer needs to work with the Junior College regarding stormwater management and to tie the pedestrian system in to the college.Mr.Schlossbur~said that they do intend to tie the walkways to the college.Mr. Iseminger stated that it is critical to plan for the connector road to tie in to Eastern Boulevard and feels they should abandon Varsity Drive and instead,construct the first leg of the connector to Eastern Boulevard.Mr.Arch said that they will be looking at stormwater management and will meet with the Junior College in the future,concerning revising their master plan.A discussion followed. Daron Investments: Mr.Lung briefly reviewed the consultation for Daron Investments. The site is located along the west side of Crystal Falls Drive.He said that last winter the developer withdrew a proposal for this property for 7 lots along Crystal Falls Drive with future plans for 60 lots on the remaining property.The property was previously owned by Western Commercial Funding and was purchased by Daron Investments.Their initial plan was to develop the rear portion of the property to be a recreational facility and shooting range, which was turned down by the Board of Zoning Appeals.At the same time,they presented the concept plan for the 7 lots to be stripped along Crystal Falls Road with future plans for 60 lots in the back. He said at the time,even though they withdrew the plan,the developer was advised that the Planning Commission did not support 7 individual accesses along Crystal Falls Drive.What they are proposing now is to develop the entire 242 acres into building lots.There will be a total of 25 lots ranging in size from 3.5 to 29 acres.The zoning is Agricultural.He said one of the points 28 that came up in the previous consultation is the condition of Crystal Falls Drive.Crystal Falls Drive is adequate to support the 25 lots but once they go above that the additional improvements would be required.The site is within the Beaver Creek Special Planning area and Soil Conservation has recommended using denitrification septic systems.Mr.Lung said that a forest stand delineation was approved for the front portion which shows no existing tree cover that would constitute a forest.They have a forest stand delineation for the rear portion which also shows no existing forest on the site but does have some priority areas including steep slopes,a pond,a spring,a cave and adjacent forest.The plan shows an area to be afforested to meet the forest conservation requirements.He said that staff is not opposed to what is proposed,however some forested areas around the priority areas to serve as a buffer may be appropriate.Mr.Lung stated that these are very large lots and with the Agricultural zoning there is a possibility that someone purchasing a lot may want to subdivide the larger lots and that the developer should consider restrictions written into the covenants to advise the property owners that if they decide to subdivide the lots that it would be a difficult situation due to APFO considerations.He said there is a provision for an emergency turn around midway point on the cul- de-sac that the County Engineer has some concerns about,this will be worked out on the staff level between the various agencies.Mr. Spickler expressed concern with planting trees around a pond due to problems with tree roots.He did,however,encourage the creation of conservation buffers around the pond as well as the other priority areas. Forest Conservation: Allen Martin: Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Martin's consultant requested the opportunity to make a statement since he was not present earlier in the meeting during the discussion regarding the consultation.Mr. Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,consultant,stated that the property had been rezoned from Agricultural to Residential Suburban and is open farm land with no trees and is located inside the Urban Growth Area.The site contains 78 acres.Mr.Frederick said they have 2 areas they want to propose for afforestation.One area has wetlands and the other contains steep slopes.Mr. Frederick said that these areas will give them approximately 2 acres out of the required 15 acres and they would like to be able to pay a fee in lieu of for 13.76 acres or at least a large portion of it.He said that the 13.76 acres of afforestation would eliminate 50 -55 lots and this would make the development unfeasible.Mr.Iseminger suggested using on-site afforestation where it make sense and payment in lieu of,or off site mitigation for the remaining area.Mr.Frederick suggested on-site afforestation in the two priority areas along with a buffer strip connecting the two areas and perhaps working with Potomac Edison to plant on their adjacent property.Mr.Spickler asked the deve,loper to plant as much as possible in the priority areas and plant the remainder off site since the development is in the Growth Area. FB-l Limited Partnership: Mr.Goodrich passed out a copy of a letter from Davis,Renn and Associates regarding the proposal to meet Forest Conservation Act requirements.The property is located on the west side of 1-81 and Maugans Avenue and contains 51 acres.The Preliminary Consultation was held in November 1994.A preliminary plat has been submitted but is not ready for approval at this time.He said there are 4 issues that the Planning Commission needs to address:1)Use of payment in lieu of forestation 2)The increase or maintenance of a buffer along 1-81 3)The townhouse lots without public road frontage and 4)The concerns of adjacent property owners. 29 Mr.Goodrich explained that the total obligation for forestation is 9.8 acres.The developer plans to retain 2 acres of existing forest on the site,proposes to plant 3.8 acres of new forest on the site and is requesting to make a payment in lieu of fo~the remaining 4 acres.Mr.Goodrich advised the consultant of the need to justify the payment versus planting which is included in the letter he passed out. The second item is the buffer along 1-81 is required due to residential properties across the highway.He said the Planning Commission has the authority to require an increase in the buffer in the Highway Interchange zone and asked if they felt an increased buffer is necessary.The staff's opinion is that an increased buffer is not going to help the homes across the highway but will help buffer the new homes proposed to be built near the interstate. He said that this item is related to the forest issue because this strip can be used for some of the on site planting. Mr.Goodrich referred to the 4th item concerning the adjacent property owner's concerns with drainage,the potential for trespassing and weed control.He said that staff advised the property owner that drainage will be handled by the Storm Water Management Ordinance,and that the developer has been asked to provide buffering and security in the area to discourage trespassing and to have the play areas evenly distributed in the development.A discussion followed regarding what type of buffering they are proposing for the adjacent property owner (landscaping or forest)and the plan.Mr.Spickler expressed concern with the amount of buffer along the multi-family units and feels they should plant a few more trees in that area.He feels they should improve that but has no problem with off site mitigation or payment in lieu of for the remaining forested acres. Mr.Moser suggested an earthen berm and planting on top of that. A discussion followed regarding buffering 1-81,the earthen berm and the width of the buffer.Mr.Ernst made a motion to accept the forest conservation plan as presented with the exception of the area that is buffering the townhouses from the highway.The developer has the option of increasing the width to 75 feet or retaining the 50 foot width and including a berm.payment in lieu of will be permitted for the balance.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. So ordered. Mr.Goodrich said that the issue of lots without road frontage remained.He said there are about 15 lots that do not have frontage onto a public road.In addition,the Ordinance also requires a minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage and the minimum lot width of townhouses is 16 feet.He said he is asking for a variance from the 25 foot road frontage requirement for the multi-family units.Mr.Moser moved to grant a variance for the townhouse lots from the 25 foot road frontage requirement . .Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Sensitive Areas: Mr.Goodrich passed out a revised proposal regarding stream buffers.Mr.Iseminger asked if they can address it at their monthly workshop so they can have time to review it.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the information. Resolution 95-1 -Adoption of Comprehensive Rezoning Maps: Mr.Arch said that last month the Planning Commission approved the proposed zoning for Group II of the Highway Interchange Study and this is the formal resolution for them to adopt.Mr.Moser moved to adopt Resolution 95-1 for Group II.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger referred to page 2 on the 3rd 30 whereas,he feels that after "oral and written testimony received" they need to add "within that 10 day period".A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst moved to approve Resolution 95-1 for Group II Highway Interchange as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Tri-State Fellowship Church and Hoffman Meats -Sewer Service Area Determination: Mr.Lung passed out a map showing the area.He said that a year ago the update to the Water and Sewerage Plan was approved by the Planning Commission,the County Commissioners and the State.He said at that time in order to bring the Water and Sewerage Plan in line with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to streamline the review and approval process for developments within the Urban Growth Area,they classified any land that fell within the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area a Planned Service designation for water and sewer.He noted that the Urban Growth Area boundary is not a rigid boundary line and there is some lee way in interpreting which areas fall inside or outside of that boundary. He said they did make provision for that in the Water and Sewerage Plan by giving the Planning Commission the authority with flexibility to make determinations on the properties near that boundary line.He said that is what is before them tonight.One property is owned by Tri State Fellowship Church and the other is owned by Donald Hoffman and Sons.The property is located on the -northwest side of MD 58,the Cearfoss Pike,and is zoned Agricultural.The Tri State Church property contains 10.45 acres and is undeveloped and is designated to be a future site for a church.The Hoffman site is currently the site of Hoffman's meat market and mini warehouses and covers approximately 15 acres.The Zoning Appeals Board has approved special exception variances for the mini warehouses and for further development on site for a catering service and recreational facility.He said that the Hoffmans would like to serve the proposed developments with public sewer by means of constructing approximately 1800 feet of sewer force main to connect with an existing pumping station in Maugans Meadows.He said that the Sanitary District has approved this conceptually,however,in order to get service to the site the Planning Commission needs to make a determination as to whether or not the site falls within the Urban Growth Area.He explained that if the Planning Commission determines these lots are not within the urban Growth Area then the owner would have the option to make a request for an amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan.Mr.Lung said that the staff advised the applicants to take this first step due to the properties location in regard to the Urban Growth Area line and the general character of the area seems to be influenced by the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Lung said that Gerald Cump, representing Tri-State Fellowship and Merle Seville,representing the Hoffmans were both present.A discussion followed regarding the Urban Growth Area boundary line and straightening out the line, the need for a better definition of the boundary and to look at the entire boundary line.Mr.Arch stated that in order to change the boundary line they would need a Comprehensive Plan amendment and that it would be a major undertaking.Further discussion followed. Mr.Moser stated he did not have a problem with allowing the request as an exception but does have a problem with deciding it is inside the Growth Area.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved that it be determined that the Tri-State Fellowship Church and Hoffman Meats properties are associated with the Urban Growth Area because they both have the characteristics found in the Urban Growth Area.Seconded by Mr.Wade.Mr.Ernst abstained and Mr. Moser voted no.So ordered. 31 RZ-95-03: Mr.Arch reviewed the changes made.He said that Mr.Bowen had requested that the word exclusionary be added along with adding language regarding buffering in a PI district.He said that the staff report basically recommends that they stay with what they have.A discussion followed regarding the setbacks and the Commission retaining the ability to increase the setbacks and to reserve the ability for the Commission to address certain issues and whether or not they should rewrite the amendment.Mr. Iseminger stepped down as the Chairman and turned the chair over to Mr.Spickler.Mrs.Lampton moved to recommend the adoption of RZ- 95-03 to the Board of Commissioners as amended,because it is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and that the Planning Commission is concerned with the setbacks near residential properties be expressed to the Commissioners.Seconded by Mr. Iseminger.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission'S request for a pay increase was turned down.Mr.Iseminger feels they should revisit it again at the next budget year because they have increased the amount of meetings. Mr.Arch stated that at the last meeting he said that the Board of Commissioners had approved reestablishing the committee on impact fees.Mr.Arch asked the County Administrator to asked the Board for a clarification.He said that the original committee was not the Planning Commission.But when he was at the budget hearing it seemed that it was the Planning Commission and if that is the case then the Board needs to go on record stating it.Mr.Arch stated that he wants to contact Jim Shaw to attend their special meeting in June. Mr.Arch said that Terry McGee had comments about developing an Urban Road Section and they will look at that. Mr.Arch stated with regards to school capacity he will be sending out a memo covering 3 different issues and some decisions that the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners will need to d~cide upon to develop an effective school policy. Mr.Arch said they will be taking over the grant coordination that Neil Curran handled.Further discussion followed regarding the APFO. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 32 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -JUNE 26,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meettng on Monday,June 26,1995 in the 3rd floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst, II.Staff:Planning 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 6:00 p.m. Bob White Lane -APFO Determination: Mr.Arch stated that this request was before the Planning Commission a year ago.At that time,the County Engineer expressed concern with the proposed development due to the inadequacy of the road per the APFO.As a result,the Planning Commission turned the subdivision down.The decision was appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals who then granted a variance for 3 lots to be constructed on the unimproved portion of Bob White Lane.In addition,a 4th lot was to be created on the portion of the road to be improved by Washington County.During the CIP review,the County decided that they would not be able to fund construction of that portion of the road.The Zoning Administrator determined in order to build on the remaining lots,that the Zoning Board of Appeals would need to take a second look at the variance they granted since the facts of the case have changed.Mr.Arch explained that the Planning Commission needs to turn it down again so they may proceed to the Board of Appeals.Mr.Moser moved that Bob White Lane is inadequate. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger said it was his understanding that the Board of Appeals did grant a variance to subdivide 4 lots if Bob White Lane is brought to County standards.Mr.Arch stated that they granted them a variance for 3 lots.He explained that it is a 4 lot subdivision and one of the lots would have been on the section that would have been improved to meet the requirements.He said part of problem they ran into was that additional right-of-way was needed from adjacent property owners and they refused to provide it so the road could never be widened to meet County standards.The consultant,Fred Frederick,briefly spoke on behalf of Mary Llewellyn regarding the expenses she has incurred based on the assumption that the road would be widened by the County.After further discussion,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that under the Subdivision Ordinance they had no recourse but to turn it down.Mr.Frederick said that in the past the Planning Commission has written letters to help applicants going before the Board of Appeals and felt that in this case it would be appropriate.Mr.Iseminger stated that they will have to make their case to the County Commissioners and the Board of Zoning Appeals because the Planning Commission was never in favor of the subdivision from the beginning.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission not to issue a letter to the Board of Appeals and that Mrs.Llewellyn's next step would be to proceed to the Board of Appeals. 33 Van Lear Manor Subdivision,Section 15 -Extension of time for plat recordation: Mr.Arch stated that this request is for final plat extension of Van Lear Manor Subdivision Section 15.Mr.Spickler moved to grant a one year extension of the final plat for Van Lear Manor Subdivision,Section 15.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Potomac Ridge -Preliminary Consultation: Mr.Arch asked the Commission if they had any questions regarding the summary.Mr.Moser noted that in the summary it stated that there would be sidewalks in the two sections but they would not be interconnected because of the topography.He asked if it would be possible to tie them in with steps on the bank because all of the amenities are on the lower elevation.The consultant,Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and Associates stated that he would speak to his client.Mr.Arch noted that this was a previously approved plan called Laurel Grove and this plan is slightly revised with a lower density.Mr.Iseminger noted the agreement with the prior owner to pay $16,000.00 to upgrade Day Road and asked if that still applied.Mr.Arch stated it should.A discussion followed regarding the amount,whether the County Engineer has reviewed it for adequacy and the intersection at U.S.Route 40 and Hebb Road. Mr.Iseminger stated that he wants the County Engineer to advise them if the $16,000.00 is still sufficient.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with the issues brought up in the staff report. Sensitive Area Element -Stream Buffers: Mr.Goodrich reminded the Commission of the March workshop meeting when the staff presented the proposed concept for addressing the Sensitive Area Element amendment to the Comprehensive Plan required by the '92 Planning Act.He noted that the Commission appeared to be satisfied with the proposal to protect three of the four sensitive areas (steep slopes,habitat of endangered species and floodplains)and the Special Planning Areas (Appalachian Trail,Beaver Creek watershed and Edgemont and Smi thsburg Reservoir watersheds)from the current Comprehensive Plan.The concept for stream buffer protection and situations where steep slope is also involved was seen as too complicated and inflexible. Staff explained that they had researched other County methods and found Baltimore County to have a system most like what the Commission had requested containing flexibility and protection relative to stream size.The drawback is that it is a lengthy process requiring study of an entire stream system even when only a small portion is affected.Mr,Goodrich presented a proposal that included a stream and buffer definition.Buffer widths are set at 50 feet in the Urban Growth Area and 100 feet in the Rural Agricultural area.Lists of permitted and non-permitted uses were also presented.In general,permanent structures would not be allowed in the buffer while non-ground surface disturbing uses would be allowed. The discussion turned to farming in the buffer.It was explained that cultivation would be permitted in the buffer as long as a Soil Conservation plan was followed and Best Management practices were used.He noted that there are over 80 identified practices although many are not applicable to stream buffers.This would have the effect of making the current voluntary practice mandatory.Mr.Goodrich also mentioned that where farming was once exempt from state regulation regarding sediment and erosion control,recent changes in the law no longer provide an exemption. The discussion concluded with the Commission endorsing the concept 34 for protecting stream buffers (definitions of streams and buffers, 50 and 100 foot width for the urban and rural areas,specific permi tted and restricted uses,requirement of best management practices and consistency with the recently adopted State regulations). It was the consensus of the Commission that the authority to require or waive geohydrologic studies for large developments in the Beaver Creek Watershed should also be provided.The question of waivers and the group that would grant them was left undecided until the ordinance receiving the new regulation is determined. The Commission instructed staff to include agency comments as part of the waiver procedures. Mr.Arch noted that the Commission will have the chance to review the proposal before and after public hearing.It will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners before a hearing as well.He also noted that a proposal for amendment to include the 7 visions from the Planning Act will also be presented at the same hearing.. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Be 35 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JULY 31,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting to discuss impact fees on Monday,July 31,1995 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;James R. Wade and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present were County Administrator;Rod Shoop,County Attorney;Ralph France,Chief - Department of Public Works;Gary Rohrer,Frederick County Planning Director;Jim Shaw and Frederick County Zoning Administrator,Mike Thompson.Absent were Paula Lampton and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:05 p.m . .Impact Fees: ~r.Iseminger explained that Jim Shaw,Frederick County Planning Director and Mike Thompson,Frederick County Zoning Administrator were present to discuss impact fees and the process that Frederick County went through. Mr.Shaw began his presentation by reviewing the background on impact fees -how and why Frederick County went with them,the process of adopting them,and how they are being administered.He explained that Frederick County has experienced a substantial growth over the years and referred to a chart outlining the growth of Frederick County from 1950 to present.He noted that from 1990 they have increased 25,000.He said that the increase in population led to the need for infrastructure improvements.He referred to another chart indicating the housing growth in the County,housing units and their needs for schools,parks,libraries and other items leading the County to consider impact fees.He said they started from approximately 400 units a year in the 1960's to about 2,000 units a year in the 80's and over the last 5 years they have averaged about 2,200 housing units a year.He said that this year they have experienced a down turn with about 1,500 to 1,600 housing units per year.He explained that the 6 year Capital Improvement Program of the County normally had about 1 or 2 school construction projects and most everything they did was pay as you build.He said that their most recent CIP total cost is 350 million dollars,which includes at least 8 major school projects (including new schools and major additions).He said that balancing the cost of the infrastructure needs with the growth the County was experiencing with the available sources of revenue led to the issue of impact fees.Mr.Shaw presented a chart indicating where the major developments are in the County.He said they have about 16,000 housing units in the development pipeline that have zoning or some type of subdivision approval and there are enough units out there that if they did not rezone another piece of land or approve another phase of a preliminary plan to last them 7 years.Mr.Iseminger asked about the stock they have of buildable lots and if that influences approval for new developments.Mr. Shaw stated only to the extent of it running into the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.He explained that when the APFO was adopted in 1990,they grandfathered most of the existing preliminary approvals.He said they will not see an affect on the housing stock until they get through all the grandfathered developments.Most development that is in the pipeline will have a minimal impact on APFO review criteria with one exception ..They are starting to see some impact on overcrowding of schools and as 36· a result the APFO is starting to take new developments and put them aside.Mr.Iseminger asked if in 10 years will some of these approved lots vanish and will they have to go through the process again.Mr.Shaw explained that many are approved but not recorded. He said some have already vanished at the 3 year stage and if they lose their grandfathering under APFO regulations,they must be retested for school and road adequacy and they could lose their preliminary approval.Mr.Shaw said that anything that is recorded is in place.Mr.Wade asked how the APFO deals with the schools. Mr.Shaw said that it has a threshold capacity of overcrowding that deals with:105 percent at the elementary level,105 percent at the middle school level and 110 percent at the high school level.He said if they cannot get approval,they can develop a phase schedule for the development.The schools may be overcrowded,but if the development is put on a 5 or 10 year phasing schedule it is approvable.A discussion followed regarding the formula Frederick County uses,and development inside and outside the UGA.Mr.Shaw proceeded to pass out copies of a memo outlining impact fees,a draft report of the impact fee study,a copy of the impact fee study plan and Development Impact Fee Ordinance.Mr.Shaw stated that their impact fee need was basically created by the Board of County Commissioners saying that they needed to look at it but they needed enabling legislation.He said that during the 1990 legislative session the County did get enabling legislation to authorize it to put in place impact fees if it so chose.He said the enabling legislation became effective January 1991 which gave the County the ability to move forward with the investigation of impact fees and whether or not Frederick County wanted to do that. He said that they started out with a staff steering committee to look at impact fees.The committee came up with a scope study and work program for the impact fees,which he briefly reviewed.He said that the committee recommended that the County move forward with hiring a consultant and pursue the establishment of an Impact Fee Ordinance.Mr.Shaw explained that the consultant had to do a scope of services and what the purpose of the impact fee report was and the timetable.He explained that about 5 or 6 consultants submitted proposals for an impact fee study.He said they made sure that there was a legal basis for what the consultants were proposing and how they went about it.He proceeded to explain the process the consultant went through.He said that they initially asked the consultant to look at a number of different services as a possibility of impact fees.These included schools,roads, parks,fire and rescue,police,libraries and other citizen services.He said that it was then cut down to 4 parti.cular services -schools,roads,parks and libraries with the end result of adoption being limited to impact fees for schools.They also asked the consultant to prepare a computer program that would allow them to annually look at impact fees and determine whether or not they should be adjusted.Part of the enabling legislation did say that if the County adopted impact fees they would have to provide an annual report as to what the County has collected and what has been done with it.The County budget officer prepares that every year,which is an evaluation of what the impact fee has done for the County in terms of funding and planning,etc.He said they looked at the issue of the location and timing for the expenditure of funds and prepared a draft ordinance and legislation for it and held several public hearings.Mr.Shaw said that some of the issues they got into with the consultant were whether or not impact fees should be done on a county wide basis or regional areas.The also asked the consultant to work out the administrative procedures and gave them a time line.He said they basically had 5 or 6 consultants all of whom were well qualified.He said they ended up with Tischler &Associates,Inc.and they subcontracted with Piper and Marberry for their legal consultant in preparing the Impact Fee Ordinance.He said once they got through the selection of a consul tant,the impact fee report draft was prepared.A discussion followed regarding how Frederick County advertised for a consultant.Mr.Shaw handed out a copy of the Development Impact Fee Study &Ordinance and proceeded to review it.He referred to the impact fee schedule which is what they used to determine the 37 legally defensible maximum impact fee that the County could charge and explained what data they used in their determination.He said at this time they were still looking at roads,libraries,parks and schools.He said that in looking at the table the only nonresidential uses they were going to have to develop impact fees for were roads and bridges.The residential users would be assessed for schools,parks,libraries,roads and bridges.He said they had an issue with the municipalities on collection and had to make an adjustment.The impact fee would be a County wide fee they did not want a conflict by applying a fee for a service that the municipalities were already collecting for.He said that in the area of schools,application was by different residential housing types,therefore,they had to get a sense of what the people yield ratios were for different types of housing units.He said they had some old data from the 1970's but needed to do a people yield survey through the Board of Education to update the information. He said they developed some good data and correlated it with.data they had from other jurisdictions that had also done studies such as Howard and Montgomery County and felt they had good people yield numbers.Another issue in the area of schools had to deal with whether or not they would provide a credit or allowance for a developer that might dedicate a school site.Because many of their developments are required to dedicate a school site,they decided not to incorporate the cost of land into the school impact fee and limited the school impact fee to just a hard construction cost.He referred to the summary of the impact fee proposal and the Impact ~ee Ordinance which deals with the schools and the need of that Ordinance.He referred back to the memo to the Planning Commission and reviewed how the proposed fees were set for the different categories.He said that one of the features of the impact fee ordinance that they ended up recommending was that the fee would be collected at the time of the building permit application.He said the way the Ordinance reads now is that you pay at the time you file for application for a building permit.They have had a lot of pressure to collect the fee at the time of the issuance of the "use and occupancy"permit or later on in the process.He said they did not do that because not everyone gets a use and occupancy permit immediately and it would be difficult to collect a fee once they moved in.He said there is a wrinkle in the language that th~y can either pay it at the time the permit is approved or at the time they apply and some people have contested it to pay once the permit is approved.The Ordinance did provide for credits for facilities that may be provided by a developer that are not otherwise required by the regulations such as dedicating a library site.He said the impact fees are based on existing levels of service and the current costs of facilities in the County's Capital Improvements Program. He said there is a provision that if the fees are not spent within a 6 year time period that it could be extended an additional 4 years.After that the County would have to make provisions for a credit.He noted that with the first 2 years of impact fees,they spent every cent and feels they will never get into a situation where they would have to provide a refund.He said there is also a provision in the Ordinance to allow the developer to submit an independent impact fee analysis to him to allow a variance from the impact fee requirement.This would be done in cases where the developer feels that his development will not generate the impact that the impact fee anticipated,such as an elderly housing project,where there would be a zero effect on schools.They would have to show statistically and technically why they should not be assessed that fee.Mr.Shaw said since they only have impact fees for schools,they only have had a couple submitted for elderly housing or occupancy restrictions.Mr.Shaw said that this was very controversial and that after the staff's and consultant's work came out and went through public hearing,the County Commissioners appointed a task force to look at whether there should be an impact fee and what level it should be set at as well as alternatives to impact fees.He said that this task force consisted of himself, citizens and business community representatives.As alternatives they looked at a broad based transfer tax and an overall tax increase.The County Commissioners did end up in adopting the 38 impact fees for schools at half of the recommended amount.Mr. Shaw said the school impact fees they put in place will generate approximately 3 million dollars a year for school construction.He noted that amount does not go far.He said for the first couple of years they had to be sure that the money only went to schools that were providing capacity for new development and not addressing overcrowding from previous years.Mr.Arch asked whether or not they had considered allocation of funds from a geographical standpoint.Mr.Shaw said that with regard to schools,they looked at a Countywide basis.He said that with parks that become more geographically sensitive and explained in dealing with parks and roads they created 4 impact fee districts in the County based on the growth in those areas.He said that schools were looked at on a countywide basis.Mr.Rohrer asked if there was any opposition from the Board of Education regarding the APFO or impact fees.Mr. Shaw said that the APFO was in place when they discussed impact fees.The impact fees became effective July 1993 and the Board of Education took a neutral position.Mr.Moser asked about the school sites and wanted to know how Frederick County provides for the sites and if that is done through the subdivision process.Mr. Shaw said that most of the elementary school sites are acquired through the subdivision or PUD development process.He said there is a formula in their development regulations.He said they have run into problems with middle and high school sites.Mr.Iseminger asked if they require a developer to set aside land that may be adjacent to another property owner who will be developing down the ~oad to pool that land for future school sites.Mr.Shaw said they do try to do that.Mr.Arch asked if there are any restrictions with regards to using the impact fees for a type of school - elementary,etc.Mr.Shaw said no,that there is one fee to cover all levels of schools.Mr.Shaw said there is a wrinkle in that the impact fee is based on the County's share of schools and they have to discount for the State's share of construction costs:Mr. Spickler asked about the role of the Planning Commission in the Impact Fee.Mr.Shaw said they had no role in the process because it is a general County Ordinance and a financial issue and is left up to the County Commissioners.Mr.Spickler asked what the impact of the impact fee has been and have taxes increased in Frederick. Mr.Shaw said no but that they want a higher level of impact fees. He said they have the same problem they had prior to the impact fees with keeping up with growth and being able to provide for the facilities (schools,roads,parks,etc.).He said the Commissioners set the fees at half the economic reality level and that they are subsidizing new development by 50 percent.Mr. Spickler wanted to know if they have an analysis of what has occurred.Mr.Shaw said they have no real analysis of whether or not it has slowed down residential construction and that development plans are still going forward. Mr.Mike Thompson,Frederick County Zoning Administrator, briefly spoke regarding the administrative issues.Mr.Iseminger asked how many of the counties have impact fees.Mr.Shaw said he thinks about 6 to 8 and that the State Office of Planning did a study.Mr.Thompson said that according to the Ordinance,he is responsible for determining which fee is applicable and he does run into day to day questions regarding should they have to pay a fee. The Ordinance states there is no provision for waivers.He said they have determined that there are a few provisions for waivers depending on the use and also have some things that go through the special exception process for temporary dwellings.He said they are usually granted an exemption because they are usually for elderly parents who need medical care and when they no longer need the facility it is removed from the property.He said if it is temporary it is usually exempted.He said another question that comes up concerns replacement structures.He cited as an example if there is a mobile home on the property that the owner wants to remove and build a single family detached home.They have made the determination that the owner would only have to pay the difference between the 2 fees for the structures.He said a major question that comes up is when an elderly couple is building a new home they 39 want to know why they should have to pay a fee.He said he has made the determination that there is no waiver and if they want, they can appeal it to the County Commissioners.He said over the last 2 years they have had 6 appeals to the Board of Commissioners and 3 have been granted.Another problem with appeals is if there was a structure on the property prior to the Ordinance going into effect.Mr.Iseminger asked if they are granted a waiver and once the use changes can the County go back and assess an impact fee. Mr.Thompson said that is what they are trying to avoid.He said another problem area is buildings for caretakers and whether or not those people should be paying impact fees.Another issue they have run into is residents which have been living in the County for a long time do not understand why they have to pay an impact fee if they want to build.He said they think impact fees should only apply to new Frederick County residents.He said this issue is not coming up as much as it had been.Mr.Shaw said he felt there was a misconception in that only the people coming into the County would have to pay and not people already living here.Mr.Thompson said that another issue that has come up is people who have been planning on building a house not including the impact fee in their cost.Mr.Iseminger asked if Frederick County make an effort to educate or communicate with the builders,banks,and real estate agents since the impact fee has been adopted to minimize problems. Mr.Shaw said most of the builders are aware of it.The complaints they normally get are from individual lot owners who have been long term residents of the County and feel they should not have to pay. Mr.Thompson said that one issue that came up was how long the permit is good for and how can a permit be revised.Mr.Moser asked about administrating to the municipalities.Mr.Shaw said this was a countywide Ordinance so the municipalities did not have any say in it.He said they did not have any alternatives.Mr. Wade asked if it is Mr.Shaw's opinion that the impact fee affected the growth of the County.Mr.Shaw feels that the impact fee has not affected growth.Mr.Spickler commented that impact fees will be sold on the basis that this will help new development to pay its way and that they had a consultant for $40,000 propose a multitude of fees that were significant to have development pay its way.But politically,it was watered down to deal with schools at half the suggested amount.He felt what they said they were going to do was not done and that they put a little bit of money in and now have an administrative headache.He wants to know if the impact fee has done any good.Mr.Shaw said that the administrative costs are minimal and noted that there is 2 -3 million dollars in additional revenue they never had.He said they are still getting pressure to increase the impact fee from various civic groups. Mr.Iseminger opened the meeting to questions.Mr.Davis asked why more counties have not followed suit.Mr.Shaw said that until you do it you do not know what the issues are and it is controversial and is more of an issue in the high growth counties.Mr.Ernst asked how do they deal with the issue of a family (with no children)that comes in and builds a new house versus a family with children that buys an already built home.Mr.Shaw said they cannot reconcile every issue but instead look at the overall purpose and intent.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. B 40 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 7,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 7,1995 in the Commissioners Meeting Room on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Paula Lampton,EX-Officio,James R.Wade,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner; Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent·were Vice-Chairman,Donald L.Spickler and Bernard Moser. 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 May 1,1995.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of May 22,1995.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mrs.Lampton moved to Seconded by Mr.Ernst. approve the So ordered. minutes of June 5,1995. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of June 26,1995.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Homer Bivens: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for Homer Bivens.The property is located on the west side of Greencastle Pike and the zoning is Agricultural.The developer is proposing to create 4 single family lots with a common access.The lots will all have public road frontage onto Greencastle Pike.Lots 4 and 6 will have panhandles but Lots 5 and 3 would not have any proposed access points and would be using the panhandles for Lots 4 and 6 for access.The variance is from the subdivision requirement that lots along a major collector roadway have an approved access point of 300 feet from adjacent ones.She said that State Highway does not have a problem with this layout as long as they mark denied access,but the County Engineer does have a problem with this arrangement.She said there is a considerable amount of remaining land and there was a concept plan to develop approximately 20 more lots.It is the County Engineer's thought to go ahead and build the road to serve the lots.Mr.Iseminger asked if this is the only frontage for the entire property and asked if there is a 50 foot right-of-way all the way back.He felt that the County Engineer may require more than a 50 foot road.Mr.Frederick briefly spoke.He said he met wi th John Wolford in the field and this is what Mr.Wolford recommends.He said the owner will put in the deed that the seller will retain a portion of the land for the future right-of-way and that the developer has the right to buy it back.Mr.Frederick explained that Mr.Bivens is having a hard time getting good peres, due to the clay content in the soil.He said it is not feasible to build a 600 foot road and to make it economically feasible,this design is all he can do at this time.Mr.Iseminger asked if he had any problem in setting up the right-of-way with Terry and asked 41 if they are planning to build a common driveway.Mr.Bivens said he will put one road in.He said he will put it out to bid to see what it would cost to build a road 400 feet in length,and if it is not feasible then he will build a common drive.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance with the condition that there will be no further subdivision until the road is built to County standards. Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Phyllis McNairn: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Phyllis McNairn.The property is located on the northeast side of Unger Road west of Beck Road and is zoned Agricultural.Mr.Lung said that this request deals with several sections of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning the design of panhandle lots.Mrs.McNairn owns 54.85 acres with an existing farm house,which accesses onto Rt.62 via a private lane and on the opposite side of this property there is also 350 feet of frontage along Beck Road.There has been one lot previously subdivided from the original parcel in 1991 for an immediate family member.Mr.Lung said that Mrs.McNairn is proposing to subdivide 3 additional lots also to immediate family members.The lots range in size from 2 to 2.5 acres.He said that the proposed configuration will result in 4 panhandles,the panhandle for the remaining lands will be in excess of 400 feet and there will be 3 panhandles side by side.The Ordinance only allows 2 side by side. ~lso,this will result in a 3 tiered subdivision and the Ordinance only allows 2.Mr.Lung said that the panhandle being created for the remaining lands is currently a farm access for tractors.They will reserve an additional 25 foot panhandle to also access the remaining lands.Lot 1 will have its own driveway onto Unger Road. Lots 2 and 3 will use a common driveway.Mr.Lung said the reason they want to locate the lots as proposed is because they intend to continue to farm the remaining lands and this is portion is not a prime farm area.He said that the reason for the variance is irregular shape,safety hazard and topographic conditions.The explanation of the hardship for the panhandle length was that they need to leave access to agricultural land for farm equipment only. A brief discussion followed regarding access.Mr.Townsley said there will be no further subdivision and the lots will be conveyed to 3 immediate family members.Mr.Townsley said that the lots are designed this way due to the results of the perc tests.Mr. Iseminger said they are looking for a variance from panhandle length,tiering of lots,more than 2 panhandles side by side and 2 lots accessing one driveway subject to road adequacy determination. A discussion followed.Mr.Townsley said they will add a note stating no further subdivision on the remaining lands and the 10 year family member statement.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance with the above mentioned conditions.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.A vote was taken.Mr.Wade,Mr.Ernst and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr.Bowen voted nay.So ordered. Eric Messenger: Mr.Arch presented the variance for Eric Messenger.The site is located on Dry Run Road.The owner is proposing to create a lot without the 25 foot road frontage.Mr.Arch said that the entire tract contains 17.48 acres with an existing home.The owner is proposing to create 2 lots with a dual access over the existing lane.He said that staff recommends this configuration with the stipulation that no additional subdivision be allowed on the remaining acreage until a road is built according to County standards.There will be an easement in the deed for access and maintenance.Mr.Ernst moved to grant the variance to create a lot without public road frontage with the condition that there be no further subdivision until the road is built to County standards. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 42 Subdivisions: Black Rock Estates -Section B,Preliminary Plan and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Black Rock Estates, Section B.The developer is proposing 23 lots located on the north side of Mt.Aetna Road.The zoning is Agriculture.This section has 23 lots on a total of 22.12 acres.He explained that Section A is currently being built on.Mr.Lung used the original concept plan to show where Section B is located in respect to the remainder of the project.The lots range from .6 acre to 2.7 acres.Public water and sewer is proposed.This section includes new streets to be built to County standards.This section also includes existing structures on the Historic Site Survey and have been reviewed by the Historic District Commission and some outbuildings were deemed not to be of historic significance and they have obtained demolition permits for them.Mr.Lung said there are 2 buildings that are to remain.He said there is an existing house on Lot 1 and a barn on Lot 4.All agencies have approved the preliminary plat.The Hagerstown Water Department and the Soil Conservation District still have some outstanding comments on the construction drawings.Mr.Lung explained that when the final plat comes in they require a set of construction drawings with all the agency signatures prior to final subdivision approval.Mr.Lung said that the County Engineer is prepared to grant approval,however,he is waiting for a letter from the developer indicating the timetable for construction of an acceleration lane along Mt.Aetna Road at Sasha Boulevard.The Engineering Department said they will also need grading plans submitted with the final plat for Lots 2,3,4 and 5. Mr.Lung said regarding the Forest Conservation Plan,they reviewed the Forest Stand Delineation a few months ago.He said it was approved and showed no existing forest on the site.The developer requested to do off site afforestation on property he owns off of Rt.77 on South Mountain near Smithsburg.The Planning Commission has approved that.The plan calls for 4.42 acres of afforestation on a steep slope area.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the types and amounts of trees to be planted.He said that before final Forest Conservation Plan approval is granted they still need an indication of the amount and form of the financial surety to back up the planting as well as part of the final subdivision plat the long term binding protective agreement,which is basically a description of the property that is being retained with the afforestation area. He said what the applicant is looking for tonight is preliminary subdivision plat approval and preliminary forest conservation plan approval.A discussion followed regarding the acceleration lane and price of planting the trees.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary approval for Section B of Black Rock Estates contingent on the County Engineer receiving the letter concerning the timetable for the acceleration lane.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan contingent upon a bond in the proper amount and a long term maintenance agreement.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the amount of the bond.Mr.Arch said the Planning Commission needed to approve the amount.Mr. Shaool said that the amount is $24,000 based on 10 cents a square foot plus additional costs for signs and fencing.Mr.Wade moved to accept the amount of $23,000 to $24,000 based on 10 cents a square foot for the bond amount,subject to calculation and confirmation by staff.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr. Lung asked Mr.Iseminger if the Planning Commission wants to see the final plat or can the staff approve it.Mr.Wade made a motion to give staff the authority to approve the final plat for the 23 lots.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 43 Maple Valley Estates,Section A,Preliminary Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for Maple Valley Estates,Section A,Lots 1 through 45.The site is located on the north side of Long Meadow Road and is zoned Residential Suburban. The developer is proposing to create 31 single family lots and 14 duplex lots.The total acreage of Section A is 13 acres with 59 acres remaining.All lots are to be served by public water and sewer and there will be construction of future streets.All agencies have granted preliminary plat approval.Mrs.Pietro said that the developer has requested to give staff the authority to grant final plat approval.She said they are exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since the plat was submitted in December of 1992.A discussion followed regarding the access onto Long Meadow Road.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant preliminary plat approval for Section A and to give staff the authority to grant final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Site Plans: Ernst Market: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Ernst Market.The site is located at the intersection of Big Pool Road and Dam No.5 Road and is zoned Business Local.The site contains 1.75 acres.The owner ~s proposing a 2500 square foot warehouse addition to the existing supermarket.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the parking,hours of operation, the amount of employees and landscaping.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Ernst moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. Eddie's Tire Service,Inc.: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Eddie's Tire Service.The site is located on the north side of Diamond Drive and east side of Eastern Boulevard.The zoning is Business General.The developer is proposing to construct a tire sales service on 1.33 acres. Public water and sewer is available.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the hours of operation,number of employees,parking,solid waste collection,recycling,landscaping,the lighting and signage. Mr.Iseminger stated he wanted in the future to see the recycling plans forward to Harvey Hoch for his review and comments ..Mrs. Lampton moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Bowen. So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Tom Shaw -Septic Reserve Area: Mrs.Pietro referred to the information in the agenda packet. She said it was the staff's opinion that if there is plenty of remaining lands the reserve area should be included.Mr.Shaw does not want to do that because it is taking away agricultural lands. She said it is Lot 2 that is in question.Mr.Iseminger asked the consultant,Fred Frederick,of Frederick Seibert and Associates if that area was used for a septic area how will that affect farming. Mr.Frederick said they can farm over a septic area.He said that both the Health and Permits Departments do not have a problem with it.Mr.Wade moved to approve the request to have a septic reserve area on another piece of property.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. 44 Stitzel Property -Historic Review: Mrs.Pietro passed out a letter she received after the agenda was sent out from Lana Welch of Triple J Builders,who is working with the Stizels.She said that the list in the agenda packet is something that Triple J Builders and Susan Salvatore came up with to address the issues brought up in the review of the consultation. They want to know if that is what the Planning Commission wants to see before they proceed.Mrs.Pietro noted that during the process,Susan Salvatore is no longer working with this and that Paula Reid will be doing the study.Mr.Arch said this list has been sent to the Historic District Commission for their comments. He noted that in the past,the Planning commission has deferred items to the Historic District Commission for their recommendation and have concurred with them.Mr.Iseminger agreed.He mentioned there is a Phase 1 Archeological Study and there are steps to go through.He said they need to pass that along to them and wants the Historic District Commission to see what it is and if what is being proposed closely complies with that,then the Planning Commission would not have a problem with what is proposed.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to defer this Historic District Commission. Fountainview PUD Change in Phasing Plan: ~r.Lung said that the developer is requesting a change in the phasing of the Fountainview PUD.The site is located on the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue and south of the Washington County Regional Airport and contains 68.25 acres.The plan calls for 67 townhouses,30 semi attached dwellings and 76 single family lots. There are 3 proposed commercial areas totalling 3.93 acres and 17.1 acres of open space.The approved plan calls for the development to be built in 2 phases.Mr.Lung explained that Phase 1 included the front portion of the property containing the townhouses,all of the semi-detached dwellings,and single family lots.Phase 2 consists of the remaining single family lots.He said that due to marketing reasons and the current climate the developer needs to break this development down to smaller phases in order to make the development more marketable.He said they are proposing that Phase 1 consist of the townhouse units,commercial area #1,3 single family lots and some open space area.Phase 2 would be the semi- detached dwelling lots,6 single family lots,commercial area #3 and a portion of the open space.Phase 3 would consist of 30 single family lots.Phase 4 would contain 28 single family lots and commercial area #2.He said that all the phases meet the total criteria for a PUD as far as the ratio of open space.He said that Phase I includes the required tot lots and play areas as well as a volleyball court,a shelter area for activities and picnic tables and benches.Phase 2 would include the basketball court and the grass playing field.A brief discussion followed.Mr.Ernst moved to grant approval of the revised phasing plan.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. Sensitive Area Element: Mr.Goodrich said that what is in the agenda is a draft of what the amendment will look like in the Comprehensive Plan.He briefly reviewed the 7 visions and the Sensitive Area Element and reviewed some minor changes.He said what they are looking for is the Planning Commission's input on the wording in draft.He said the next step would be to take it to the County Commissioners an~then they will schedule the public hearing.Mr.Iseminger said he feels they did a good job and feels they should take it to the County Commissioners and proceed with the public hearing.A brief discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger instructed staff to make the suggested changes and proceed with taking it to the County Commissioners. 45 A-2 -APFO Text Amendment -Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Arch referred to the staff report and said there are a couple of small revisions which were based on comments from State Highway Administration.He said they are looking for a recommendation to the County Commissioners for APFO text amendment A-2 whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not they should adopt it.Mr.Ernst moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt A-2 because it is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.'Wade abstained.So ordered. RZ-95-04 -Rosewood Estates -Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Iseminger said they will not address it this evening.After a brief discussion,it was decided they would address it at a special meeting to be held Monday,August 28,1995 at 5:30 p.m.in the Commissioners meeting room. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Be' / 46 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -AUGUST 28,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,August 28,1995 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,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch, Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Mrs.Lampton and Ex-Officio;James R.Wade were absent. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:40 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: Rezoning Recommendation RZ-95-04: Mr.Lung referred to the staff report and stated that he did not have anything else to add.Mr.Iseminger asked if they can make a recommendation and pass along requirements or suggestions to the 90mmissioners.Mr.Arch said yes that conditions can be inc~uded in the rezoning recommendation.Mr.Iseminger asked about the small parcel on the east side of Robinwood Drive and if they can act on that parcel separately.Mr.Arch said it is all part of the property being rezoned and though the advertisement did not specifically reference the parcel on the east,the parcel is identified on the map and drawing.Mr.Iseminger asked if legally can it be treated as one.Mr.Arch said that he spoke to the County Attorney about it and he did not indicate that they could not vote on it separately.Mr.Arch said that both parcels were posted.Mr.Iseminger asked if they could recommend approval on one parcel and not the other.Mr.Arch said that the Planning Commission could as part of their recommendation add a condition that one parcel should not be developed as presented.Mr.Arch said that the developer has indicated that they will drop the dormi tories proposed for the parcel on the east side.Mr. Iseminger stated that the connection to Eastern Boulevard is critical.He feels that the main access to the development should be via the road off of the connection with Eastern Boulevard and the developer working with the Junior College should reserve the right-of-way and the developer will build that section.He said that the buffer,storm water management,amenities,etc.will all be addressed at preliminary development plan phase.A discussion followed regarding the steps in the PUD process.Mr.Iseminger said that at this time,they need to decide if the proposed plan meets the criteria of Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Arch commented that before the next phase he feels that a traffic impact study will occur.He said that the Planning Commission may also want to address the land use designated for the small parcel at this time.Mr.Bowen made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-95-04 finding that it is consistent with the criteria outlined in Section 16.0 of the Zoning Ordinance,adopting the staff report as findings of fact with the condition that any rezoning be contingent on the developer providing main access to his development off a road to be constructed as the first leg of a new road between Robinwood Drive and Eastern Boulevard,with the condition that the developer work in conjunction with the Junior College to provide access to the college and that development plans be submitted for the parcel on the east side of Robinwood Drive that are compatible with the adjoining properties in scope and size.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Spickler abstained. So ordered. 47 NEW BUSINESS: Site Plans: Hagerstown Trust Company: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Hagerstown Trust Company.He said they are proposing to build a branch bank in the Village Square shopping center off the south side of MD Rt.64 near Cavetown.He said they are proposing to utilize an existing portion of the Village Square shopping plaza.This is the old McDonalds and Burger Park site.The zoning of the site is Business Local.The proposal is for a 61'x 35'building with an overhead canopy,two drive-thru lanes and an ATM drive up.He said there is a reconfiguration of the shopping center parking lot to allow for the access lane around the bank and to also provide the required parking.He proceeded to review the parking,storm water management and solid waste collection.Public water and sewer is be available.Mr.Lung said that the reviewing agencies requested some revisions which came in on Friday and that the plan appears to address all comments.The only thing outstanding is for the Planning Commission to determine if screening is necessary along the property line adjacent to an existing dwelling.He said when the Planning Commission previously reviewed the site plans for Burger Park and McDonalds,they had asked for screening in this area.He said that at this point it may be appropriate for the ~lanning Commission to look at requiring additional vegetative screening in this area.He noted that because of the wall the bank may have to obtain an easement for planting the screening on the adjacent property.A discussion followed regarding the screening and easement agreement used on the other site plans.Mr.Iseminger said that they need to speak to the adjoining property owner.Mr. Moser moved to grant site plan approval subject to all agency approvals and for the bank to contact the adjacent property owner regarding screening.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained. So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. ,A....> airman 48 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -AUGUST 28,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting to discuss Rural Area Development on Monday,August 28,1995 in the County 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,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst,II.Mrs.Lampton and EX-Officio;Jam~s R. Wade arrived late.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Eric Seifarth, Timothy A.Lung and Jennifer Diehl and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Also present were Chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Board;Steve Ernst,Phillip Downs,Ken Belz,Donald and Helen Main,Gerry Ditto,Jim Reed and Joe Scott. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:15 p.m. Rural Area Development: Mr.Arch said that several months ago the Planning Commission asked staff to look at Agricultural Zoning.He explained that the issue is really a rural development policy for the rural areas in Washington County and that what will be presented tonight is the jramework for future discussions on revising and developing a more coherent rural development policy.He said this is still in the extremely preliminary stages and is basically a framework.The next step would be for the Planning Commission and the Agricultural Community to look it over and come back in a couple of months to talk about it.He said at that time they can give guidance to the Planning Staff to let them know if they are proceeding in the right direction. Mr.Arch then proceeded with his presentation.Mr.Iseminger asked to have copies available for everyone in the audience.Mr.Arch then reviewed the five principles outlined in the comprehensive plan,four of the ten goals,the rural development concerns as well as the development policy focus.Mr.Arch said that based on these concerns staff came up with their framework and proceeded to review them.He said that some of the major framework features include four Euclidian and one overlay zone,increased density,zoning classification for long term farm operations,maximizing open space when development occurs,conservation in environmentally sensitive areas,provide equity with TOR'S,provide for rural businesses, identify and protect existing open space areas,immediate farm family member development and a farm land saving provision.Mr. Arch referred to the charts he handed out and reviewed the different classifications.He said that the Euclidian zones are basically fixed zones and the overlay zone is a zone that can go anywhere within the proposed Agriculture and Conservation areas. He said staff envisions five zones where there are basically two now.He said that the five zones are:Agriculture,Agricultural Preservation,Conservation,Open Space and Rural Business and reviewed them in detail with final name to be determined.Mr.Arch noted that the rural business zone would be the overlay zone and the rest would be Euclidian.Mr.Iseminger asked about the rural business if it would be like a PUO zone and have to be approved. Mr.Arch said it would be similar and that it would be an overlay and would go through the public hearing process.He said the reason why they chose it as an overlay was that they did not feel it would be appropriate to pick various sites and they want the support services to evolve where they are needed.He said that they anticipate,with the Agricultural Preservation areas,defining blocks and encouraging property owners to include their property in the Agricultural Preservation classification.At some point they would be recommending to the Agricultural Board that when they do their evaluations for agricultural easement purchases,that properties that have the AP designation be given consideration for a higher rating.He said the other thing they will be looking at in the Agricultural Preservation areas to maintain equity in the development of a TOR program.They feel it would be a problem to 49 establish a TDR program across the County but believe a targeted program may work.He explained that the targeted program would be associated with PUD development.Mr.Arch referred to the proposed list of uses and said that they can be added to or deleted.He said this listing format is the type they would like to develop and have in place for all the uses in the Zoning Ordinance and not just rural areas.Mr.Arch then referred to the charts showing the Minimum Lot Criteria,Minimum Yard Requirements,Maximum Height and Intensi ty.He said that the three proposed residential development options are Conventional,Cluster and Rural Village and proc~eded to review the development criteria for Agricultural Residential, Agricultural Preservation,Conservation Residential,Open Space and Rural Business including the lot size and yard requirements.He said something else they looked at but is not on the list was developing specific requirements in order to minimize stripping of rural roads.The issue of the number of panhandles allowed was also recommended for reconsideration.Mr.Arch said that what he presented was based on significant issues identified at previous meetings between the Agricultural Community and the Planning Commission and though they tried to address the major issues there are probably a lot of things that are not even given consideration, though should be.He said it is important that people have an opportunity to review the framework.He said that staff felt that they should present something to the Planning Commission and give the Planning Commission ample time to review it.Mr.Iseminger said at the last meeting with the Agricultural Community,the Planning Commission said they were going to do this and that the Agricultural Community was to develop Right to Farm Legislation. A discussion followed regarding what was presented.Mr.Arch said they want to provide options to the farm community.Mr.Iseminger feels what they presented is a good start.Mr.Spickler asked if under the Euclidian zoning are the options presented legal.Mr. Arch said yes.Mr.Arch also indicated there is interest in resurrecting the Land Trust.He said they are trying to have agricultural preservation by keeping the farmers on the farm.He said if we can do that the Agricultural Preservation will take care of itself because they do not have enough money to buy all the easements.He said they also want to try to have adequate buffer between developments and farms.He said ample open space is needed in order to keep farming viable.Mr.Iseminger asked as part of this would there be any changes to the APFO.Mr.Arch said that at this point they do not anticipate any changes.Mr.Arch said that one of the things that came to light while working on the transportation plan was the lack of transit services to the rural areas.He suggested putting up road signs in Agricultural Preservation areas indicating that farm equipment will be using these roads. A discussion followed regarding infrastructure,keeping growth in the Urban Growth Area,schools,Rural Village designation and TDR's.Mr.Spickler said he felt they need to get feedback quickly so they can move ahead.Mr.Iseminger agreed and asked Mr.Arch to provide copies of his presentation to the Planning Commission members and members of the Agricultural Community so they can discuss what was presented and schedule a meeting for both parties to sit down and discuss it.Further discussion followed regarding the Agricultural Preservation zone,TDR's,the number of approved lots in the Agricultural areas,outlining Agricultural Preservation boundaries and selling of development rights.Mr.Iseminger said that the next step for staff would be to get copies of what was presented tonight and asked that the Agricultural Board hold their joint meeting with the Farm Bureau and then they will all meet again. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting 51 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 11,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September II,1995 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,Robert E.Ernst,II,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade and Andrew J.Bowen IV.Staff:Director; Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Jim Brittain,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Pietro and Secretary; Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Iseminger stated that the minutes of July 31,1995 should be revised on the first page from "15,000 to 16,000"to 1,500 to 1,600.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger requested that a copy of the minutes be sent to the Commissioners. Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of August 7,1995.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Spickler pointed out that there was a typographical error on the last page.The heading should read "Text"instead of "Test". OLD BUSINESS: Stitzel Historic Survey: Mr.Goodrich reminded the Commission that during the August meeting they requested the Historic District Commission's recommendations on a proposal submitted by the applicant to survey the Stitzel property to document or dispel the existence of significant historic resources.The Planning Commission had said they were looking for something equivalent to Maryland's Phase 1 Evaluation but also noted they were not interested in requiring excavation. Mr.Goodrich reported that a Phase I evaluation often warrants test pits on a property under investigation.It is the recommendation of the Historic District Commission that the Planning Commission take the applicants proposal for an evaluation as it was submitted and reserve the right to request additional information if they feel they did not get enough.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst moved to adopt the recommendation of the Historic District Commission.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Iseminger said they are recommending to the developer that his proposed study is acceptable to both the Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Wayne Weller: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for Wayne Weller.The property .is located along the south side of Big Pool Road and is zoned Conservation.She explained that Mr.Weller is the owner of Lot 9 and his daughter is proposing to build on the adjacent Lot 6.They are requesting a variance for Lot 6 to utilize the new access that 52 has been approved for his lot.Mrs.Pietro said that the new access has been recently approved by State Highway.She said that the variance is from Section 405.11.B which states that every lot must have its own approved access and also Mr.Weller would like to do away with the 50 foot right-of-way.A discussion followed. Mrs.Pietro said that all the lots have their own access except for Lot 6 and that the hardship is the topography.Mrs.Pietro said that staff recommends if the variance is granted that they submit a revised plat removing the right-of-way.A discussion followed. Mr.Spickler asked since they want the 50 foot right-of-way removed could they move the lot line of Lot 6 south to intersect the new access so that both lots would have access that would not be encumbered in the future.A discussion followed regarding moving the line.Mr ..Weller was in agreement to move the lot line and to use a shared access.The Planning Commission asked Mr.Weller since he was in agreement if he would like to withdraw his variance request and if he and his daughter agree to a shared access.Mr. Spickler made a motion to remove the existing 50 foot right-of-way from the plat.A discussion followed regarding whether the Commission needed to take formal action on removing the existing right-of-way and it was decided they did not.Mr.Iseminger said that all they need is for them to withdraw the variance and to agree to a shared access.Mr.Weller withdrew his variance request and stated that he agrees to move the lot line and to use a shared driveway.Mr.Moser made a motion that the lot line be moved and use a shared access.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Jeff and Rhonda Cullison: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Jeff and Rhonda Cullison.The property is located on the west side of Mapleville Road and is zoned Agriculture.It is part of a subdivision created in the 80's.The Cullison'S own Lot 2 which contains 9.9 acres. Mr.Lung said that Lot 2 has a 50 foot wide panhandle to Rt.66 and due to access separation requirements on Rt.66 Lots 2 and 4 share an access.A variance was granted in 1986 from access separation for Lot 5 due to sight distance problems along Rt.66.He said that the Cullisons are proposing to create a new lot and split the 50 foot panhandle into two 25 foot panhandles and continue to use a shared access along with Lot 5 using the access.The variance request is to allow the stacking of more than 1 panhandle lot, variance for panhandle length (Lot 1 -401 feet,Lot 2 -600 feet) and to allow 3 lots to share one common access point.Mr.Lung pointed out that along with a residence,the existing lot also contains a business called Serv Pro.The owners received an appeal from the Board of Appeals to allow the business.A discussion followed regarding the location of the site in conjunction to previous variances the Planning Commission has reviewed and the problems with subdividing this property.Mr.Iseminger stated that if the Planning Commission denies this request,the owner has the option to go to the Board of Appeals.Mr.Moser moved to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.A vote was taken. Mr.Moser,Mr.Spickler,Mr.Ernst and Mr.Bowen voted aye.Mr. Wade voted nay.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance is denied. Robert E.Harsh: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Robert E.Harsh.The property is located on the north side of Falling Waters Road,west of Neck Road and is zoned Conservation.This request is from Section 405.11.B which states that all new lots must have a minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage.The owner is requesting to subdivide an existing parcel which does not have any public road frontage into 2 parcels without public road frontage.Mr.Lung stated that the Hagerstown Beagle Club owns three parcels which total over 160 acres.He said that access to all the parcels is Fa~~ing Waters Road across an existing right-of-way which is owned 53 in fee by another property owner and is written into the deeds for the properties owned by the Beagle Club.Mr.Lung explained that over the years the membership in the Beagle Club has dwindled and due to the tax burden on this property,the Beagle Club would like to dispose of some of its holdings.They are proposing to subdivide 3 acres around their club house and would like to sell the remaining acreage of 125 acres to Mr.Harsh (adjacent property owner).Mr.Harsh wants to keep this property separate because his son intends to build on the property in the future.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr. Wade.So ordered. Samuel Burhman: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Samuel Burhman."The property is located on the west side of Ringgold Pike near Leitersburg and is zoned Agriculture.The owner is proposing to create 4 lots using 2 common entrances,with one of the entrances being 100 feet from an existing access.Mrs.Pietro said she spoke to John Wolford of State Highway and was informed he met with the consultant in the field and has no problem with the location of the access.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance for driveway spacing and to allow two shared accesses. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Subdivisions: Cascade Enterprises,Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat and forest conservation plan for Cascade Enterprises Lots 2,3 and 4.The property is located in the Ft.Ritchie area on the south side of Cascade Road and is zoned Residential Rural.Each lot has frontage and access onto Cascade Road.Public water and sewer is proposed and has been approved by the Water and Sewer Department.A Forest Stand Delineation has been prepared and approved and indicated there is enough existing forest on the site to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Lung said that a retention area has been set up on each lot.He pointed out since there has been one previous lot subdivided,a preliminary consultation will be required prior to any additional lots being subdivided.Mr.Lung noted that a turning flair was provided on Lot 4 which indicates the possibility for a future street.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Iseminger asked if it made sense at this point to ask the developer if they do build a future road to County standards that Lot 4 would access off of that road rather than Cascade Road.Mr.Lung said they have done that in the past. Mr.Spickler moved to grant Preliminary/Final Plat approval with the stipulation that if a future road is built to County standards, that Lot 4 would access off the new road instead of Cascade Road. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Site Plans: Maryland Paper Company: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Maryland Paper.The property is located on the southeast side of Elliott Parkway and is zoned Industrial General.The developer is proposing a new 63,000 square foot warehouse addition with additional parking,bringing the total to 126,000 square feet in building area.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the proposed and existing parking,number of employees and shifts,hours of operation and landscaping.All agency approvals are in.Mrs.Pietro said they are still working wi th the Permits Department on the landscaping.A discussion 54 followed.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan approval contingent on working with the Permits Department on the screening issue.Seconded by Jack Bowen.So ordered. Potomac Ridge: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Potomac Ridge.The property is located on the southeast corner of Day Road and Landis Road and is zoned HI-2.The developer is proposing to create a 138 uni t condominium complex on 9.9 acres.The height of the buildings will be 35 feet.Mrs.Pietro stated that Phase 1 (12 units)will begin construction this fall with the remaining phases being market driven.Public water and sewer is available.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the parking,the location of the sidewalks,signs,lighting, dumpster location,bus waiting area,the location of the tot lots and landscaping.All agencies have given verbal approval.They are still working with the County Engineer on the stormwater management calculations.Mrs.Pietro said she received a fax from Mr.Lemmert of the Board of Education reiterating the comment he made during the consultation.She said he expressed concern with the impact on the area schools and asked that serious consideration be given to the plan.She said that in discussing it with Mr. Arch,the plan is scaled down from what was previously proposed. Mr.Arch said that what they have is basically a revised site plan and that there is an approved site plan for this project with more density than this plan. Mr.Moser commented that the Preliminary Consultation showed more amenities.He asked about the community building.Mrs.Pietro said that the building was removed. A discussion followed with the consultant regarding the amenities, the liability involved with a community building and the stormwater management pond area.Mr.Iseminger asked if they intended to replace the community building with another amenity.Mr.Zoretich said they had considered placing a bench here or there in the walk areas.Mr.Iseminger said he would like to see it.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked if basically the only differences between this plan and the previous one are dropping the 7 units, eliminating the club house and expanding the storm water management area.Mr.Spickler moved to grant site plan approval contingent on all agency approvals and adding park benches.Seconded by Mr. Wade.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the traffic study in that area. Robinwood Medical Campus,Phase 2: Mr.Brittain presented the final site plan for Robinwood Medical Campus II.He explained that this is an expansion of the existing medical campus off of Medical Campus Drive and Robinwood Drive. The owner is proposing a 116,000 square foot 2 story addition.He discussed the site plan and outlined the hours of operation and the number of additional employees.He said that the final site plan meets all the design and performance criteria of the Zoning Ordinance.He proceeded to review the two new accesses to the new parking lot,proposed parking design (inclusive of handicap spaces),location of the public transportation drop off,and the interim storm water management facility.He stated that if there is any further development of this site that the staff recommends a preliminary consultation.Mr.Brittain stated that staff recommends approval subject to the off site public works agreement being finalized between the developer and the County Commissioners. A discussion followed.Mr.Wade moved to approve the site plan contingent upon the finalization of the off site public works agreement and agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Brittain stated that staff is currently rerouting the preliminary/final subdivision plat that is associated with this 55 development and would like permission from the Planning Commission to approve it in house.He explained that they are creating Lot 2 for this development and replating of Lot 1 (existing medical bUilding -Phase 1).Mr.Moser moved to grant staff authority to approve the subdivision plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Brittain presented the forest conservation plan and noted the existing areas of forest and that no afforestation or reforestation is required.Mr.Moser moved to approve the forest conservation plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. CES Hagerstown Phase II Expansion,Preliminary Site Plan: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary site plat for the CES Phase 2 addition.He reviewed the location of the proposed building, parking,landscaping,stormwater management,hours of operation and number of employees.He stated that all approving agencies have responded except City Water Department and Water Pollution Control. The forest conservation requirements were taken care of during the initial phase of the development.The staff requests approval of the site plan subject to approval from outstanding agencies.A discussion followed.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary site plan approval subject to agency approvals and to give staff the authority to grant final site plan approval.Seconded by Mr. Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Todd Easterday: Mr.Lung explained that staff is asking for input and direction on a number of alternatives to address some concerns on forest conservation on the subdivision.He explained that it is a one lot subdivision and that they are currently reviewing a subdivision plat which involves the enlargement of an existing lot for the purpose of creating a new building lot.The property is located between Redhill Road and Porters town Road near Sharpsburg.Mr. Easterday owns two parcels zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung explained that one piece is a long narrow parcel that spans the entire distance from Redhill Road across Porters town Road which creates a natural subdivision.He said Mr.Easterday also owns another parcel on the other side just under 4 acres as well as a .394 acre parcel off of Red Hill Road.Mr.Easterday is proposing to take .738 acres out of the large parcel and add it to the .394 acre parcel to create a 1.13 acre parcel for the purpose of building a house.The Zoning Administrator has reviewed it and it was his opinion that even though it is in the Conservation zone the fact that Mr.Easterday was enlarging an existing undersized lot he would allow it to occur.Mr.Lung said it was originally submitted as a simplified plat until it was discovered that Mr.Easterday wanted to build a house on the parcel being conveyed by the simplified plat.The plat had to be revised and resubmitted as a preliminary/final subdivision plat and that in turn imposed the forest conservation regulations.Mr.Lung said that in the meantime Mr.Easterday obtained a building permit to construct a house on the existing lot and began construction.Mr.Lung said that in June the Planning Department received a forest stand delineation which indicated that the entire tract was in forest. The subdivision plat was submitted and included a forest conservation worksheet which indicated that to meet the Ordinance requirements .68 acres of the site could be cleared and at least 4.5 acres had to be retained.The forest conservation plat that was submitted indicated a .45 acre forest retention area.He said that some time after the forest stand delineation was submitted and after the building permit was issued,Mr.Easterday began to remove trees on the site and a foundation was excavated and a logging road graded in between Porters town and Redhill Road.It was then discovered that the house location shown on the building permit did 56 not match the house location shown on the original subdivision plat.Trees were removed from the proposed forest retention area and it was discovered that due to the changed house location,the originally laid out septic area would not be acceptable because the soil had been disturbed in that area.The Health Department has indicated that the originally approved septic area would have.to be moved and the possibility of removal of more trees if they have to get in to the forest retention area.He said that at this point Mr.Easterday has stopped work on the house and the consultant has staked the proposed forest retention area in the field so that it could be determined how much of the forest retention area had been disturbed.He spoke to Ed Foghtman of the Health Department and he indicated that due to the disturbance to the soil in the septic reserve area and the proximity of the road that it would be necessary to shift the reserve area and that would require getting into more of the forest retention area.Mr.Lung said that at this point his rough calculations show that about 7,800 square feet of the original forest retention area has been removed and since that extra clearing is above the forest conservation threshold according to the worksheet,they will have to mitigate for an additional 10,000 square feet.He said this does not include any additional clearing that may be required as part of the expansion of the septic area.He said that Mr.Easterday is asking for guidance from the Planning Commission as far as how they would like to see this issue resolved.He noted that this property is in the Antietam Overlay zone and is currently under review by the Zoning 4dministrator.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the options:1) Require Mr.Easterday to reforest on site the approximately 10,000 square foot area.2)To allow Mr.Easterday to pay into the forest conservation fund at the amount of 10 cents per a square foot for the additional area required.He would still set up a retention area for the remaining trees and pay into the fund for the amount he cleared.3)To require Mr.Easterday to obtain additional existing adjacent forested land either in fee or in an easement. Mr.Lung said that the forest delineation was done only for the one area but the entire area on the remaining land is in trees and could possibly be set up as an easement to meet the requirements for this lot.He said that the remaining lands consists of 3.123 acres and there is a possibility that he could add another tenth of an acre but he did not think that would be enough for what he would need.He said the most expeditious way to handle it would be to allow him to pay into the fund and noted that there are priority areas on the site.A discussion followed regarding the review of the A03 zone and the remaining lands.Mr.Easterday briefly spoke. A discussion followed regarding the payment in lieu of fee.Mr. Moser moved to give the staff the authority to approve the area for forestation and to accept payment in lieu of based on that figure. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed. Preliminary Consultation: Robert L.Millard: Mr.Lung stated that this property had previously been before the Commission.He said he did not have anything to add to the staff report.He said that the primary reason they held the consultation was at the consultant's request because the developer had changed consultants.He said there was only minor changes to the concept plan.A brief discussion followed regarding the panhandle lots and provision for access to the remaining lands and existing dwelling off of the proposed road. 57 OTHER BUSINESS: Revised Concept Plan for Appalachian Orchard Estates: Mr.Lung explained that the site is located off of Route 77 east of Smithsburg and was originally owned by Western Commercial Funding. Mr.David Rider has purchased the property at a public sale.He said that a subdivision plat is currently pending approval for 19 lots on 29 acres.He stated that in order to do this number of lots State Highway is requiring some significant improvements to Route 77 at the intersection of the new street to serve the lots. He said that this would not be cost effective and that Mr.Rider had redesigned the subdivision to create only 5 lots thereby reducing the State Highway Administration's requirements.The revised plan also shifts the afforestation area from an off site location to on site afforestation at 2 locations on lots 2 and 3. He said that to the north of the property owned by Mr.Rider is an additional parcel that was owned by Western Commercial Funding and was sold at the same public sale to Manny Shaool.A portion of this property is being used by Mr.Shaool to meet his afforestation requirements for Black Rock Estates subdivision.He said that the current subdivision plat for Appalachian Orchard Estates shows the proposed road to extend through the property and stub off at Mr. Shaool's adjacent property.He said there was a preliminary consultation held on this property a number of years ago -(when Western Commercial Funding owned both parcels).The developer at t)1at time said that they only planned to develop on the front parcel and in the future may develop lots on the back parcel.The County Engineer at that time said he wanted to see the road stubbed off so there would be access for future subdivision.Mr.Lung said that the property was in two separate parcels and sold at public sale as two parcels and two different people now own it.Mr.Rider has decided to change his plan to build his street with a cul-de- sac and not to extend the street to the property line.Mr.Lung referred to Section 4.5.1 E of the Subdivision Ordinance which states "where in the opinion of the Commission it is desirable to provide street access to adjoining property,the proposed streets shall be extended by dedication to boundaries of such property". He said that is before them for consideration tonight.Mr.Lung said that Mr.Shaool's property is landlocked and its access is via a right-of-way across Hippenhill Road,which is a private lane serving about 4 - 5 dwellings.He said that the Planning Commission is being asked to take into consideration the change in the plan and to rule on whether or not a right-of-way should be provided for the future extension of the street should Mr.Shaool decide he wants to develop his property. Mr.Angle,consultant,from Best Angle Associates briefly reviewed the history of the property.Mr.Rider spoke.He stated the reason he is not proceeding with the 19 lots is that the accel/decel lanes required on Rt.77 require the moving of utility poles out of the right-of-way.He said that the utility poles contain fiber optic cables going to Camp David and will cost him over $100,000.00 to move the four utility poles.He feels that based on this expense it would be impossible to develop the lots and sell them at a reasonable cost.He said they are proposing to reduce the density to 5 lots with sizes ranging from 5 to 10 acres. Mr.Shaool expressed his concern with not having a right-of-way to his property and that he felt the road should still be extended. A discussion followed regarding Mr.Shaools site,Section 4.5.1 E of the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger stated he does not see where they have legal standing to require a property owner to extend a road to another property owner and felt that the County Attorney needs to give them an opinion.Further discussion followed regarding the pending plan for 19 lots and whether or not the Planning Commission had the authority to require access to the other parcel.Mr.Bowen suggested that the two developers work something out for a right-of-way to Mr.Shaool's property and that the Planning Commission table this item.After further discussion, Mr.Iseminger stated that they needed to get an opinion from the 58 county Attorney.Mr.Spickler stated that he wanted a copy of the minutes from the consultation.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the concept plan as submitted.Mr.Iseminger asked to hold the motion for a minute and gave the parties involved time to speak. Mr.Shaool briefly commented and suggested that they table this matter and they he and Mr.Ryder will meet to work it out.Mr. Iseminger stated that he wants a copy of the minutes concerning the action that the Planning Commission took on the original concept plan and the County Attorney's opinion on Section 405.lE and how it pertains to this piece of property.Mr.Wade seconded the motion. A discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to table.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.A vote was taken.Mr.Bowen,Mr.Spickler and Mr. Iseminger voted aye.Mr.Moser and Mr.Wade voted nay.Mr.Ernst abstained.Mr.Iseminger stated that the motion passed to table the plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Monday the 18th and would like to review this item at 6:30 p.m. APFO Report: Mr.Arch stated that the report was not completed and would be presented at the next regular meeting. Mr.Arch stated he received a letter of request from Mr.Forsyth who has a 4 lot subdivision off of Fairview Church Road and wants .to develop 2 more lots without having a preliminary consultation. Mr.Moser moved to approve the request.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding upcoming meetings and Group IV of the Highway Interchange Study. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. \ H 59 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -SEPTEMBER 18,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,September 18,1995 in Court Room #l of the County court House. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,EX-Officio;James R.Wade and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner; Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Paula Lampton and Robert E.Ernst,II. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: Revised Concept Plan -Appalachian Orchard Estates: Mr.Iseminger stated this item was tabled at the last meeting and that they had received copies of the minutes of the Preliminary Consultation and the minutes of the Preliminary subdivision plat approval as requested.Mr.Arch stated that the Staff received a revised preliminary/final plat including an 18 foot access easement.The easement runs from MD 77 to Mr.Shaool's property. Mr.Arch commented that if the Planning Commission approves the proposed plan,development may occur on Mr.Shaool's property and the Planning Commission may want to take action on how much development they may allow off of the 18 foot right-of-way.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to deal with only the revised concept plan at this time.A discussion followed regarding the 18 foot right-of-way with both parties and their attorney.Mr. Moser moved to approve the revised concept plan and to give staff the authority to approve the preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjou~ned at 6:50 p.m. 60 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING -SEPTEMBER 20,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public informational meeting on Wednesday,September 20,1995 at the Wachahu Grange. Members present were:Chairman 1 Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser and Paula Lampton.Staff:Director1 Robert C.Arch, Associate Planner 1 Lisa Kelly Pietro and SecretarY1 Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Absent were Vice-Chairman1 Donald L.Spickler,Ex- Officio1 James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst, II. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Group IV Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Iseminger explained that this was a public informational meeting and that no formal testimony would be taken at this time. He stated that there would be a public hearing regarding these interchanges.He said the purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the public to give input and for the Planning Staff to make a presentation regarding their findings of these interchanges.The Interchanges to be presented will be Group IV and consist of 1-81 and Halfway Boulevard,I-70 at MD 63 and a portion of 1-81 and I-70 as well as an expanded area of I-8l and Halfway Boulevard and 1-70 and MD 63.Mr.Iseminger referred to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and reviewed the guidelines and requirements involved in the comprehensive rezoning process for the interchanges.He explained that the Planning Staff has completed a detailed site study of all of the interchanges reviewing the HI boundaries and recommending either the HI-I,HI-2 or other appropriate zoning.Mr.Iseminger stated that these recommendations are preliminary and will have a public hearing at a later date to determine the final zoning. Mr.Arch proceeded with his presentation.He explained the process involved in this study.He explained that they are looking at 3 different zoning classifications:HI-l -Heavy commercial and light industrial1 HI-2 -Heavy residential1 and IG -Industrial General. He explained that in their study,the staff looked at transportation,environmental,land use,utilities,historic information. Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the overlay maps outlining the transportation analysis,environmental analysis,land use analysis and utility analysis.She explained that these items were important in the staff's study of the properties for the rezoning. Mr.Arch explained that the approach staff used in developing the recommendations was found in the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinance and an interchange study done by the Virginia Institute of Technology.He proceeded to review each interchange in detail and how the proposed zoning was determined. At this point questions were taken from the audience concerning: How the rezoning would affect the tax assessment1 what the current zoning was in certain areas1 the proposed improvements to Exit 5 at halfway Boulevard 1 the IG zoning on Rt 40 and whether utilities would be expanded in this area1 whether the intersection of Halfway Boulevard to the intersection of Hopewell Road would be widened1 the capacity of the Conococheague Sewage treatment plant and the IG zoning. 61 Mr.Iseminger informed the audience that they could send written comments to the Planning Commission and that there will be another public informational meeting next Wednesday at the Williamsport Community Center dealing with the other interchanges in Group IV. Following that meeting,depending on the amount of changes,the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the County Commissioners to accept the staff report and the changes to the zoning as presented.If the Commissioners agree,they will have a public hearing most likely before the end of the year.At that time they will be given an opportunity to present public testimony regarding the specifics of this rezoning. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. man 92 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING -SEPTEMBER 27,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission informational meeting on Wednesday,September Williamsport Community Center. held a public 27,1995 at the Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler and Bernard Moser.Staff:Director; Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary; Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,County Commissioner;R.Lee Downey.Absent were:Paula Lampton,Ex-Officio;James R.Wade, Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Group IV Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Iseminger explained that this was a public informational meeting and that no formal testimony would be taken at this time. He stated that there would be a public hearing on these .j.nterchanges.He said that the purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the public to give input and for the Planning Staff to make a presentation regarding their findings on these interchanges.The interchanges to be presented will be in Group IV and consist of a portion of 1-8l and 1-70,I-8l at Virginia Avenue and 1-8l and MD 68.Mr.Iseminger referred to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and reviewed the guidelines and requirements involved in the comprehensive rezoning process for the interchanges.He explained that the Planning Staff has completed a detailed site study of all of the interchanges reviewing the HI boundaries and are recommending either HI-I,HI-2 or other appropriate zoning.Mr.Iseminger stated that these recommendations are preliminary and will have a public hearing at a later date to determine the final zoning. Mr.Arch proceeded with his presentation.He explained the process involved in this study and reviewed the proposed zoning classifications:HI-l -Heavy commercial and light industrial and HI-2 -Heavy to light residential,TB -Transitional Business - Light commercial and TI -Transitional Industrial -Light industrial.He explained that in their study,staff looked at transportation,environmental,land use,utilities and historic information. Mr.Iseminger stated that HI-l and HI-2 were not the only zones they looked at.He said the other zones in the Zoning Ordinance were used in this study and were applied where appropriate. Mrs.Pietro made her presentation.She proceeded to explain the overlay maps outlining the historic sites,utilities analysis, environmental analysis,transportation analysis,and land use analysis.She explained that these items were important in the staff's study of the properties for the rezoning as well as the boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Mr.Arch proceeded with his presentation.He referred to the Urban Growth Area boundary and said that it sets the guidance for the recommendations.He explained that according to the Comprehensive Plan an area associated with the UGA states that is where growth should be channeled.He proceeded to review the proposed zoning classifications:RM -Residential Multi-Family;HI-2 -~eavy residential;BL -Business Local;HI-l -Heavy commercial and light industrial;TR -Town Residential;RR -Rural Residential;IG - Industrial General and their locations on the map. 63 At this point questions were taken from the audience concerning the reasoning for the rezoning classification for certain properties; how the rezoning will affect tax assessments;what is being planned for Virginia Avenue and concern with changing the zoning for the Homewood nursing home property if the current use ceased. Mr.Iseminger informed the audience that they could send written comments to the Planning Commission.He said that the next step in this process will be for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners to accept the staff report and the changes to the zoning as presented.If the Commissioners agree,a public hearing will be held and at that time the public will be given an opportunity to give testimony regarding the specifics of this rezoning. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. airman 64 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 2,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 2,1995 in Court Room *1 of the county Court House. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E.Ernst, II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T. Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:05 p.m. Minutes: Mr.Iseminger said for the minutes of the August 28,1995 special meeting under the rezoning recommendation of RZ-95-04 instead of "the developer should build it"it should read "the developer working with the Junior College should reserve the right-of-way and the developer will build that section".Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes of the August 28,'1995 workshop meeting.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Before proceeding,Mr.Arch requested to add under other business for the Planning Commission to grant staff approval for a preliminary/final plat for a nonresidential lot for Stewart Warehousing.The other item is the summary of the five changes of the Highway Interchange.He would like permission to schedule a public hearing.He said there are several minor changes.Mr. Spickler moved to add the two items to the agenda.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Calvin Bausman -Lot Without Road Frontage: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Calvin Bausman.The property is located along the east side of Sleepy Creek Lane,south of Greensburg Road.The property is zoned Agriculture.The owner is proposing to create two single family lots to convey to his sons from a 17 acre tract.The access would be off an existing private lane,which is 14 feet wide and 1268 feet in length and is graveled.It connects to Greensburg Road and is currently used by 5 families.She said the request is from Section 405.11 B1 which states that the Commission may approve subdivision of land for immediate family member where the lot will front on a private road or right-of-way existing at the time of the original parcel's acquisition by the current owner.She referred to the list in the agenda packet of the other families currently using Sleepy Creek Lane and stated they do not have any objections to the proposed subdivision.A discussion followed regarding who controls the right-of-way.Mr.Wade moved to grant approval of the variance to create 2 lots without road frontage.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. 65 Raymond puglisi -Lot Without Road Frontage: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Raymond Puglisi.The property is located on the south side of Tasker Lane off of Mountain Laurel Road near Mt.Lena.The property is zoned Agriculture.He proceeded to review the history of property outlined in the agenda packet.He said at the time the lot was created the 5 year immediate family member exemption was in effect for a lot without road frontage.He said that time period expired and Mr.Puglisi wants to create a new lot without public road frontage.The proposed lot would access Tasker Lane,which currently serves 8 residences and is a private gravel lane.He said that the lane runs through each of the lots and each lot owner is responsible for the maintenance of that portion that runs through their property. The last new lot was approved in June 1990 after the Planning Commission granted a variance to allow this lot to be created without public road frontage.He referred to a copy of the minutes for that meeting in the agenda packet which stated that no further subdivision would be permitted for the entire tract.Mr.Lung said that staff recommends if the Planning Commission approves this request that they require written approval from the property owners through which this lane runs.This condition was previously imposed on Lot 3.Mr.Iseminger asked when the Planning Commission previously granted approval,did they say that there would be no further subdivision along that lane for the other property owners. Mr.Lung said that the minutes only stated no further subdivision be permitted for the entire tract.A discussion followed regarding further subdivision of the lots.Mr.Arch stated the question before them is if what is being proposed is a hardship under the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Moser stated that a financial hardship does not meet the criteria of the Ordinance.Further discussion followed regarding Tasker Lane and the previous decision of February 5th.Mr.Ernst moved to deny the request.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance was denied and that the next step would be for the applicant to go to the Board of Appeals. Walter and Sylvia Ehrhardt: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Walter and Sylvia Ehrhardt.The property is located on the east side of Harpers Ferry Road.The property is zoned Conservation.The owner is proposing to create an 18 acre lot off of 76 acres for his son. The access would be through a 50 foot wide panhandle created when Lots 1 and 2 were created in 1987,which was prior to the panhandle restriction.The panhandle is 900 feet in length.The request is from Section 405 .11.G.5 which states that the length of each panhandle shall not exceed 400 feet.The remaining lands will access Hoffmaster Road and they are planning to subdivide the land for their daughter.Mrs.Pietro stated that the hardship is the irregular shape of the lot.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Subdivisions: FB-l Limited partnership,Preliminary Plat: Mr,Goodrich explained that the development proposal has been before the Commission several times in the past as a Preliminary Consultation and to resolve issues including forest conservation and buffering.At this time the applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval.Staff is not recommending approval because it feels the application is incomplete without a site plan. Mr.Goodrich distributed a letter from Davis,Renn and Associates stating the changes that have been made to the plan and the items they intend to withhold until a site plan is submitted for approval as a separate and later application.Most agencies have given a 66 conditional approval but the zoning Administrator is of the opinion that a site plan should be submitted with the Preliminary Plat. Mrs.Lampton asked a question about the adequacy of the elementary school.Mr.Goodrich explained how it is determined at the time of final plat approval and indicated that at this stage in the review process there appeared to be adequate capacity. Mr.Arch restated the staff's concern for outstanding issues such as recreation areas,buffers,landscaping,a pedestrian system and stormwater management.Mr.Davis,the consultant,and Mr. Rafferty,the owner,presented their position that the items would be addressed at a later date.They are requesting approval of the preliminary plat in order to proceed with financial arrangements. A lengthy discussion developed.Staff restated two options: requiring site plan submittal and review prior to plat approval or approval of the plat only with an extensive list of conditions. Commission members suggested on several occasions that the staff and consultant could work toward a compromise list of additions to the plan.Staff maintained the position that the information already requested is the minimum acceptable and the consultant does not intend to provide it at this time.The Commission would need to provide its list of revisions. Mr.Moser made a motion to accept staff's recommendation to require a site plan and to deny preliminary plat approval until the site plan approval is submitted and reviewed.A discussion followed whether or not the Planning Commission had the authority to require a site plan prior to preliminary plat approval.Mr.Moser said he had a motion on the table to require a site plan prior to preliminary plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.A vote was taken.Mr.Moser and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr.Spickler,Mr. Ernst,Mr.Bowen and Mr.Wade voted nay.Motion failed. Mrs.Lampton stated she felt they should take this item to the meeting for the 23rd.Mr.Ernst moved to table this issue until the meeting of the 23rd to give the developer time to review a list of minimum information to be added to the plan prepared by the staff and come back with a revised plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. So ordered.Mr.Iseminger instructed the developer to schedule a meeting this week with planning staff. OTHER BUSINESS: APFO 6 Month Report: Mr.Arch referred to the report he handed out and briefly reviewed it.Mr.Ernst moved to recommend to the Commissioners that they continue the APFO.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Wildland Designation Area: Mr.Arch referred to the information in the agenda packet.He said this would be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.Mr. Ernst moved that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Highway Interchange: Mr.Arch referred to the map he handed out.He said there were 5 pieces of property that were submitted for consideration of changes in proposed zoning and proceeded to review them.1)Intersection of MD 63 and U.S.40 the owner is asking for his corner lot to also be HI-I.Staff does not have a problem with it since the adjacent property is also HI-1.2)12.75 acre parcel off of Halfway Boulevard adjacent to the railroad tracks.The owner is asking for 67 HI-l.Staff does not have a problem with it since it is adjacent to the railroad tracks.3)Two parcels totalling 8 acres owned by the same person located under the overpass.Staff had recommended a lot of those properties to be HI-2.The owner is requesting HI- 1.Staff does not have a problem with it because the back boundary is the railroad track and the property in front of it is HI-l.4) An area staff was recommending BL off of Virginia Avenue.The owner had a request of another classification for that piece of property.They did not say what they really wanted at the public hearing but had mentioned IR.Mr.Arch said that staff did not have a problem with the IR but would not recommend with making it HI-l.He said when they looked at it,they used Rt.11 as a buffer an because of adjacent zoning that a change to BG would be appropriate.5)Is a property below the Lightner property.The owner (Mr.Werder)requested that the property be considered HI-l and referred to his letter.He said if they do change it to HI-l then the Planning Commission needs to make a determination that this property will be associated with the Urban Growth Area.He said that this property is on the fringe and that there are no utilities i.e.water and sewer to this property at this point.He said that staff would not have a problem with changing it to Agricul tural from Conservation.Mr.Iseminger said that he was not comfortable with saying it is part of the UGA.A discussion followed regarding the proposed changes and that Planning Commission requested checking with the property owner on Rte.11 as to the classification requested.Mr.Arch said if they do not have a problem with these changes,then if endorsed by the Planning commission,he will take them to the County Commissioners for approval for advertisement.Mr.Moser moved to adopt the proposed recommendations.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Stewart Warehousing Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Arch requested that staff be given approval authority for ,a one lot subdivision on the Stewart Warehouse property located in the Intra-State Industrial Park.Mr.Arch stated the subdivision separates two existing buildings into two separate lots.Davis, Renn and Associates are the consultants for the subdivision.This request was presented in order to meet a closing deadline. Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,consultant, stated that he will be submitting a site plan for Stewart Warehousing this week and he is requesting that the Planning Commission allow staff to approve the site plan along with the subdivision.Mr.Wade moved to grant staff the authority to approve the preliminary/final plat and site plan for Stewart Warehousing.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 68 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -OCTOBER 23,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,October 23,1995 in the third floor conference room of the County Administration Building. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Ex-Officio;James R.Wade,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Robert E. Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were:Paula Lampton and Vice-Chairman; Donald L.Spickler. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:10 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: FB-l Limited partnership: Mr.Arch stated that this item was tabled from the last meeting in order to allow the developer time to address the items requested by ataff.He stated they have received revisions addressing all of the items.The only issue that remained unresolved regarded language on the plat.Mr.Arch explained that in the past the Planning Commission has required,when appropriate,that a notation be inclUded in deeds concerning proximity of the airport.He said that the attorney for the developer wrote an analysis concerning that issue and sent it to the County Attorney.In summary the attorney for the developer felt that the Planning Commission had no power to require that something of that nature be put into a deed and the County Attorney concurred.The County Attorney felt that the Planning Commission could require a note on the plat.Mr.Arch said that the attorney made reference that including something of this nature on the plat could be considered a taking,but that both he and the County Attorney felt that there was no validity associated with it.Based on the County Attorney's recommendation, staff would not recommend that the Planning Commission include an item within the deeds but have something on the plat that would address the proximity to the airport.After a discussion followed regarding what has been done in the past with properties in the airport area,concerns for the airport and the County Attorney's opinion,Mr.Arch recommended that they grant preliminary plat approval tonight and that the note be addressed later.A discussion followed with the developer regarding his objections that the language was too general for a deed,concern with having the note only on the plat and whether or not property owners would see it.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Wellhead Protection and Update on the Karst Geologic Study: Mr.John Grace of the Maryland Department of the Environment and Mark Duigan were present.Mr.Grace passed out copies of the wellhead protection program information and proceeded to review it. He explained that wellhead protection is a preventative proactive program to protect the water supplies.He said the first step is delineation of the area that the water is recharged in and explained the process in detail.Once that area is mapped they look at potential contaminant sources.The final step is to develop a plan.He explained what they are currently doing in the Boonsboro study.He said that the Ordinance approach is for things that have not happened yet i.e.development and industry.He said there is a need to address existing situations and one tool they have found successful is inspection of existing facilities.He 69 referred to a program in MDE where they inspect businesses within wellhead protection areas.Mr.Iseminger said that the Planning Commission has been addressing water quality issues in some of the stormwater management facilities.A discussion followed regarding the potential problems from agriculture,pesticides,animal waste, nitrates,working with the farm community,working with the various municipalities,the types of septic systems to be used and the different water quality practices promoted by the Soil Conservation District. Mr.Duigan passed out copies of his report and briefly reviewed the status of the Karst Hydrology Project.He said they have not begun any report writing or preparation of presentations at this point.He said they have a long way to go in the project and began dye testing as soon as sites are selected.Further discussion followed regarding obtaining assistance from the schools in gathering of data and information needed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 70 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 6,1995 The Washington County planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,November 6,1995 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director; Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro 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: In regards to the minutes of September 18,1995,Mr.Moser requested that the minutes reflect that he did attend the meeting. Mr.Iseminger stated he wanted to reference the fact that Mr. Shaool's subdivision at a later date would have to meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of September 20,1995. Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Before proceeding with new business,Mr.Iseminger said he would turn the Chair over to Mr.Spickler for the next three items. NEW BUSINESS: preliminary Consultation: Trails of Little Antietam: Mr.Lung explained that the preliminary consultation was on first because it relates to the two variances for Victor Peeke.He then proceeded to review the preliminary consultation for Trails of Little Antietam.He explained that since the property is divided by the Town of Keedysville and the County,they held two consul tations.The developer is proposing a single lot residential subdivision with the possibility of an elder care facility.The site is located along the north side of Dogstreet Road.The portion of the property in Keedysville is zoned Town Residential and the portion in the County is zoned Agricultural.The Town of Keedysville has requested that the Washington County planning Department and the Engineering Department do the review of the planning and engineering aspects for the town.Mr.Lung said they reviewed the plan from both the Town's Ordinances and the County's Ordinances and will be presenting this plan to the Keedysville Planning Commission in the near future.The plan calls for a total of 61 lots with the elder care option.Without the elder care option there would be additional single family lots inside the town making it a total of 69 lots.He referred to the plan and pointed out the town/county boundary line.The project is divided into 4 phases.Phase 1 contains 6 lots along Dogstreet Road to be served by wells and septics and is in the County.Phase 2 contains 7 lots with direct access onto Dogstreet Road to be served by wells and septics and is also in the County.Phase 3 contains 32 lots ("26 in the town on water and sewer and 6 in the County)on wells and septics and the elder care facility and includes the construction of a section of two cUl-de-sac streets.Phase 4 contains 16 lots 71 and involves a new cul-de-sac street.The plan initially called for wells and public sewer to serve Phase 4,however,that is incorrect.Phase 4 will be served by wells and septics and the lots may be considerably larger than what is shown.Mr.Lung said that the service providing agencies for water and sewer indicated that providing service should not be a problem in the town portion of the development,however,public facilities outside of the town will be a challenge.The town of Keedysville has control over the water supply and they require annexation in order to extend service.Sewer is controlled by the County sewer authority and based on a court order of an appeal of a zoning board action, public sewer cannot be extended until late 1997.Mr.Lung said that the town does not have a problem with the design of the development.The streets in the town will be closed section.The site is adjacent to the abandoned B &0 Railroad which is currently under study for a rail trail.The developer has integrated the rail trail in his design.Mr.Lung said a forest stand delineation has been approved for the site and briefly reviewed the forest plan.He explained that the development is in the rural agricultural area and the rural village of Keedysville as designated by the Comprehensive Plan and there are a number of historic buildings located in the town that are on the historic site survey.Mr.Lung said that Dogstreet Road provides an unspoiled transition from the agricultural area into the town area and there is a considerable amount of old stone fence along Dogstreet Road and the staff would encourage that the development Qe sensitive to the landscape approaching the Town of Keedysville. Mr.Lung proceeded to review ways to minimize the impact of the development including minimizing stripping of lots,recommend internal streets accessing all lots and to eliminate or minimize the individual accesses of Dogstreet Road,utilize the existing tree cover to provide buffering between the lots and the roa~.He reviewed a proposal to extend a cul-de-sac proposed in Phase 4 to extend to Phases 1 and 2 located between Lots 3 and 6.This would provide internal access to lots in Phase 1 and 2 and would eliminate the stripping of Dogstreet Road.He said that the developer was not receptive to this proposal because he wants to proceed with Phase 1 in order to finance the road construction in future sections.He said another option would be on the south side of Dogstreet Road where there has already been stripping of the road over the years,to allow Lots 3,4,5 and 6 to utilize one shared access and have Lots 7 and 8 share an access.He said that would reduce the number of entrances from 8 to 3.He said they still need to address the 5 lots for Phase 2.He said the best way would be to reconfigure the lots so they could access a stub street.Mr.Spickler asked the Planning Commission what issues they wanted to make sure the developer is aware of.He said that Mr.Lung made several suggestions of what could be done along Dogstreet Road in Phase 1 and part of Phase 2 and asked if they want to add anything to that.Mr.Moser stated that he concurs with staff's first recommendation regarding the lots fronting on Dogstreet be served by internal streets.A discussion followed. Mr.Spickler said that staff had suggested some alternatives on trying to reduce the number of access points on Dogstreet and some of the members of the Commission have expressed their concerh and wishes to have some internal roads.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concur with the staff's comments. Variances: Victor Peeke -Lot Without Road Frontage: Mr.Lung explained that part of the developer's purchase agreement was Tor him to convey Lot 34 to the previous owner.He said that Mr.Peeke would like to proceed with subdivision of that lot.He also said that this lot is in a phase planned for later in the process,so it will not have any road frontage until the street for that phase is built.The developer is proposing to provide the lot 72 with a temporary right-of-way across a lane for access until such time the street is built.Mr.Wade moved to grant a variance to create a lot without public road frontage with a stipulation that the road will be builtin 5 years.Seconded by Mr.Moser.A discussion followed with how the stipulation would be put into effect and adding a stipulation of no construction of Phases 3 or 4 be permitted until the road is built.Mr.Ernst moved to amend the motion to state that they would grant a variance to create a lot without public road frontage with a stipulation that the public road will be built in 5 years and that there will be no construction permitted on Phases 3 or 4 until the public road serving Lot 34 is built.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Victor Peeke -Corporate Boundary Line: Mr.Lung said that both the Keedysville and Washington county Subdivision Ordinances state that there cannot be a corporate boundary line running through lots.According to the concept plan there are 4 lots that are divided by the town boundary line.Mr. Lung explained that with the current design,the building envelope would not be split or affected by the boundary.He said that staff and the Town of Keedysville does not see a problem with it.Mr. Moser moved to grant the variance to allow the municipal boundary to divide some of the lots.Seconded by Mr.Wade.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. At this point the chair was turned over to Mr.Iseminger Betty J.Flook -Lot Without Road Frontage: Mr.Lung presented a variance for Betty Flook to create a lot without public road frontage to an immediate family member.The property is located on the north side of Bakersville Road east of Sprecher Road.The property consists of 14.8 acres and is zoned Agriculture.Mrs.Flook is proposing to create a 9 acre building lot for her daughter to the rear of the property.Mr.Lung said that the hardship is the irregular shape of the property and the location of the existing house and stream.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the variance to create a lot without public road frontage with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat and that there will be no further subdivision. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Bob Startzman -Lot Without Road Frontage: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Bob Startzman to create a lot for an immediate family member without public road frontage.The property is located on the west side of a private lane at the end of Linwood Road.The property is zoned Residential Urban.Mr. Lung said that the applicant is proposing to create a 1.24 acre lot out of 34.28 acres.He said there are three existing residences being served by this private lane and that they are all family members.Mr.Lung explained that the owner of the property is deceased and as part of the estate Mr.Startzman was willed a lot, however,the subdivision had never occurred.This request would allow the subdivision to occur.Mr.Iseminger asked if there will be a family member statement on the plat and that there will be no further subdivision.A discussion followed with the consultant. Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance with the 10 year family member statement.Seconded by Mr.Lampton.So ordered. 73 Site Plans: Sun Chemical: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Sun Chemical and explained that his review was not complete at the time the agenda was prepared.The site is located in the Interstate Industrial Park off of Industrial Lane off of Governor Lane Boulevard.Sun Chemical manufactures printing ink.The site is on 30 acres and is zoned Planned Industrial.The proposed expansion involves the construction of a 120 foot x 220 foot building addition,an addition for the loading area,an above ground tank farm and a rail siding.Mr.Lung referred to the plat and proceeded to explain the location of the proposed building and the additional landscaping. All agency approvals are in except for Permits Department.Mr. Lung said they have a few comments regarding the handicapped parking requirements and some of the setbacks need to be changed. A discussion followed regarding the screening.Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval contingent on all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Forest Conservation: John Schuster: Mr.Lung said that they need a clarification on several items concerning this plan.He referred to the preliminary consultation and said at that time staff had comments about the layout of the development and forest conservation.He said that the Planning Commission had expressed concern with the stripping of lots along Reiff Church Road.He said that staff recommended a revised street layout that would eliminate the access for all of the lots along Reiff Church Road.The original plan also showed a number of panhandle lots.Mr.Lung said that the developer has revised the plan using the staff's recommendations to have all the lots be served by internal streets and to reduce the number of panhandle lots.He said one of the other things they discussed was forest conservation.The forest stand delineation showed no existing forest,so they would have to plant trees.Staff recommended a number of locations where tree plantings could occur.It was the Planning Commission's recommendation that the afforestation occur in the dry swale area which runs between the two sections of the development.Any additional forest conservation requirements could be handled through payment in lieu of.As part of the process of the engineering of the development,the consultant did a flood study and determined that the flood way for the 100 year flood plain follows the dry swale area.The Engineering Department said they do not want trees planted in the flood way.Mr.Lung said that the developer would like to use payment in lieu of afforestation for the entire development and not plant any trees on the site at all.The consultant,Mr.Frederick briefly spoke.Mr. Iseminger asked about the screening along Reiff Church Road and the apartments.Mr.Frederick said that they can do screening, however,it would not be enough to meet the forest conservation requirements.Further discussion followed.Mr.Moser asked if the developer removed the two year time limit on planting.Mr. Schuster said he did not have a problem.Mr.Ernst moved to approve the payment in lieu with screening along Reiff Church Road and between the apartments and the residences.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Kretzer Rezoning Recommendation RZ-95-05: After consideration of the testimony presented at the public hearing,written comments received during the 10-day comment period,and staff reports,Mr.Moser moved to make a motion to 74 accept staff's findings of fact and to recommend that the Commissioners deny RZ-95-05 based on the fact that the applicant failed to substantiate that there was an error in the original zoning.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Staff Recommendations CP-95-01 and CP-95-02: Mr.Iseminger brief ly reviewed the staff recommendations which included minor revisions to address concerns that arose during the public hearing.The Commission felt that the discussion on balancing individual property rights with benefits to the community which is contained in the staff report for the proposed amendments should be included in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the County's policies in making land use decisions.It was determined that the matter could be discussed during the meetings with various organizations to develop Sensitive Area regulations and it could be included in a future or additional Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mrs.Lampton moved to recommend that the County Commissioners adopt the text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan CP-95-01 and CP-95-02 with the changes.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Anna Horst Estate -10 Year Family Member Statement: ~lair Baker,attorney for Robert and Wrenae Kline,briefly spoke. He explained that the property in question was sold at public sale out of the Anna R.Horst Estate.He said there was a residential subdivision done in 1993.Mrs.Horst died shortly after executing the deed and her personal representative sold this lot along with another lot that was subdivided along with the remaining lands at public sale.Mr.Baker explained that the title search revealed the owners statement and that the intent is to transfer the property only to an immediate family member.He said that the wife of the purchaser is Mrs.Horsts'great granddaughter.In addition, he said that the last sentence of the additional owners statement states that they acknowledge that the County is not responsible for acceptance or maintenance of private road right-of-way.He said that the subdivision plat shows a 15 foot right-af-way access across the property and it has been there for many years.He explained from the title standpoint the Klines cannot purchase the property because of the family member statement and that the purchasers are asking for the Commission to waiver the 10 year family member statement.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the request to waive the 10 year family member statement.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed. Group IV Highway Interchange Recommendations: Mr.Arch referred to the Group IV rezoning recommendations (RZ-95-06.1,RZ-95-06.2,RZ-95-06.3,RZ-95-06.4 and RZ-95-06.5). He said that 7 people testified at the hearing and briefly reviewed the changes requested,most of which were minor.In addition,Mr. Arch received a request from Mrs.Hershey whose property is zoned AHP and asked that HBP be considered for reduction around her property.Mr.Arch said he felt they could not act on that at this time because they did not advertise it.He said she did bring to their attention another piece of property adjacent to her's that is currently zoned Conservation and will be surrounded by Agricultural and HI-1 zoning.He explained that staff feels it should be Agriculture in order to be consistent with the other properties in that area.He said if the Planning Commission concurs,staff has prepared a resolution (95.2)for them to review and adopt.Mr. Iseminger asked about the Hunter Green area.Mr.Arch said that they are proposing the Blair's property to also be HI-1 to conform with the adjacent zoning.Mr.Moser moved to accept the staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the County 75 Commissioners approve the rezoning of RZ-95-6.1,RZ-95-6.2,RZ-95- 6.3,RZ-95-6.4 and RZ-95-6.5 with the changes as outlined and to adopt resolution 95-2.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Spickler and Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.A discussion. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. " 76 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 4,1995 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 4,1995 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,Bernie Moser,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen, IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. 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 the regular meeting for September 11,1995.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of the public informational meeting of September 20,1995.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved informational meeting Bowen.So ordered. to approve the of September 27, minutes 1995. of the public Seconded by Mr. Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 2,1995.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated for the minutes of the special meeting of October 23,1995,under FB-1 Limited Partnership that the motion should include "Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval subject to revisiting the issue of providing either a note on the plat or in the deeds regarding the proximity to the airport."Mr. Wade moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Subdivisions: Before proceeding with the subdivisions,Mr.Iseminger stated that Appalachian Orchard Estates will not be part of tonight's agenda. J.Michael Stouffer,Preliminary/Final: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for J.Michael Stouffer.The property is located on the north side of Welty Church Road and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 3 lots totaling 3.79 acres with 62 acres remaining ..Each lot will have access by Welty Church Road.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics and all approvals have been received.Mrs.Pietro stated that a subdivision for Lots 2 through 5 was approved in June of 1994.At that time a forest conservation plan was approved by the Planning Commission and is in two phases. Mrs.Pietro said that Mr.Stouffer has completed Phase 1 and these lots will be covered under Phase 2 and Mr.Stouffer would like to plant that phase in the fall of 1996.Mrs.Pietro said that the Planning Department has received a letter of credit from Mr. Stouffer in the amount of $5,663.00 for the Phase 2 plan.A discussion followed regarding the Phase 2 plan.Mr.Spickler moved 77 to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser. Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. West View,Preliminary Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat for West View. The developer is proposing to create 57 single family residential lots located on 20.5 acres on the south side of Reiff Church Road zoned Residential Multi-Family.Eleven lots will be served by an extension of Green Mountain Drive and the remaining 46 lots will be served off of Reiff Church Road by the construction of several new cul-de-sac streets.The streets will be closed section design with curbs,gutters and sidewalks.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Storm water management will be handled on site with a pond to be dedicated to the County.Mr.Lung said that a number of items of concern were expressed by the Planning Commission during the preliminary consultation and they have been addressed.The items included screen planting along the common boundary between this site and the apartments and between this site and Reiff Church Road.A note has been added to the plat regarding the proximity of this development to the airport,public access has been provided around the storm water management facility to provide a way for the pedestrians to get from one side of the development to the other.All approvals except for the Engineering Department have been received.The Engineering Department is currently reviewing a revision to the construction drawings.Mr.Lung said that approval should be conditional upon receiving the County Engineer's approval.A discussion followed regarding the type of plantings to be used and the size.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the developer would plant standard nursery stock (4 to 6 foot white pines).Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval contingent upon the County Engineer's approval and addressing the issue of screening/planting.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. U P Associates,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for U P Ase;ociates.He stated that it is a single,half acre lot containing commercial development.The property is located on the south side of Virginia Avenue at Linwood Drive.The site is currently improved by a business called Bowers Marine Sales and there is another business to the rear called ASR,Inc.Mr.Lung stated that this lot was part of a larger tract of land owned by U P Associates to the rear consisting of 139 acres.The property in the front is zoned Business General.Adjacent to the property being subdivided is a separate parcel owned by U P Associates that would serve as a future extension of Linwood Road if it were built to serve the remaining lands.The property is currently served by public water and sewer.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer has granted approval but noted if the road is ever built it will be necessary for the developer to obtain a right-of-way for a turning flare at the northwest corner.State Highway Administration has requested revisions to the plat to include a turning flare and noted that extensive work would be needed at the intersection of Linwood Road and Virginia Avenue if the road is extended or if the existing use on the site is expanded or changed.Revisions have been made to address the comments from State Highway and they are waiting for approval.Mr.Lung said the only other outstanding agency is the Washington County Permits Department.Their comments have not yet been addressed.He stated that the Zoning Administrator has requested that a site plan be prepared to show how the site is laid out now and how parking requirements will be met.He also asked for a stipulation that at such time that the adjacent parcel currently being used for displaying boats and trailers is no long available they may need to remove some of the old bUildings in the rear of the property to accomodate additional parking.Mr.Prodonovich also wanted to obtain an agreement from 78 the owner of the adjacent parcel indicating that they do not have a problem with Bowers Marine Sales using the area as a display area.Mr.Lung said that any approval should be contingent upon compliance with the Zoning Administrator's comments and approval of the revision by the State Highway Administration.A discussion followed.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on State Highway approval and compliance with the Zoning Administrators conditions.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Site Plans: Purina Mills,Inc.: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat and site plan for Purina Mills.The property is located on the east side of Hopewell Road north of Halfway Boulevard.The property is.zoned HI-1.The plan calls for the construction of an animal feed manufacturing facility on a 12.21 acre parcel.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the parking,number of employees,hours of operation, location of the proposed access road,landscaping and stormwater management.Public water is available and extension of public sewer is in the process and should be available by the time the facility is built.Mr.Lung stated that if the site is ready for occupancy prior to completion of the sewer line construction an interim on site sewerage facility will need to be installed and be acceptable to the Washington County Health Department.He said that all reviewing agencies have either granted approval or issued comments.A revised site plan addressing the agency comments was received and routed to those agencies.Mr.Lung said that a forest stand delineation was done for the site and explained that this lot is part of what will be part of an Industrial Park developed by the Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation.He said there may be on site forest retention to meet the forest conservation requirements on this site and they are looking at it on a regional scale for the park.A discussion followed regarding forest conservation.Mr.Lung stated that staff recommends that approval be conditional upon receipt of all agency approvals and to defer application of forest conservation requirements for this site and include them in the Forest Conservation Plan for the entire Industrial Park.Further discussion followed regarding the size of the silo.Mr.Wade made a motion to grant 6ite plan approval subject to agency approvals and forest conservation plan being addressed by the Hagerstown/Washington County Foundation for the entire industrial park.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr. Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. preliminary Consultations: Harry Lai: After a brief discussion regarding the consultation minutes,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with staff's comments and that the developer be put on notice to comply with the APFO. Before proceeding with "Other Business",Mr.Arch asked to add the following:1)Extension of subdivision approval for one year for Van Lear Section 13 2)A site plan for Norfolk Railroad to give staff the authority to grant site plan approval 3)Adopt the work program.Mr.Spickler moved to add the three items.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 79 OTHER BUSINESS: Rosalie Stotler: Mr.Lung stated that they received a subdivision plat and wanted the Planning Commission to review it before being processed by the staff due to the configuration of the proposed lots and the use of the simplified plat process.The property is located on MD 65 near the intersection with Manor Church Road.The property consists of 8.6 acres.Mrs.Stotler wants to subdivide the existing 8.7 acre parcel into 3 lots without public road frontage.The access will be provided across a right-of-way to Route 65.Mr.Lung said that the section of the Subdivision Ordinance that gives the Commission permission to grant these types of subdivision states that the lots are to front on an existing private lane.In this case there is a paved access lane to this property that extends into the property approximately 100 feet.It appears its primary function is to provide access to the adjoining mobile home.Mr.Lung said that the configuration of these lots would result in the stacking of 3 lots.There is a restriction in the Ordinance that does not allow this type of design when using panhandles,however,in this case they are not proposing panhandles.The lot designated as Lot 3 is being created by the simplified plat process (not for development). Mr.Lung said the lot contains only 3 acres.A discussion followed regarding Lot 3 and the restrictions on a simplified plat.The Commission informed the property owner of the restrictions on simplified lots.Mr.Moser moved to approve the subdivision with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Crosspoint: Mr.Arch referred to the letter in the agenda packet.He said they are looking at a major revision to the Crosspoint site plan which had been previously approved.Mr.Arch said that if the Commission grants permission then they will come back with a revised plan. The consultant,Mike Shifler of Fox and Associates,made a brief presentation.Mr.Shifler stated that he represents the owner FMW Partnership and the contract purchaser.He said that the contract purchaser is proposing some changes to the original plan.He referred to the letter in the agenda packet,which outlined the changes to make it predominately a townhome development.Mr. Iseminger noted that they are reducing the density and are not changing the infrastructure.Mr.Shifler stated that was correct. Mr.Iseminger asked about the amenities.Mr.Shifler said they will still have the walking paths.He noted they will not have a commercial area and are proposing to move the rec center from Section 6 to the commercial area (backing up to the elementary school property).A discussion followed regarding the extension of Massey Boulevard and the phasing schedule.Mr.Iseminger requested that the County Engineer review the revised plan and phasing schedule to be sure it still works with the extension of Massey Boulevard.After a discussion it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the developer proceed with the proposed changes. Sakech Acres: Mr.Arch referred to the letter in the agenda packet and stated that the consultant,Fred Frederick was present.Mr.Frederick explained that this plat was approved in 1965.The owner,Mr. Michael owns the land consisting of 9 lots (6 fronting Rt.416 and 3 on Rt.419).Mr.Frederick explained that these are lots of record and someone wants to buy Lot 8 and 3 acres behind it.He noted that the lots do not meet todays standards and that they were created prior to zoning.He said they want to reconfigure the lots to bring them up to today's standards but are concerned with how the Forest Conservation Ordinance will affect them and asked that they be exempted.The developer is proposing to reconfigure the 9 80 lots of record and resubmit the plan as 9 one acre lots.Mr. Frederick said they would be reconfiguring the entire subdivision and would be eliminating the streets.After a discussion regarding the redesign and the request for exemption for the Forest Conservation Ordinance,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concur with what the developer is proposing. Mr.Iseminger said that their next step would be to come back with a reconfigurationand all agency approvals,without forestation. Rezoning Recommendation RZ-95-07: Mr.Iseminger briefly reviewed the request to change the zoning from Conservation to Business Local based on change in the character in the neighbor and mistake in the original zoning.Mr. Iseminger felt the applicant made a case for a change in character of the neighborhood,with the main change being the ability to hook up to water and sewer.He felt there was not a mistake in the original zoning.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend that the County Commissioners approve RZ-95-07 because the applicant proved there was a change in the character of the neighborhood and the rezoning is appropriate and logicaL Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan CP-95-03: Mr.Iseminger stated that this amendment was regarding the interchange at Rt.632.A brief discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend that the County Commissioners adopt CP-95-03 (Resolution 95-3),as an amendment to the Highway Plan of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan identifying the location of the proposed interchange on I-70 at its intersection with MD 632 and also reclassification of MD 632 from MD 68 into the City of Hagerstown to the status of Urban Minor Arterial because it is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and that it is both logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr. Moser and Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Van Lear,Section 13 Extension Reguest: Mr.Arch explained that the developer is requesting a 1 year extension to his subdivision plat approval.Mr.Ernst moved to grant a 1 year extension of the subdivision plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered.Mr.Arch stated that the motion also acts as a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. Norfolk/Southern Railroad Site Plan: Mr.Lung presented the plan.He explained that Stewart Warehousing is constructing the building.He said he met with Steve Zoretich of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,Paul Prodonovich,Terry McGee and representatives from Stewart Warehousing last week.He said they have contracted with Norforlk Southern Railroad to construct a rail car unloading and warehouse facility adjacent to the Norfolk Southern rail yard.He explained that it is located off of Virginia Avenue near Southern States and the Noland Company.The site is zoned Industrial General.Stewart Warehousing has a contract to purchase 20 acres where they plan to build a warehouse facility,parking,paved area and a loading area where rail cars containing automobile parts would come in and be unloaded onto tractor trailers.Mr.Lung said in order to fulfill the obligations of the contract,Stewart needs to get plan approval and begin construction on a loading dock for the rail cars.He stated that initial construction would be a covered shed and loading dock, 11,000 square feet in size.There would be 3 to 4 employees".In the first phase they were anticipating 2 rail cars per day,6 cars per week.The tractor trailers would be using an access road 81· leading to Virginia Avenue.Mr.Lung said they would also be dealing with the City of Hagerstown because the access road is in the City.Mr.Arch stated that they are asking that staff be given the authority to approve the site plan for just the dock.A discussion followed regarding the phasing sChedule,concerns with access onto Virginia Avenue and the intersection at MD 65 and Oak Ridge Drive.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Commission has some concerns with the plan regarding traffic but will give staff authority to grant site plan approval for the loading dock only. If staff is not satisfied with the plan it should be brought back to the Commission in January.In addition,the developer will have to come back with a complete site plan.Mr.Moser moved to give staff the authority to grant site plan approval for only the loading dock.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. work Program: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the work program for 1995/1996. A discussion followed regarding rescheduling the meeting with the farm community.It was decided that they would try to meet on the second Monday in January.The Planning Commission also requested to have something from the Farm Bureau prior to meeting with them. A discussion followed regarding the memo in the agenda packet regarding St.James Village and the law regarding a special taxing district in the memo and the potential problems it could create. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Mr.Iseminger should draft a letter to the Board of Commissioners that the Planning Commission has concerns with this method of financing for all new projects and more consideration needs to be given for the long term ramifications of it before proceeding.Mr.Spickler stated that the law has an opportunity to the County to solve some old problems where people are demanding services that were not provided early on in the subdivision but feels it should not be used on new subdivisions.Mr.Moser made a motion for the Chairman to send a letter expressing the Planning Commission's concern regarding this concept as far as financing infrastructure in new residential subdivisions.Mr.Iseminger asked that everyone submit something in writing to Mr.Arch.Further discussion followed.It was decided that Mr.Iseminger would meet with Mr.Arch to draft a letter for the commission members to review and to be presented to the Board of Commissioners at their next Tuesday meeting. A discussion followed regarding the industrial park off of Hopewell Road. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Be