Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Minutes82 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 5,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 5,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and EX-Officio;James R. Wade.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 Robert E. Ernst,II and Vice-Chairman;Donald L.Spickler. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of September 18,1995. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. ~r.Wade moved to approve the minutes of November 6,1995. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of December 4,1995. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch stated that Byers Meadows of Downsville has some storm water management issues that recently came up and that the County Engineer has withdrawn his approval.Mr.Arch asked that it be tabled until this issue has been resolved.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to table Byers Meadows of Downsville.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger noted that the staff report for Prime Retail was just handed out and that the Commission members needed time to review it and felt it should be tabled.In addition,Mr.Arch stated they are waiting for comments from the County Engineer.Mr.Moser moved to table the recommendation for Prime Retail.Seconded by Mr. Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Urner,representing the applicant briefly spoke.He handed out a copy of a letter he will be presenting the next day to the County Commissioners. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Rosa Orcino: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Rosa Orcino.The property is located on the west side of Rohrersville Road,Route 67,south of Marble Quarry Road and is zoned Conservation.The owner is proposing to create a three acre lot with existing improvements for herself and her granddaughter.The lot is currently served by a gravel lane.The variance is from Section 405.ll.B of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that all subdivided lots must have a minimum of 25 feet of road frontage. The immediate family member statement will be on the plat.Mr. Moser moved to grant the variance with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat.Seconded by Mr. Wade.So ordered. 83 Wayne E.Burger: Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for Wayne E.Burger. The property is located on the east side of Maugansville Road at Garden View Road and is zoned HI-2.The property is currently occupied by an office building and an existing drive onto Maugansville Road.Mr.Burger is proposing to subdivide the property into 2 parcels,construct a 2 family dwelling on the new parcel and use the existing drive on the remaining lands to access the new parcel.The frontage of the new parcel would create another access onto Maugansville Road at a busy intersection with poor sight distance.The variance request is to allow the new parcel to use the existing access on the adjacent parcel.A discussion followed regarding an easement being platted.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Subdivisions: Homer Bivens,Lots 3-6,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Homer Bivens Lots 3 through 6.The property is located on the west side of Greencastle Pike and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 4 single family lots ranging in size from ..7 to 7 acres.The total development is 10.4 acres with 54 acres in :r;emaining lands.The lots will be served by public water and private sewer.Access will be from Bivens Lane which will access Greencastle Pike.Mrs.Pietro stated that the Planning Commission granted a variance in August of 1995 for this layout for Mr.Bivens to access Bivens Lane with 3 stipulations.1)No further subdivision unless Bivens Lane was brought up to County standards. 2)The developer should contact the County Engineer to see how much right-of-way would be required when a public street was constructed.3)If at that time Mr.Bivens did not want to construct a street,an asphalt drive would have to be paved until the street is put in.Mrs.Pietro said that the owner is proposing not to build the street at this time but to put in an asphalt drive.All agencies have approved the concept.Mrs.Pietro stated that also before the Commission tonight is the afforestation plan. She explained that Mr.Bivens needs .75 acres in trees,which will be planted on the north section of the remaining lands,close to the existing dwelling,barn and flood plain.She said they will need a surety in the amount of $3,267.00 until everything is complete.A discussion followed regarding the reserved right-of- way for the future street and the asphalt drive.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on either constructing the road to County standards or at a minimum constructing an asphalt drive to serve the 4 lots.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the forest conservation plan as presented with the surety of $3,267.00.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that if there is any further subdivision that the road must be brought up to County standards. Crystal Falls Estates,Lots 1-13,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Crystal Falls Estates.The property is located on the west side of Crystal Falls Drive north of Jugtown Road and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung noted that this property is located in the Beaver Creek Special Planning Area.Mr.Lung explained that a preliminary consultation was held in May 1995.At that time the developer was proposing to develop 242 acres into 25 lots.Since that time,the developer has sold a large portion of the property to an adjacent farmer for nondevelopment purposes.The subdivision is now for 13 lots on 76.45 acres.The lots range in size from 2.5 acres to approximately 12 acres with a 22.5 acre residual tract.AII'lots 84 except Lot 5 will access a new public street.Lot 5 has an existing dwelling and will access Jugtown Road.The lots will be served by wells and denitrification septic systems.The water quality control structure will be located between Lots 8 and 9.A note has been added to the plat stating that the Soil Conservation District will be contacting the individual lot owners as building permits are issued regarding Best Management practices.Mr.Lung said some revisions were requested by the Health and Engineering Departments.They have been made and routed to those agencies and they are waiting for approval.In regards to forest conservation, there is some existing forest on the property consisting of .34 acres which will be retained in a forest retention area and the remainder of forest conservation will be in two afforestation areas.One on Lots 4 and 5 containing approximately 3 acres and the other on the residual lot totalling 5 acres.Mr.Lung stated that staff requested a signed short term maintenance agreement and the amount of the surety from the consultant prior to the meeting however,it has not been received.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission may give staff the authority to approve it once it is received.A discussion followed regarding the water quality, denitrification systems and the easements for the forest conservation areas.Mr.Moser moved to approve the forest conservation plan contingent on the maintenance agreement and surety being provided to the staff.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on the Health Department and Engineering Department approvals.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Wintergreen.Lots 1-11 and 12-34,Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the final plat for Wintergreen Lots 1-11 and 12- 34.He noted that the subdivision was previously called Westview. No name was changed because of a conflict with another development. The property is located on the south side of Reiff Church Road and is zoned Residential Multi-Family.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for 57 lots in December 1995.This is the final plat for two sections totalling 34 lots for single family dwellings.The entire development covers 25 acres and these two sections cover 10.67 acres.Lots 1-11 will be served off an extension of Green Mountain Drive.Lots 12-34 will be served by a new street off of Reiff Church Road.The lots will be served by public water and sewer.All agency approvals have been received except Water and Sewer,who has requested that a note be added to the plat stating that grinder pumps are required on Lots 12,13, 14,15 and 34.According to the Water and Sewer Department these pumps will be owned and maintained by the County. The initial lot purchaser will pay for the grinder pump and connection fee.Mr.Lung stated that a note was added to the plat regarding the location of this development to the airport and potential noise.Mr.Lung said that the Planning Commission previously approved the use of payment in lieu of afforestation and the consultant has submitted the amounts for approval.Lots 1-11 would be $18,861.48 and Lots 12-34 would be $30,884.04 based on 10 cents a square foot.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant final plat approval for Lot 1-11 and Lots 12-34 contingent on Water and Sewer Department approvals.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered.Mr.Schuster,the developer had a question regarding the 10 cents a square foot fee and felt that the amount may have been miscalculated by his consultant.Mr.Iseminger instructed him to have his engineer get with staff to determine the correct amount. Lynn Munson,Lots 1-4,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Lynn Munson, Lots 1-4.The property is located on the east side of Greenlane Road,north of Hancock near the Mason-Dixon line and is zoned Conservation.Mrs.Pietro explained that 3 lots front on the road and one lot is to the rear.All of the lots will go to immediate 85 family members.The total development consists of 14.7 acres with 109 acres remaining.The site will be served by wells and septics. There is an existing dwelling on Lot 2.In addition,in February of 1995 the Board of Appeals granted a variance on Lot 2 to reduce the lot width,and the left side yard setback.Lot 4 will be using an existing drive to Greenlane Road and the immediate family member statement will be on the plat.Mrs.Pietro stated that this development is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because the lots are going to immediate family members and they are not clearing more than 40,000 square feet of forest.All agency approvals are in.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval with the stipulation on Lot 4 that there be 10 year family statement on the plat.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Site Plans: Washington County Airport Shell Building: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Airport Shell Building. The site is located along the south side of Airpark Road and is zoned Airport District.The parcel area encompasses 7.4 acres and the County is proposing to construct a corporate hangar and aircraft maintenance facility.The building height will be approximately 31 feet.The site will be served by public water and sewer and the lighting will be building mounted and signage will be in compliance with the Ordinance.The projected hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.with an estimated 6 employees. Mrs.Pietro reviewed the location of the dumpster,parking spaces, landscaping,delivery area,concrete apron and taxiway.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Wade moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Citi Corp: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Citi Corp,Building #3. The property is located along the east side of 1-81 and to the south of State Line Road.Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the existing buildings on the site,the existing parking and stated that the new building will be 385,000 square feet.There will be an additional 340 employees,an additional 516 parking spaces, several work shifts from 4:00 am.to 2:00 am.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Mr.Goodrich reviewed the landscaping and the storm water management pond area.He said that the only outstanding item is a lighting plan for the parking lot because the electrical drawings have not been completed yet.All other agency comments received to date have been addressed.Mr. Goodrich stated that the Engineering Department has approved the site plan and will be withholding the building permit until the storm water management pond design is submitted.The Permits Department has approved with the exception of the lighting.The Heal th Department has granted approval contingent on water and sewer being available.Staff is still waiting for a response from the Water and Sewer Department and State Highway.Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission give site plan approval contingent upon the receipt of all other agency responses and the lighting plan.A discussion followed regarding the storm water management.Mr.Goodrich stated that traffic has been an issue and that there will be a traffic study.Citi'Corp has agreed to abide by any comments from the traffic study.Mr. Wade moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Bower Marine/UP Associates: Mr.Lung presented the site plan,which is somewhat different than what is normally submitted.In December,the Planning Commission 86 granted conditional approval to a subdivision plat creating a new lot around an existing building for Bowers Marine Sales located on the east side of Virginia Avenue north of Halfway Boulevard.The condition of the approval was that a site plan be submitted to satisfy the Zoning Administrator's comments regarding how the site is currently being used and to show how the site may be used in the future should the use of the adjacent strip of land no longer possible.Mr.Lung stated that has been done and that the plan shows two scenarios.One is a site plan reflecting existing conditions with an outline of the new lot and the additional display area which is on the adjacent parcel which is not part of the subdivision lot and is designated as a possible future extension of Linwood Road to the remaining lands of UP Associates. Mr.Lung explained that the remaining lands consist of 139 acres and this is the only access point onto Virginia Avenue.The Zoning Administrator and the County Engineer expressed concern if the right-of-way was turned into a County road and the remaining lands were developed,how would that affect this business and the subdivision that occurred around it.The Zoning Administrator asked the consultant to prepare a site plan showing how that will be handled should Linwood Road become a reality.This would involve raising an existing building to the rear to allow for additional parking and also the acquisition of additional land from UP Associates.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer and State Highway have reviewed it.The County Engineer expressed concern that the strip of land is only 50 feet wide and that is the minimum required to build a local street.He wants to make sure that the site plan does not lock the County into a situation to accept the 50 foot right-of-way as an acceptable means of access to the remaining lands.It may be necessary if they develop the remaining lands for them to obtain additional right-of-way for a larger road which could impact how the business would function.Also of concern is the proposed improvement of a direct access off of Virginia Avenue into this site.State Highway Administration expressed concern with this entrance being so close to the intersection of the future public road.State Highway Administration wants to see this private access eliminated.Doing that will involve reconfiguring of the parking area.The County Engineer has requested that a note be placed on the plat stating that the purpose of the plan is to show compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and not to be considered a dedication of this right-of- way to the County for a public street nor was it to be construed as an approval of being adequate to serve as an access to serve the remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated this site plan was brought before the Planning Commission for their opinion and to make sure the Commission feels staff is proceeding in the right direction as far as what is expected in the future.Mr.prodonovich,the Zoning Administrator,was present to answer any questions.Mr. Prodonovich referred to the site plan and pointed out the existing tract of ground shown on the site plan as it exists.He said his major concern is that they are storing boats in the future right- of-way for Linwood Avenue and that is why he asked to see a site plan.Mr.Iseminger asked what the Planning Commission is to approve.Mr.Arch stated that what the Zoning Administrator is looking for is a concurrence by the Planning Commission that the current site plan configuration is acceptable and that the owner would have to use a site configuration similar to what is shown on the second plan if in the future the road is built.Mr.Iseminger feels that the road will be built in the future and that they should approve the site plan showing the future expansion and if the Zoning Administrator wants them to continue to operate as they are,realizing that they are using the right-of-way only until such time the road is built.Mr.Arch stated they could do it that way, however,the County Engineer should be able to reserve the right to make changes to the road right-of-way requirement once a development proposal is received.A discussion followed regarding what was presented,what the County Engineer and State Highway wants,the access to the property and Linwood Road.Mr.Arch stated they wanted to get a site plan that had an approval associated with it so that the Zoning Administrator would have a 87 document to refer to.He explained that it is a catch up situation and to look at what may be a condition in the future and how it would have to be resolved.He said that perhaps Mr.Iseminger's suggestion would be best,which would be to give site plan approval to the future site plan with the allowance of the use of the current site in conformance with the way it is shown until the road is built.Mr.Iseminger stated if the consultant would prepare a site plan that addresses agencies comments,they can act on it. A discussion followed regarding the developer's time frame and to table the issue until the site plan had been revised.Mrs.Lampton moved to table the issue.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr. Iseminger stated that the consultant and developer can meet with staff and as soon as the plan is ready they will put it on the agenda. preliminary Consultations: Donald Pauls grove Estate: Mr.Lung stated that he had nothing to add to his staff report. Mr.Iseminger asked about the flood plain and the comment from the Health Department regarding contaminated water.He noted that this may be a good area for denitrification septic systems and the use of the Urban Best Management Practices.Mr.Lung stated he would ask Soil Conservation for their comments.He said that the well contamination may have come from old gasoline storage tanks and not from septics.A discussion followed regarding the requirement from Engineering for no basements on certain lots,the flood plain, adding a note to the plat and covenants,and the potential for flooding problems in the area.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concur with staff's comments. South Mountain View Estates: Mr.Lung explained that in addition to the consultation he has a request for use of offsite afforestation (which is under Other Business).Mr.Lung stated that the consultation was held on January 25th and even though the written summary is not completed the Planning Commission should review the consultation since they received the request for off site afforestation.The subject site is located on the south side of Mt.Aetna Road and contains 36.34 acres zoned Agriculture.The property is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Special Planning Area.The developer is proposing to create 19 single family lots on individual wells and septic systems.The lot size is approximately 1.6 acres and a new public street will be built to serve the lots.Mr.Lung stated he received a number of comments from the Soil Conservation District, Health Department and the Trout Hatchery since it is in the Upper Beaver Creek Planning Area as follows:1)Water quality be addressed for storm water management 2)The use of denitrification septic systems.3)Hydrogeologic report to determine the subsurface conditions. Additional concerns expressed by the Trout Hatchery were:the temperature of the water coming out of the stormwater management facility and elevation of the water temperature in Beaver Creek. Mr.Lung stated that there will be some upgrading of Mt.Aetna Road required to meet the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance requirement.Mr.Lung stated that the primary concern was the impact this development would have on Beaver Creek. Mr.Lung stated that a forest stand delineation plan was approved in December and it indicated that there is no existing tree cover on the property that would constitute a forest and also indicated that there were no priority areas for afforestation on the site. It did point out an unnamed intermittent tributary to Beaver Creek located on the site.Mr.Lung noted that this development is about 2 miles from the trout hatchery and less than a mile to Beaver ss Creek.The forest conservation worksheet calls for 7.27 acres of afforestation and the developer is proposing to plant off site on property he owns off of Route 77 near Smithsburg.This is where the Planning Commission approved off site afforestation for Black Rock Estates.Mr.Lung stated that this development is different than Black Rock Estates,which is located inside the Urban Growth Area and is served by public water and sewer and not located in a sensi tive area.This development is in the rural agricultural area.It is staff's opinion that on-site afforestation would provide a buffer to help filter the runoff going into Beaver Creek. Staff feels that the developer could incorporate afforestation on the lots due to their large size.Mr.Iseminger stated they have seen a number of developments in the Beaver Creek Special Planning Area and if the trout hatchery is concerned with it then they are concerned with it.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concur with staff and the agencies comments in regard to the site. OTHER BUSINESS: South Mountain View -Reguest for Off-Site Afforestation: Mr.Weikert,consultant,of Fox and Associates stated that the site in Smithsburg has already been approved for afforestation and this site does not have any priority area based on the Forest Gonservation Ordinance.He said that the developer wants large lots,so clustering would not be an option and trees could possibly cause him a hardship.He noted that the name of the subdivision is South Mountain View Estates and that trees could block the view depending on where they are placed.He noted that it is an agriculturally active area and there is pollution from farming operations as far as groundwater.He feels the water surface runoff quality will be improved over a farming operation with lawns and that a small scattered area of trees will not be any better than grass.Mr.Iseminger stated that he agrees with the staff's analysis and referred to the concerns expressed by several of the agencies.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to deny the request for off site planting.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Ben Shaool -Sidewalks.Youngstown 3: Mr.Lung stated that the zoning Administrator requested that this item be placed on the agenda.He explained that the plat for College Heights was approved in 1990 for apartment units behind the 7th Day Adventist Church.He stated that part of the approval was the construction of a sidewalk along the side of the road that goes by the Church and into the apartments.It would be a pathway along the road to a school bus waiting area to be located at what was then a cul-de-sac at the end of Kings Crest Boulevard.Mr.Lung said that Mr.Stan Valentine received an approval for a PUD at the end of Kings Crest Boulevard which involved extending the road.He said that Mr.Valentine also had a pedestrian access plan that was designed for his development to connect with the apartments and to eventually reach the Junior College.He said that what is on paper is not feasible in the field.He explained that there are a couple of large drainage pipes and a deep drainage ditch underneath the road that serves the apartments as well as a steep slope along the road.Mr.Prodonovich,the Zoning Administrator,feels it is physically impossible to build a sidewalk on this side of the road. A potential problem they may run into is as part of Stan Valentine'S approval was that he would have a sidewalk to tie into this sidewalk near the tot lot area.Mr.Lung said that due to excavation,there is a large rock pile area in the way.At this point Mr.Prodonovich spoke regarding an alternative to the sidewalks.He stated when the development was first approved there were smaller storm water management openings at the base and'that once construction started,the County Engineer realized what was 89 shown on the plat was not practical and would not handle the amount of stormwater coming from the sites.He said that Mr.Shaool was asked to improve it by putting two 5 foot round storm water management pipes in there.He explained that where you would normally come off the hillside into the bus waiting area you now have a ditch approximately 20 to 25 feet across about 8 foot deep. He said if they are going to continue with the plan as shown they would be coming down a steep grade and he thinks that in the winter months the sidewalks would not be useable and it would not meet the intent.Mr.Prodonovich advised Mr.Shaool not to put in the sidewalk because of the slope and the ditch.This issue needs to be resolved before a certificate of occupancy is issued.In addition a lot of rock and stone excavated from the site was placed on the backside of this hill,which affects the connection with Mr. Valentine's development.He suggested bringing the sidewalk down the opposite side of the road which is less steep.Mr.Shaool is agreeable to this design.Mr.Prodonovich also stated that the site plan has changed somewhat in that the size of the buildings have changed and the parking lot has been altered.He said those changes are not significant enough to affect the setbacks.Mr. Moser asked how this will affect Mr.Valentine's development.Mr. Prodonovich said that Mr.Valentine has indicated that he would like to change the configuration of his sidewalks in his development.Mr.Prodonovich advised him not to do anything at this time and suggested that Mr.Valentine meet at the site with the County Engineer,Planning Staff and himself to discuss any ~hanges.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission was looking for something to tie in the pedestrian access to eventually connect with the Junior College and as long as they can do that,he does not see a problem.Mr.Iseminger asked about the bus waiting area.Mr.Lung stated that the Board of Education indicated that at this point they are no longer asking for a bus waiting area to be at this location.They will be picking up at Robinwood Drive. Mr.Lung said that there is another bus waiting area shown in Mr. Valentine's subdivision that was approved by the Board of Education.A discussion followed regarding bus waiting areas and building a slab and how this will affect Mr.Valentine's development.Mr.Moser made a motion to allow Mr.Shaool to move the location of the sidewalks per Permits and Inspections comments and not to build the bus waiting area but instead to donate to the County in lieu of and to acknowledge acceptance of the revised site plan showing the correct data.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mrs.Tucker -Electromagnetic Waves: Mrs.Tucker handed out information to each of the Planning Commission members and proceeded with her presentation.She stated their child was diagnosed with cancer after 4 years of living next to a high tension power line.His room was 33 feet away from the power line.Since that time they have been researching this issue and feel that magnetic fields caused their son's cancer.She stated that their purpose tonight is to ask for the following:1) 250 feet minimum setback from high tension power lines for all future residential building;1,000 feet setback for schools (not permitted on school grounds).2)Endorse a bill prohibiting transmission or distribution lines from producing fields >2 mg on residential or public property.3)Require utilities to implement EMF reduction and mitigation techniques on existing transmission lines to the Planning Commission regarding electromagnetic waves. 4)Require a warning to be placed by public utilities on electric substations and pad mounted transformers reading:"Warning: Electromagnetic Fields-Keep Away"5)Restrict placement of future electric utility structures near residential or child care buildings.6)Establish guidelines for evaluating EMF complaints 6)Require real tors to have a waiver signed by the purchaser acknowledging the awareness of transmission lines located on the property.Mrs.Tucker reviewed the information highlighted in her pamphlets regarding statistics and studies on electromagnetic 90 fields.After a discussion,the Planning Commission told Mr.and Mrs.Tucker that they have an upcoming meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and will discuss their requests with them. Oak Ridge Towne,Town House Development,Section III Reapproval: Mr.Arch stated that this is an old subdivision plan that was approved years ago.He stated that in the past they have reapproved them and have not added forest conservation requirements to them as long as there are no additional units and that in this case there may be a reduction in units.Mr.Arch said if the Planning Commission does not have any problems,they can reapprove it without any additional requirements other than to bring the site plan up to current standards and meet all the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Moser moved to reapprove the plan and exempting it from the Forest Conservation Ordinance but being subject to meeting current standards.Seconded by Paula Lampton. So ordered. Jim Forsyth subdivision APFO Variance Request: Mr.Arch explained that this is an APFO variance for subdivision of 2 lots off of a 44 acre tract on Shinham Road.Mr.Arch said that the Planning Commission has two options:turn down the proposed development and let it go to the Zoning Board of Appeals who could grant a variance from the Ordinance or the Planning Commission could permit the subdivision of 2 lots from the standpoint that Mr. Forsyth originally had 50 acres from which was subdivided lots for immediate family members.He said that Mr.Forsyth can now get one lot under the 5.11 exemption provision,which allows for one lot for every 25 acres,since he has 44 acres.However,the second lot falls slightly below the threshold for exemption,19 acres or .76 of a new lot.Mr.Arch said that the Commission could choose to allow the second lot based on rounding off the .76 to a whole new lot since theoretically a case could be made that he was allowed 3/4 of a lot.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to concur with staff recommendations to round off the percentages and allow the creation of a second lot.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Upcoming Meetings: It was decided to schedule a meeting to discuss the Sensitive Areas on Monday,February 26th at 7:00 p.m.in the Commissioners meeting room.Mr.Arch asked the Planning Commission members if they would be available to meet with the Board of County Commissioners on Thursday,February 8 at 8:00 a.m.for a workshop meeting.It was the consensus to reschedule the meeting.Mr.Arch stated that the Rural Development meeting scheduled for February 12 has been moved to Monday,March 25th at 7:00 p.m.in the Commissioners Meeting Room.It was also the consensus to have a special meeting for the old business on Tuesday,February 20th at 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. -- 91 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -FEBRUARY 20,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday,February 20,1996 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,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen, IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:05 p.m. Stitzel Property -History Report: Mr.Arch stated that this report has been submitted to the Historic District Commission but they have not had an opportunity to review it.He said that staff felt that the basic report met the original request for a noninvasive survey.The information in the study did not identify any specific significant historic issue associated w;i.th the property except that the buildings may be historic, depending on what is under the exterior covering of the buildings. Because of this,staff felt that the buildings should be treated as historic structures;if there would be any consideration for demolition,even though they are not on the historic site survey. A discussion followed regarding slaves being buried on the site and whether they are scattered about and the history associated with the site.Mr.Iseminger stated he was looking for a conclusion or recommendation of whether or not based on this study if there was a need for further investigation or documentation regarding the site and asked that his comments be passed on to the Historic District Commission.Mr.Philip Downs briefly spoke.He noted that the report did not include the fact that there were 180 slaves on the estate at one time and felt that the residences of the slaves were scattered about and that they were also buried in different areas.He feels more research should be done before proceeding with the subdivision.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to wait until the Historic District Commission reviewed the report. Rezoning Recommendation RZ-95-08,Prime Retail: Mr.Lung referred to the staff report and analysis following the public hearing.He stated that when the Planning Commission makes findings of whether a particular rezoning classification is logical and appropriate they take into consideration all the uses allowed in that zoning classification and not just one particular use.He said in this case the applicant presented at the public hearing,a plan for an outlet shopping center and presented a traffic engineer with a traffic study.Mr.Lung believed that it was not the applicant f s intent that the traffic study be construed ·as a comprehensive study of the traffic impact that any of the allowed uses under the HI-l classification would generate.Nor that the findings of the traffic study and the comments of the County Engineer and State Highway Administration would be construed as information regarding the impacts of all the various uses allowed in HI-l might have.Mr.Lung said there are uses that may generate more traffic and some that may generate less traffic.The intent of the review of the traffic study by the State Highway Administration and County Engineer was to make sure that the developer is aware in a general sense what type of improvements may be required should the rezoning be approved and the site developed as an outlet mall. 92 Mr.Arch stated that based on the use which was shown,there are several important issues that the Planning Commission needs to take into consideration and make requirements of,with any recommendation they would make: 1)Traffic improvements would be required substantially more than what was identified by the applicant at the time of the public hearing.They have been identified by the County Engineer and the State Highway Administration.At the time of site plan approval those items would have to be addressed in accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 2)There would most likely be a requirement for another traffic study to be determined by the County Engineer and State Highway Administration.If the rezoning is granted,it is important that there is no grandfather provision.Mr.Arch explained that they just received a request for another 90 day extension for the current residential plan.Since that has occurred,it is very important that the current owner understand if the rezoning is granted,residential development will no longer be permitted on that site.Mr.Urner,attorney,stated that on behalf of the property owner and applicant that they understand and agree that the current plans in front of the staff are null and void if the rezoning is granted.Mr.Iseminger stated that if the Commissioners grant the rezoning then they will be notified that their current plans are no longer valid.A discussion followed regarding the traffic study done for the proposed residential development.Mr.Iseminger said that if the property is rezoned to HI-I that they will be required to do another traffic study and they will have to meet all of the requirements of that traffic study.Mr.Iseminger stated .that the applicant has based their rezoning request on the fact that the Planning Commission made a mistake in the rezoning of the property to Highway Interchange 2. He said that early on in the process they stated that these interchanges offered economic opportunities and they would try to be as flexible as possible with development cases recognizing that they were going through this process.He felt that they envisioned early on that something like this would transpire.He said that in this particular case the staff and Planning Commission felt this property should be zoned HI-I.Mr.Arch stated that it was staff I s opinion that the most logical and appropriate zoning classification for that tract was HI-I.Mr.Moser stated he does not have a problem with the rezoning and that he concurred with staff I s original recommendation and is concerned with the improvements that are needed.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger stated that it needs to be clear that any commercial development that takes place on that site will only be of appropriate scale that the road system can handle.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend that the County Commissioners approve RZ-95-08 and rezone the property to HI-l based on the fact that a mistake was proven and that it is logical and appropriate because the prior studies indicated that a HI-l classification was the most logical and appropriate.In addition, the current development plans will become null and void if the property is rezoned and that the Planning Commission will require additional traffic studies and improvements regardless of how the property is developed.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade and Mr. Bowen abstained.So ordered. Bowers Marine/UP Associates -Site Plan: Mr.Arch stated that this site plan was before the Planning Commission at the last meeting and that the Planning Commission asked that staff meet with the applicant to resolve the outstanding issues.He stated they will not use the site plan previously presented,instead they will develop a site plan showing existing conditions and show that the approved subdivision for this property will be consistent with the site plan.Mr.Arch requested that staff be given the authority to approve the site plan for the existing conditions and not address potential future conditions which are uncertain at this point.He stated that the County 93 Engineer supports this approach.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to give staff the authority to approve the site plan contingent upon agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding RZ-95-08.Mr.Arch stated they had a meeting in Keedysville last night regarding the Trails of Little Antietam.He said there are some issues that will be discussed with the Commission at the March meeting.He stated that there appears to be a situation where the Sharpsburg Elementary school is over the capacity based on the APFO requirements.Mr.Arch said he contacted the consultant to inform him it will be on the March agenda for discussion.The Planning Commission cannot approve a plat when a school is deemed inadequate.He said a 6 lot subdivision plat for Phase I,Trails of Little Antietam has been submitted,this is only part of the entire development.Mr.Arch stated that the staff believes that a preliminary plat for the entire tract should be submitted for the Planning Commission to review.A discussion followed regarding the school capacity issue and meeting with the school board in the future. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjo~rned at 6:00 p.m. 94 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 26,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Tuesday,February 26,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Donald L.Spickler;Paula Lampton,EX-Officio;James R. Wade and Robert Ernst,II.Staff present:Planning Director; Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,and Secretary; Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Bernard Moser and Andrew J. Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:35 p.m. Sensitive Areas: Mr.Iseminger stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Sensitive Area Element revision to the Comprehensive Plan, which is a result of the Economic Growth,Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992.As a requirement of that State act, Washington County has to incorporate into their Comprehensive Plan the Seven Visions and a Sensitive Areas Element.The Act requires inclusion of 100 year flood plain,streams and their buffers, threatened and endangered species habitat and steep slopes and allows counties to create their own definition and protection measures.Washington County has chosen to add the Special Planning Areas which include the Edgemont-Smithsburg watersheds,the Appalachian Trail Corridor and the Upper Beaver Creek Basin.Mr. Iseminger and Mr.Arch recapped the activity to date on development of a Sensitive Area Element amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. After an initial public information meeting,the proposed element was aired in an October public hearing.Minor adjustments were made based on comments received during the hearing.The Planning Commission recommended approval of the element to the Board of County Commissioners.The Board has tabled further action until it can review proposed regulation to implement the Comprehensive Plan amendment.The purpose of this meeting is to get input from segments of the community that may be affected by new regulation. No regulations have been written but the staff intends to have as few as possible. Mr.Goodrich passed out corrected copies of a summary of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and potential regulatory changes.They are as follows:1)Flood plains -the Comprehensive Plan amendment recommendation is to continue the use of current Floodplain Management Ordinance.2)Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species.The Plan amendment recommends development of a definition of habitat,use of the Federal list and formation of a working relationship with the Natural Heritage Program. Implementation could be by ordinance amendment or policy.Mr.Arch stated that they do not see the point to duplicate any laws on the books.A discussion folJowed regarding the differences between the Federal and State lists and the locations of the habitat of the endangered and threatened species.3)Steep Slopes -the Comprehensive Plan recommendation is to use the generally accepted definition of greater than 25 percent or greater than 15 percent for soils with a high erodibility factor.Regulation would require providing the slope information on plats and plans without land use limitation.4)Stream buffers.The Comprehensive Plan recommends definition of a buffer and stream,establishment of different buffer widths for urban and rural areas and addressing the question of which,if any,land uses should be excluded from the buffer. Many items are left to be decided regarding stream buffers which is why additional information is sought during this meeting. 95 Mr.Wade asked if someone who owns ag land and wanted to develop the property,what procedure is in place now to follow in regards to habitat of threatened and endangered species.Mr.Arch said if they are aware of species being present on their property they have to contact the Natural Heritage Program.Failure to do that would subject them to fines.In some cases the Federal government has already contacted the owners. Mr.Wade asked about steep Slopes and what input did Soil Conservation have on the definition of the grade.Mr.Arch stated that the 25 percent is standard and explained that septic tanks cannot be in areas greater than 25 percent slope.It is also the same definition in the Forest Conservation Ordinance.A discussion followed regarding the K factor of soils and how current the USGS quad sheets are and the status of the soil survey.Mr.Iseminger suggested having the Soil Conservation District determine the buffers for the streams.He feels they can best determine what is a stream and then set the buffers for each individual circumstance. A discussion followed. Mr.Weibley stated that they could do a delineation on a case by case basis.He felt that the developer's engineer could determine the slope,Soil Conservation Service would determine the buffer on that basis.Mr.Weibley then explained the criteria they use in determining the slope. At this point questions and comments were taken from the audience. 'These included:1)If Soil Conservation determines the stream buffer on a case by case basis there was concern expressed for the .resulting patchwork buffer.2)Would the addition of an ag building in an endangered species habitat area or steep slope would trigger the Ordinance.A discussion followed regarding what is currently done in a nutrient management plan.3)What would be prohibited in the buffers.4)What would happen if the buffers were expanded where there are existing structures.Would that affect flood insurance on properties along the streams?5)What is the State's role in the endangered species habitat and do they have any laws and regulations that kick in with regard to the land use.A discussion followed regarding what is done now with the current State and Federal regulations and whether or not they should use the State list.6)Is normal agricultural activity allowed to occur in an endangered species area?7)When will the update of the soil survey be completed and will roads be considered as permanent structures in the stream buffer.Will the special planning areas be listed. A discussion followed regarding the areas included in the Special Planning Areas and Urban Best Management Practices. Additional questions arose.8)Will there be special exceptions in the Special Planning Areas and will the County be subject to the same restrictions.9)It was suggested that the map of threatened and endangered species should be a published document.The developer would be the one to look it up so the onus would not be on the County.The gentleman also felt that the Planning Commission is heading in the right direction by keeping changes on the policy level.He recommended use of the Federal list.10)A comment was made that if the County is using the Federal list that they will still notify everyone of the State list as well.11)A representative from the Chamber of Commerce felt that regulations on business should not be more onerous than regulation on residential uses.The Chamber would support using the Federal list but would appreciate the service of the County to notify them of the existence of State listed species.Regarding stream buffers, they found it arbitrary to specify a width,so the process suggested by the Soil Conservation District based on science makes good sense.They would support that any activity could be allowed as long as it fell within the acceptable bounds of a soil conservation plan.11)It was suggested that the quad sheets not be used to define streams.12)Two additional questions regarding 96 the threatened and endangered species list.Mr.Iseminger responded that the County will probably adopt reference to the federal list in any regulation but will also provide information on ,the existence of State listed species as well.It was noted·that the maps only identify areas and the names of species must be obtained from the Natural Heritage program. Further discussion followed regarding the response time in the permitting process,and how perennial and intermittent streams are defined. At the conclusion of the meeting the apparent sentiment was that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding floodplain regulation did not need to be changed.The federally listed threatened and endangered species would be referenced in any regulation or policy but the county would also provide information on State listed species.The definition of steep slope appears to be acceptable.The prevailing concept for the protection of stream buffers appears to be to allow Soil Conservation Service to determine the existence of a stream and set the buffer width based on slope on a case by case basis.Agricultural land uses permitted would not change but be subject to conservation plans. Recommendations on structures and land uses permitted in the buffer would be made after discussion with the Soil Conservation District. 'ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 97 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 4,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 4,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;TimothyA.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Eric Seifarth and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were:Vice Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and EX-Officio,James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of February 5,1996. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Land Preservation Districts: Mr.Seifarth stated that he received two applications from Mr.and Mrs.Harold Carbaugh.Both are dairy farms and are located in Clear Spring.AD-95-06 contains 190.30 acres and AD-95-07 contains 199.91 acres.Mr.Seifarth stated that both farms meet the program criteria and are located outside of the Urban Growth Area.Mr. Moser moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that AD-95-06 and AD-95-07 be included in the Agricultural Preservation program since they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Variances: Nicholas V.Hill: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Nicholas Hill.The property is located on Big Spring Road,contains 35.11 acres and is zoned Agriculture.The request is from Section 405.ll.B which states that every lot shall abut a minimum of 25 feet and shall have access to a public road.The owner is proposing to create a lot around an existing dwelling without public road frontage.Mr.Lung stated that the existing dwelling is served by a gravel drive which accesses Big Spring Road.The remainder of the property will be used for agricultural purposes.The owner plans to convey the existing dwelling to his son and build another house for himself. Mr.Lung explained that in order for the son to obtain financing a smaller lot must be created around the dwelling.Mr.Lung stated that creating a lot around the dwelling would not change the existing conditions on the site and that there are no plans for further subdivision.Mr.Moser moved to approve the variance. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Charles and Barbara Branchman: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Charles and Barbara Branchman. The property is located on the south side of Maryland 494,consists of 5.15 acres and is zoned Agriculture.The request is from Section 40S.l1.B.of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that .. 98 every lot shall abut a minimum of 25 feet and shall have access to a public road.Mr.Lung explained that the Branchmans purchased the property in 1982 and built a house.The property included a recorded right-of-way for a future street for Fairview Acres and Mr.Branchman built his house at the end of the right-of-way.Mr. Branchman wants to subdivide the property into 3 one acre lots for his children to be served by a common drive.Mr.Lung stated there is an intermittent stream shown on the tax map running through the property.He said that when he inspected the site there was water in the swale and noted that perc testing had not yet been done.A discussion followed regarding the 60 foot right-of-way,the existing lots fronting Fairview Road and the proposed driveway to serve the three lots.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Branchman if the variance was granted did he intend to pave the driveway to serve the three lots.Mr.Branchman stated not at this time but as the children could afford it they would pave the portion of the driveway on their lot.Mr.Lung said that Mr.Branchman will be using the immediate family member statement.Mr.Iseminger wants a condition to be that the driveway be paved as the lots are built out.A discussion followed regarding the location of the proposed homes to the current homes,if buffering should be required and paving the driveway.Mr.Ernst expressed concern with the traffic on Fairview Road as well as the relationship of the proposed lots to the existing lots on Fairview Road.It was the consensus of the Planning Comm.ission that they needed more information from the staff and that they should inspect the site.Mr.Moser moved to table the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.It was decided that the Planning Commission members would inspect the site on their own and would try to reschedule this item for the March 25th workshop meeting. FMW Corporation: Mr.Arch stated that this is a request for a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval and that staff recommends approval. Mr.Ernst moved to grant the extension for one year.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding preliminary plat extensions. Subdivisions: William Boddicker,Lots 1,2,&3,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for William Boddicker for lots 1,2 and 3.The property is located on the west side of Rohrersville Road (Route 67).The site contains 41.36 acres zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung stated that a variance was granted last March to create lots for family members without road frontage and that there would be no future subdivision.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics.Access will be by an existing lane that serves an existing dwelling.State Highway wants to review an entrance permit when building permits are applied for to be sure that the existing entrance meets State Highway Administration requirements.Mr.Lung stated that the plat is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because the lots are to be conveyed to immediate family members.The immediate family member note will be on the plat as well as a note stating that there will be no further subdivision.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the use of denitrification septic systems.Mr.Ernst moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 99 sterling Oaks,Phase 1,Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the final plat for Phase 1 of Sterling Oaks. The property is located on the north side of Sterling Road and is zoned Residential Rural.The Preliminary plat with 108 lots was approved in July 1990.Phase I Final includes 21 lots on 10 acres and will be served by public water and sewer.All lots will be served by proposed streets and 3 lots will access Sterling Road. Mrs.Pietro stated that the storm water management area was enlarged and that everything else is the same.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser moved to grant final plat approval for Phase 1.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Byers Meadows,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Byers Meadows, Phase 2,Lots 12-21.The property is located on the north siue of Spielman Road and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing 10 single family lots on 12 acres with 96 acres remaining.All lots will be served by wells and septics and will access onto a new public street.All agency approvals are in.Mrs.Pietro stated that it is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance but any further development would have to comply with the Ordinance.Mr. Ernst moved to approve the preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Site Plans: Roger Danner: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Roger Danner.The site is located on the south side of Virginia Avenue and is zoned Business Local.The owner is proposing to build an addition to the existing greenhouse and a new sales building.The greenhouse addition will be approximately 1800 square feet and the new building will be approximately 1296 square feet.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the proposed parking,the lighting,hours of operation and signage.All agency approvals are in.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Ben Shaool,Youngstown 3 Apartments: Mr.Arch stated that last month Paul Prodonovich,Zoning Administrator,was before them to discuss the location of the sidewalks for this plan.The Planning Commission granted the change that Mr.Prodonovich requested.Mr.Arch stated that the owner,Mr.Shaool was unable to attend that meeting and requested an opportunity to present his side because he feels the sidewalks are not necessary.Mr.Shaool briefly spoke.He stated that at the last meeting it was proposed that he move the sidewalks from one side of the street to the other.He feels that is not feasible and proceeded to pass out pictures of the site.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they should inspect the site before making a decision. Trails of Little Antietam: Mr.Iseminger stated he would abstain and turned the chair over to Mr.Moser.Mr.Arch stated he asked that this be placed on the agenda to obtain some direction for the 6 lot subdivision plat which is currently under review.He said that they received today a letter from the developer,Mr.Peeke and copies were handed out to the Planning Commission members.He said in a recent discussion 100 with Mr.Jim Lemmert of the Board of Education,the proposed 6 lot subdivision is located in the Sharpsburg Elementary School district and based on the APFO,the Planning Commission could not approve it due to the school being over capacity.Mr.Lemmert believed that the remainder of the development would be in the Boonsboro elementary school district and that the Board of Education may be willing to accept a request from the developer to include the entire development into the Boonsboro district.Mr.Arch said the Planning Commission may want to consider to request that the developer submit a preliminary plat for the entire development and not just the 6 lots.He explained that the Planning Commission has already granted 2 variances which tie into the entire development and not just the 6 lots and feels they need to see how the variances tie in with the overall plan for development.Mr.Arch ·stated that as part of the proposed 6 lot subdivision,forest mitigation is proposed to take place on the remaining lands portion of the property.He feels it is important that the Commission have an opportunity to see how it will blend together.At the time of the Preliminary Consultation there were discussions regarding access,particularly for the first 6 lots.The Planning Commission recommended that they be accessed by internal streets.Mr.Peeke addressed some of these issues in his letter of March 1 and expressed concern with the cost involved in doing a preliminary plat (roadway construction and roadway designs)for the entire development.Mr.Arch noted that there is a policy that states they do not have to do detailed construction drawings for the road, sewers and water lines until the final plat is submitted.He said his response back to Mr.Peeke would be that what they are looking for is not necessarily a detailed drawing.Mr.Arch stated they also received correspondence from property owners in the area. Copies were given to the Planning Commission for their review.He said most of the issues in the correspondence relate to the Health Department and that they would be looking to them for guidance on those issues. At this point Mr.Lung reviewed the subdivision plat for Phase 1 along Dog Street Road,which consists of the first 6 lots.He briefly reviewed his notes from the preliminary consultation regarding minimizing the impact this development would have on the area.1)Minimize stripping of the lots along Dog Street Road 2) Provide internal access to all lots 3)Eliminate or minimize individual access to Dog Street Road 4)Utilize existing tree cover to provide screening and buffering.Mr.Lung stated he made a suggestion to extend the cul-de-sac street in Phase 4 to tie-into Dog Street Road between lots 3 and 6 and redesign the lots in Phase I and II to access the internal street.He said that the developer was not receptive to this proposal due to the cost and because he wants to provide affordable housing and wanted to sell lots in the first phase in order to finance road construction for the future phases.Mr.Lung said that the south side of Dog Street Road between Red Hill and Mt.Briar Road is already stripped with lots having individual driveways.He explained that it would be possible if the Planning Commission would permit it for Lots 3,4, 5 &6 to utilize one shared common entrance and Lots 1 and 2 could share an entrance and lots 7 and B could share an entrance.This would reduce the number of entrances from B down to 3.He said they would still have to address the 5 lots that have access to Dog Street west of Red Hill -Lots 9,10,11,12 and 13.He noted those lots are located in an unspoiled section of Dog Street and there are some steep banks and stone walls which would require significant changes to the street scape in order to get all of the entrances.Staff would propose that all of the lots be served by the internal street in Phase IV.Mr.Lung briefly reviewed all the alternatives that the Planning Commission suggested either combine all of the accesses,minimize them or build the internal street and reconfigure and lots to be served off the internal street.He said that when the Consultation was presented with the alternatives to the Planning Commission in November,they concurred with the staff's proposal,however,they were not specific regarding which alternative the developer should go with.The recolllJl\endations made 101 by the Planning Commission at its November meeting were summarized in a letter to the developer's consultant dated November 16,1995. He said that is what the staff needs clarification on.Mr.Lung stated that the first phase of this development shows what appears to be an access for a future street between lots 3 and 4,however, it does not show up on the original concept plan.He said the plat also shows a common access drive to serve lots 3 and 4,a common access drive for lots 5 and 6 and a common access drive for lots 1 and 2 which would cut the number of accesses in half.In order to do this,some of the old stone fence will be disturbed.Mr.Peeke is proposing to rebuild the fence or relocate it to address that concern.Mr.Lung stated that a Forest Stand Delineation has'been approved for the entire development which showed about 50 percent of the site being covered in trees.He said they have not received a complete forest conservation plan for the entire development but at the consultation the developer said he would use the area on the other side of the future rail/trail as an open space and forest conservation area and preserve forest in various areas.Mr.Lung said Phase I shows retention of some existing forest and some forest being removed.He said the forest retention area on the lot does not meet all of the requirements and they intend to meet the requirements by retaining additional forest off site.He said at this point they do not know how it will fit in with the overall development plan and forest conservation on the entire development. A discussion followed regarding water service to the lots within the town limits and having a plan for the entire area.Mr.Arch stated that he felt the overall plan should be firmed up and then go to the Board of Education.Mr.Moser asked if it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to have a preliminary plat of the entire development.Mr.Arch stated that the developer could not attend the meeting and his consultant is not present, however,he is aware of the meeting.A discussion followed.Mr. Ernst made a motion that the Planning Commission agree with the School Board's determination that the 6 lots are located in the sharpsburg Elementary School District.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. So ordered.Mr.Moser said they need to address the access to the first 6 lots.He said that he would like to have time to review the developer's letter as well as the letter from the citizens in the area.Mr.Moser expressed concern with the traffic on Dog Street and that he would like time to review the developer's letter.Mr.Lung stated that regarding forest conservation,the developer is proposing to do off site forest retention and that the Planning Commission must give its approval.This is another reason why the staff would like to see the overall plan before giving the Planning Commission their opinion.Mr.Moser stated that he concurs with staff's comments and would like to see a preliminary plat for the entire parcel.Mr.Ernst asked if they can make that a requirement.Mr.Arch stated that they do not normally tell someone how to subdivide their property,but these are different circumstances,unless the school board rules some way else,the P.lanning Commission's decision will be to deny the 6 lots.Mr. Arch stated they could recommend to the developer that based on the findings of the school situation the only way the Planning Commission sees to move it along through the process is if they could submit a plat for the entire area and then they could be in the position to recommend to the school board to send all the students to Boonsboro.Mr.Arch also stated that he felt the developer should come back and make his case to the Planning Commission for why he should be allowed to have the three driveways on Dog Street Road.Mr.Moser stated that staff has raised concerns and that it appears to be the consensus of the Planning Commission to relay them to the developer and to give him the opportunity to come back and address those concerns. Mr.Moser stated he did not have an opportunity to read the letter just received from the people in the area addressing their concerns.He asked if there was a spokesman present.Mr.Maharay spoke.He said they are very concerned with that area because of the rock.He stated that in 1985 the former owner tried to develop that property and at that time the Health Department told him he 102 would have to have a hydrogeologist there to look at the situation because there was concern with where the septics would flow in relationship to the wells.He said,as indicated in the letter signed by the citizens,there are some wells across the road from the 6 lots which are shown as being in the back of the houses but are actually in the front of the houses and close to the proposed septic systems.In addition,they feel according to the Ordinance, that a hydrogeologist should inspect the property.The citizens feel that there is a danger to their health and safety because of possible septic systems,and the location of the Keedysville Spring,and Little Antietam.He said there was a meeting on February 19th that was attended by over 50 citizens from the area and they were furious.He said they will have another meeting on March 14th,which the Planning Commission is invited to attend. This will be informational to see how the people feel about it and what they want to do.Another citizen commented that this development abuts a spring that feeds the water to Keedysville and that the residents are concerned with possible contamination.Mr. Moser stated that the State has mandated that if the Keedysville Spring is still to be used that an infiltration system must be installed and that is currently under discussion.He also said that those things will be taken into consideration during the review process and asked Mr.Lung if the Health Department has commented on it.Mr.Lung stated no,however,he has been in contact with the Department of the Environment due to the proximately to the water supply.Mr.Moser instructed Mr.Lung to Qommunicate with the developer the concerns that were raised this evening.At this point the chair was turned over to Mr.Iseminger. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch reviewed the upcoming meetings.In addition to those listed there will be a public informational meeting for the Highway Interchange Group III on Monday,April 8th at .7:00 p.m.at the Court House and a public informational meeting for Group V on Thursday,April 11th at 7:00 p.m.at the Hancock Town Hall.A discussion followed regarding scheduling a meeting to inspect the Branchman property and Youngstown 3.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would individually inspect the Branchman property but would as a group inspect Ben Shaool's property with Terry McGee and Paul Prodonovich.Mr.Arch is to schedule a date. Mr.Iseminger stated they previously had a public meeting and went through a rezoning process on the cellular towers on South Mountain.He said that the Planning Commission had recommended that the Commissioners adopt the amendment but that no action had been taken.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser asked if it would be possible for the staff to look into the fee structure surrounding the plat review process and whether they should be looking at raising the fees.Mr.Ernst asked if they could also get a total amount of the fees received last year.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated they will look into it. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourne 103 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -MARCH 25,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,March 25,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room., Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex- Officio;James R.Wade,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen, IV.Staff:Oirector;Robert C.Arch and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:10 p.m. Ben Shaool: Mr.Iseminger stated that Mr.Shaool is asking for relief of putting in sidewalks for a portion along the drive.He said from their inspection,that the Planning Commission agreed it is not feasible to put them in.In addition,he said if they decide to amend the site plan it should be done with a stipulation that the qeveloper adhere to all other provisions of the site plan.Mrs. Lampton moved to eliminate the requirement for construction of sidewalks in Youngstoun 3 that were to be placed along Selema Drive leading from Kings Crest Boulevard.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr. Wade abstained.So ordered. Charles and Barbara Branchman: Mr.Iseminger stated that they individually inspected the site.He said there is a good bit of development along that road and that there were some 2 tiered lots already developed.A discussion followed regarding if the remainder of the farm would be developed. Mr.Wade moved to grant the variance to create 3 lots without public road frontage with the stipulation that the driveway be black topped as each lot is developed and with the 10 year family member statement.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 104 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -APRIL 1,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,April 1,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Ex-Officio;James R. Wade,Robert E.Ernst,II and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff: Director;Robert C.Arch,and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Also present,Roderick MacRae and Dave Barnhart of the Washington County Health Department.Absent was Paula Lampton. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:55 p.m. Update on Denitrification Septic Systems: Mr.MacRae,of the Washington County Health Department stated that he was asked to give an update on the denitrification septic systems.He said about one year ago Rich Pillot from Anne Arundel County gave a presentation on the recirculating sand filter that they use.At that time the Planning Commission was interested in it because of a subdivision in the Special Planning Area.After discussing the sand filter with Dave Barnhart,Mr.MacRae stated they decided that it was complicated,expensive and unsightly as well as having the potential to break down.He said they wanted to achieve the same results but in a simpler manner.Mr.Barnhart is the onsite sewage disposal research development person and looked into it.Mr.MacRae said they do not have a recirculating sand filter but they do have filters in place which are better.Mr. Barnhart briefly spoke.He said that the subdivision in question is Western Commercial Funding containing approximately 30 lots.He said that the sand filter system presented by Mr.Pillot was for use in inadequate soils in Anne Arundel County and Washington County does not put systems in inadequate soils.Mr.Barnhart felt that the sand filter was complicated and that the cost,potential breakdown and future maintenance considerations were high.He said asked Charlie Semler,plumber,to attend this meeting because he manufactures tanks and would be in a position to give a cost breakdown of the sand filter.Mr.Semler said that the sand filter would cost between $4,000.00 and $6,000.00 for initial cost.He said that there would be an additional cost of between $2,000.00 and $2,500.00 for pumps and maintenance.Mr.Barnhart presented a filter that they have been adding to the outlet baffle of a septic tank.He proceeded to pass out a copy of a study.He said that it can reduce 50 percent of the suspended solids.They have been using this filter along with increasing the tank si~e and they are getting great effluent results.This unit costs less than $100.00 and when combined with the enlarged tank si~e they achieve comparable results of the $5,000.00 unit.Mr.Semler stated that the increased tank si~e will add approximately $450.00 to $500 on a normal si~e home and the filter and installation is less than $100.00 so the total package would be about $600.00.Mr.Semler stated that the filter is reusable.Mr.Barnhart said another problem with the sand filter is that they do not have that type of sand in Washington County.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger ·asked what they needed from the Planning Commission.Mr.Barnhart stated they wanted to know if they were heading in the right direction.After a discussion,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the filter meets the intent of the Planning Commission and to continue the studies. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 105 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,April 1,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard 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 and James P.Brittain and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Paula Lampton. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:15 p.m. Minutes: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of February 20,1996. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Stitzel Property: Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission had no additional comments on the historical study pending review by the Historic District Commission.He said that the Historic District Commission did not have any additional comments.Mr.Ernst moved to accept the recommendations of the Washington County Historic District Commission and not require any further historical studies of the Stitzel property.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. At this point Mr.Iseminger turned the chair over to Mr.Spickler for the next item. Trails of Little Antietam: Mr.Arch stated that at the March 4th Planning Commission meeting they had discussed some issues and the Planning Commission directed the staff to contact the property owner,who was out of the country.Mr.Arch stated that they sent him a letter and that the owner is not present.The consultant,Mr.Weikert of Fox and Associates is present,however,stated he was not here to speak on behalf of his client but for another matter.Mr.Arch stated that they have a 6 lot subdivision before them.Mr.Lung said they received a subdivision plat for the first 6 lots of the Trails of Little Antietam and there were a number of items of concern expressed by the Planning Commission when they reviewed the Preliminary Consultation.He said that last month this item was before the Planning Commission for discussion.Mr.Lung said they need these concerns clarified so that they can give the consultant direction on how to proceed with this preliminary/final plat.He added that the day of the March meeting they received a letter from the developer,Mr.Peeke addressing some of the concerns. Following that meeting the Planning Department sent a letter on March 15th to the consultant,which outlined the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the first 6 lots and the future development.This section of the development is located wi thi,n the Sharpsburg Elementary School District which at this time is over capacity.Mr.Lung explained that the planning Commission could not approve this subdivision plat until such time that the school is deemed adequate.The Board of Education indicated that they 106 would be willing to consider a request to adjust the school district boundary line for the entire development,that would put these 6 lots in the Boonsboro School District along with the remainder of the development.Mr.Lung stated that as of the March meeting he had not received a response from the developer regarding the Planning Commission's concerns. The second item pertains to the design of the lots and how they access onto Dog Street Road.Mr.Lung said at the Preliminary Consultation the staff expressed concerns with the individual driveways coming out onto Dog Street Road both from a safety standpoint as well as aesthetically.He said there were a number of alternatives proposed and when the plat was received the consultant is showing instead of 6 individual driveways,3 shared accesses.Mr.Lung said there is a 60 foot wide access strip going to the remaining lands which has turning flares indicating that it appears to be designed for a possible future street however this is not reflected on the overall concept plan.The overall concept plan shows two panhandle lots instead.Staff had questions for the developer regarding what his future plans were for the remaining lands.Mr.Lung said the future plans may impact how these 6 lots as well as other lots may access Dog Street Road.He said that the developer has indicated in his letter that he is proposing to use the 3 shared accesses and has indicated that he would be willing to replace some of the stone fence that would have to be removed in order to get these accesses.The developer also indicated that he ~ould plant deciduous trees along the frontage of these lots.The developer also mentioned that he would have all of the remaining lots in the future sections use an internal street design (which is different than what is currently shown in Phase 2 on the concept plan).The next item has to do with the Forest Conservation Plan. Mr.Lung said they approved a forest stand delineation for the entire site.As part of the subdivision plat for phase 1 they are showing retention of some existing forest on the first 6 lots as well as clearing some existing forest.In order to make up the difference they are also designating some existing forest on the other side of the railroad right-of-way as an off site forest retention area.Mr.Lung stated that staff is concerned that they are not seeing the entire picture and do not know the impact of removing some of the existing forest in phase 1 and using forest off site will have on the overall development.The staff ~ould like to see a Forest Conservation Plan for the entire site instead of piecemeal.Mr.Lung said the final item is that in order to give a proper review to this subdivision,they should see a preliminary subdivision plat for the entire development.He said that would clear up a lot of the questions regarding the future access,how the lots are going to be rearranged to eliminate individual access onto Dog Street Road in Phase 2 and how the entire forest conservation picture fits.Mr.Lung stated that they have submitted those comments to the developer and have not received a response yet.Mr.Spickler asked about the suggestion of the Board of Education to have the developer request to have the school boundary changed.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Lemmert indicated that the remaining area would be considered within the Boonsboro School District and they would probably be willing to consider a request to associate these 6 lots with the Boonsboro School District.Mr.Arch stated that the staff would recommend, because of application of the APFO that the Planning Commission not grant any additional extensions to this subdivision.The staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the plat as presented. Mr.Moser asked how the developer stands on this and if he is going to request this from the Board of Education.Mr.Weikert stated that Mr.Peeke has already made the request through his attorney. Mr.Spickler asked if there was anyone present to represent the developer to discuss the issues raised at the meeting of March 4th. Mr.Weikert stated that he could speak on some of them and that the developer's attorney wanted to attend the meeting but is out of town.He said he could go over a few of the items but could not address them all.He said they are working on the school issue and expect an answer shortly.They are working on some other problems: 107 One is the intersection of Red Hill Road and Dog Street Road,Mr. Weikert stated that the County Engineer is still researching alternative solutions for how to improve the intersection.Mr. Spickler commented that there are a lot of issues concerning these 6 lots.Mr.Weikert stated that they want to resolve as many as they can before it comes back before the Commission for approval. Mr.Weikert stated that this should not be on the agenda until they have all agency approvals.Mr.Arch stated that it is on the agenda because there are certain issues that need to be resolved before they can act upon the plat for the 6 lots.He said that their letter to Mr.Peeke explained that he needed to come back and address these issues.Mr.Spickler stated that the Planning Commission raised significant issues in the consultation that at this point have not been addressed.He said they were concerned with the design,the fact that there is a road coming out onto Dog Street Road,they had suggested internal streets for that and they have not heard a good explanation of why that cannot be done.He said they are looking at a 6 lot subdivision and the developer has not addressed the issues.Mr.Spickler said that the consultation is designed to give the developer a sense of what is to be expected when the plan is submitted.He said the Planning Commission informed the developer that they had problems with it and wanted him to address that issue and that has not been done.A discussion followed regarding the issues that have not been addressed.Mr. Weikert stated that he wants a copy of the policy regarding stripping along County roads.Mr.Spickler stated that this Commission has concerns that have not been addressed and would like "to hear from the developer regarding his response and what the results of the Board of Education were.He said the issues of design and reforestation have to be addressed.Mr.Moser asked Mr. Weikert how the developer stands regarding the development inside the town of Keedysville.Mr.Weikert stated that the water issue is the stumbling block.He explained that the utility Commission is waiting on responses from the State regarding making the Boonsboro/Keedysville water system a regional system with Boonsboro taking over total control.He said they are waiting for response from the Boonsboro Utility Commission.Mr.Spickler asked the Commission how they wanted to deal with this issue.He asked Mr. Arch if there is a formal submittal for the 6 lots.Mr.Arch stated that they received a formal application for a preliminary/final plat for the 6 lots.He said that the Planning Commission does not have to wait for responses from all of the agencies and that the main agency they were dealing with was the Board of Education regarding the school district.He said they met with the school district and that these 6 lots as presented fall within the Sharpsburg District which is over capacity and the Planning Commission cannot approve it according to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.He said the only way that the developer can go forward with this subdivision is if they combine the 6 lots with the rest of the development since that portion would go to Boonsboro.Mr.Spickler stated they have the option to deny because of the APFO.Mr.Arch stated that staff recommends that they do not approve the plat unless they receive a plat for the entire tract.A discussion followed regarding forest conservation.Mr.Spickler stated that the Commission needs to see what the developer is going to do and that they need to see the entire plat to see the full scope.He said that they stated in the letter of March 15th that there were certain things that they would like to see.He said they want to see them,have the developer come before them or someone who has authority of the developer to come before them stating that this is what they are going to do and this is the document they have to show.Mr.Weikert felt that the Planning Commission was forcing the issue prematurely.Mr. Spickler stated that if this is an update,that they will assume they have not had a submission for approval of a preliminary/final plat for these lots.Mr.Weikert stated the plat was submitted but that they have a certain length of time to work these issues out. Mr.Spickler stated that the Commission looked at the preliminary consultation in November and stated that these issues are things they want to see addressed.Mr.Weikert stated they are working on 108 them.Mr.Spickler asked if they were premature in submitting the plat if they did not have the issues worked out.Mr.Weikert said they had to submit something to get the process going so they know what the problems are and that some of these issues have come up after the consultation.Mr.Moser stated that none of the issues raised at the consultation have been addressed and feels that the concerns have been ignored.Mr.Weikert stated that they did try to address the driveways.Mr.Arch stated that they gave the developer specific alternatives in the letter following the consultation and said if they did not meet the alternatives they would have to come back an voice their opinion before the Planning Commission and argue their case.Mr.Arch stated that what they are presenting does not meet the alternative and that is why they are here tonight.Mr.Spickler asked if the Commission decides to deny the application for preliminary/final plat approval for the 6 lots then the developer will have to come back with another submission.Mr.Arch stated that at this point it should be a submission for the entire tract because if the developer does just the 6 lots they will be viewed as being part of the Sharpsburg school district because that is where they are located.Mr.Bowen made a motion to deny the plat based on the staff's concerns. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.Mr. Weikert asked for a letter outlining the exact reasons why this plat was denied and refer to the Ordinance.A discussion followed regarding the purpose of the preliminary consultation. At this point the chair was turned back to Mr.Iseminger. NEW BUSINESS: Subdivisions: St.James Village North,Phase II.Preliminary Plat: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary plat for Phase II of St. James Village North.The development is located on MD Route 65 and College Road.There are 83 units proposed (45 single family detached homes and 38 single family semi-detached homes).This phase of the development includes significant amenities within the open space.Mr.Srittain said that Phase 2 will have a pedestrian walkway,2 tennis courts,2 basketball courts,swimming pool, community center,tot lot and approximately 30 parking spaces off of Lyles Drive.Mr.Brittain indicated the open space on the plat and its centralized location within the development.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Brittain said they may have to shift the location of the tot lot off st.George Circle due to the location of a proposed drainage swale.Mr.Iseminger asked when the commercial section is to begin.Mr.Brittain stated that the final development plan was approved for 25 percent per each phase i.e. completion after first 4 phases,to date no commercial construction has been proposed.Mr.Spickler asked about the construction schedule for the amenities.Mr.Brittain stated that in viewing the construction drawings,the amenities will be constructed during .this phase.The consultant,Mr.Weikert of Fox and AssocJ.ates stated he was not sure when the amenities would be built but they would be built during this phase.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval for Phase 2 of St.James Village North subject to the final location of the tot lot.Seconded by Mr. Bowen.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Brittain asked that the Planning Commission grant staff the authority to grant final plat approval for Phase 2.Mr.Bowen moved to give staff the authority to grant final plat approval for Phase 2.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. 109 Forest Conservation: Riverwood,Lots 3 and 4: Mr.Lung stated that this is a request for use of off site forest retention to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for a 2 lot residential subdivision called Riverwood.The site is located on the corner of Dam *5 Road and Gift Road near Charlton. There are 140 acres of remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated that in February the staff approved a Simplified Forest Stand Delineation which showed no forest on the area being subdivided.In order to meet the requirements,the applicant is proposing to use off site retention of .39 acres of forest at the southeast corner of the remaining lands to be owned by the developer.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission must authorize the use of an off site forest retention area.The staff has asked for more information from the consultant.They need to have a complete forest stand delineation of the area where the forest is being retained to be sure that where they are proposing the forest retention area is a proper location.He said the consultant has been unable to get out in the field.Mr.Lung stated that what they are asking the Planning Commission to act on tonight is to give staff the authority to approve the use of off site forest retention for this 2 lot subdivision.Mr.Ernst moved to give staff the authority to approve the use of off site forest retention if it meets all r.equirements.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.A discussion followed. CES,Phase II Building Expansion (payment in lieu): Mr.Arch stated that last month the Planning Commission approved Phase 2.He said that this is for an addition expansion of what is being proposed and that a plan will be coming shortly.Mr.Arch stated that last fall the Planning Commission approved Phase 2. Mr.Arch stated that before Phase 2 is built,the plan will be expanded.He said the consultant for CES is here tonight to address the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for the expanded Phase 2.Mr.Brittain referred to the Forest Stand Delineation Plan and noted the location of the initial structure, the location of Phase 2 expansion and the relocated storm water management area.He said that CES has purchased 9.3 acres.He pointed out the delineated forest area and the forest area that will be retained within wetland area.He said CES proposes to develop the entire area.Mr.Arch stated that the Phase 2 area is being doubled in size and they need parking.Mr.Brittain stated that the Forest Conservation Ordinance worksheet indicates 3.7 acres of reforestation would have to occur as a result of going below the threshold,which would equate to $16,117.20 in payment in lieu of.A discussion followed regarding the legislation pertaining to forest conservation in Washington County.Mr.~rnst moved that the Planning Commission allow CES to pay in lieu of to meet forest conservation requirements for Phase 2.Seconded by Mr. Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that if any action is taken by the General Assembly regarding the commercial and industrial exemption,the Commission will review this matter. OTHER BUSINESS: Kenneth and Cindy Williams: Mr.Arch referred to the letter in the agenda packet from Clair Baker,attorney for Kenneth and Cindy Williams requesting a waiver from the 10 year family member statement.Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the letter which stated that when the Williams'applied for a construction loan the appraisal indicated that the 10 year restriction severely affects the marketability of the property and that the lending institution indicated they would not provide the 110 necessary funding.Mr.Baker stated that the subdivision was created in 1990 for conveyance to the family members.Mrs. Williams is the daughter of the developer.Mr.Baker said the plat contains a 10 year family member statement restricting conveyance .to only family members except in a case of foreclosure.He-said they applied for a construction loan in the amount of $87,000.00 and because of the appraisal Home Federal will only lend $62,000.00.Mr.Ernst did not understand the appraiser's comment regarding the 10 year family member statement.He said if he was financing this piece of real estate the only concern he would have is foreclosure.He said he would not be concerned with the value for someone else to acquire it because the only way he would get money out of it would be foreclosure.Mr.Iseminger stated that they could send a letter to the bank to reaffirm the position of the Planning Commission.After a discussion it was suggested to Mr.Baker that he contact the appraiser regarding his statement and see if he would amend it and if he had any questions,he could contact Mr.Arch.Mr.Arch stated that they could also give them a letter to clarify the County's position.Mr.Baker requested to withdraw his request.Mr.Iseminger stated that was fine and that if he had any problems he could come back to the Commission. Pamela Oleyor (Lot 3.Rollin Byers): Mr.Arch referred to the letter from Mrs.Oleyor and the map in the agenda packet.The Oleyor's own two properties on Sabine Lane and both have the immediate family member stipulation.Mr.Arch explained that Mr.and Mrs.Oleyor have incurred Mr.Oleyor's late father's debt and are requesting to sell one of their two properties to pay the debts.Mr.Iseminger stated that they have granted requests similar to this in the past for settlements on estates.Mr.Ernst moved to waive the 10 year family member statement for Lot 3.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. CIP: The Planning Commission briefly discussed the draft of the eIP. Mr.Iseminger stated that Mr.Arch informed him they will begin work on the next one in 6 months.Mr.Iseminger said that the Planning Commission would like to be involved in it at a greater degree.Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the CIP draft.Mr.Moser moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that the CIP is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan with the stipulation that it be presented in a balanced budget fashion. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed • .ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. • 111 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING -APRIL 8,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public informational meeting on Monday,April 8,1996 at Court Room #1, Court House. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Vice- Chairman;Donald L.Spickler,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Also present County Commissioners R.Lee Downey.Absent were: Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Ex-Officio;James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. Group III Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Iseminger explained that this is a public informational me~ting and that no formal testimony would be taken at this time.He stated that there would be a public hearing regarding these :j.nterchanges.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 III and consist of 1-81 at Maugansville Road and MD 58 and 1-81 and U.S.40.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 that there be a public hearing at a later date to determine the final zoning. Mr.Arch reviewed the various interchanges and explained that since Group III is a small area that the joint public hearing will be held in conjunction with Group V,which covers Hancock,Big Pool and Clear Spring.Mr.Arch stated that the purpose of the highway interchange study is to go back and look at the interchanges that were originally classified in the Zoning Ordinance in 1973:He said at that time they took roughly a half mile circle and designated it HI.He said that HI was all inclusive and allowed commercial,industrial and heavy residential development.In 1988 due to the conflicts in how the interchanges were developed,the Commissioners created two new classificaEions:HI-1 -Heavy commercial and light industrial;HI-2 -Light industrial and heavy residential.Mr.Arch said in doing the study,staff found that certain areas were already developed in nonresidential use and some in a residential use.In some cases the zoning has been changed to nonhighway interchange zoning. Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the overlay maps outlining the transportation analysis,environmental analysis,land use analysis and public utility analysis.She explained that this information was important in the staff's study of the properties for the rezoning. Mr.Arch stated that for analysis purposes they took all the information and broke them up into zones for review purposes.He proceeded to refer to the various zones designated on the map and explained the proposed rezoning classifications for each area which included HI-I,HI-2 and RU -Residential Urban. 112 At this point questions were taken from the audience concerning: The number of interchanges and how many acres are proposed for HI-l and 2;concern with whether there was the potential for so many intensive commercial areas;whether the Cedar Lawn Cemetery would be a nonconforming use;regarding a piece of landlocked property proposed for HI-l -owner requested that it be zoned Agriculture; what analysis is being done to see the cause and affect of allowing a piece of property to be idle by rezoning it HI-l instead of residential -feels analysis should be done;if they are going to rezone why not base it on the most economical way to develop that property;owner of the last inhabited house on Point Salem Road proposed for HI-2 and wanted to know if that would still be allowed;whether the area next to the ramp on 1-81 and Maugansville Road will be RU -wants to be sure that it will be rural residential and farm area;and requested that special exceptions be reviewed for HI-I,wanted to know why owners have to go to the Planning Commission to develop the land. Mr.Iseminger stated that they will have another public informational meeting in Hancock for Group V this Thursday and based on the testimony from these two meetings,the Planning Commission will make recommendations to the County Commissioners or will have another public informational meeting.If there are no changes,there will most likely be a joint public hearing in May with the County Commissioners and at that time the public can give formal testimony for the record. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 113 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING -APRIL 11,1996 The Washington County Planning COIl1Il\ission held a public informational meeting on Thursday,April 11,1996 at the Town Hall in Hancock. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser and Paula Lampton.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch, Associate Planner;Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;DeboriOih S. Kirkpatrick.Also present,COIl1Il\issioner Shank.Absent were:Vice- Chairman,Donald L.Spickler;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 V Highway Interchange Study: Mr.Iseminger stated that this is the fifth in a series of five comprehensive rezonings associated with the 17 interchanges along interstates 70 and 81.He said these interchanges were originally zoned in 1973 and were all zoned highway interchange encompassing approximately 11,000 acres.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Zoning Ordinance·states in order to provide a more detailed guide for review of development proposals within these highway interchange districts,the Planning COIl1Il\ission will undertake more detailed site studies of each interchange area.He said that in 1988 the Planning COIl1Il\ission and the County COIl1Il\issioners adopted two zoning text amendments which created the Highway Interchange 1 and Highway Interchange 2 zones.The Highway Interchange 1 is more associated with cOIl1Il\ercia1 and Highway Interchange 2 is associated with residential.He explained that the planning staff completed the detailed study by reviewing the current highway interchange zoning and recoIl1Il\ended either HI-lor HI-2 or other appropriate zoning classifications that are listed in the Zoning Ordinance.Mr. Iseminger said that the recoIl1Il\endations presented tonight are preliminary and the Board of County COIl1Il\issioners after recommendation of the Planning Commission will determine the final proposed plan,which will be presented at a public hearing.He said that based upon the information and questions this evening, the Planning Commission will either recommend adoption of the staff proposals as presented,recommend that changes be made to the staff's proposal and still proceed with the public hearing or if COIl1Il\ents and questions are sufficient enough they will recommend that they restudy the entire interchanges presented this evening. He said that the final result will be a joint public hearing between the County Commissioners and the Planning Commission and they will take formal testimony at that time.Mr.Iseminger stated that the intent of tonight's meeting is to be informal and proceeded to review the format.He said that the record will be open for 10 days. Mr.Arch reviewed the various interchanges and explained that in 1973 the County adopted a Zoning Ordinance.In that Ordinance they looked at the 17 interchanges and drew a half mile circle in diameter and left a guideline for the future objective to go back and revisit the issue.Mr.Arch stated that staff has worked on this study over a long period of time.He explained that Group V consists of Hancock,Big Pool and Clear Spring interchanges.He said that some time in the future they will have a public hearing where they will take formal testimony.Mr.Arch stated that when the rezoning process is completed the HI zoning classification will be eliminated.He said the zoning will be HI-I,HI-2 or some other zoning designation.He said the governing factor in determining the zoning is the urban and town growth areas.He explained they 114 looked at transportation analysis information,the Comprehensive Plan policy and the rural areas. Mrs.Pietro proceeded to explain the overlay maps outlining the transportation analysis,environmental analysis,land use analysis and public utility analysis for each of the three interchanges. Mr.Arch proceeded to review the proposed zoning for each interchange.He said for the Town of Clear Spring they were recommending HI-1 and 2.The Town of Clear Spring does not have a growth area around it,but in looking at the areas adjacent to the town,staff felt it reflected the areas to be included in a town growth area if a town growth area was established.He reviewed the areas they are proposing for HI-1 and HI-2 and stated that the HI-2 designation was used as a transitional zoning to the agricultural and residential areas.He referred to an area off of 1-70 for possible inclusion in a future town growth area.He said they are proposing HI-1 for this area because of its proximity to the treatment plant and the ability to extend public water and sewer into that area. Mr.Arch stated that Big Pool is outside the Urban Growth Area and explained that the Comprehensive Plan policies that would be associated with the Big Pool area would be those which do not encourage extension of utilities and do not encourage growth to occur in that area.He said they looked at the zoning classification around that area and adjacent to those properties and recommended Conservation and Agriculture and explained the differences between the two zoning classifications.He noted there are several businesses located there which would probably be permitted under Agriculture zoning. Mr.Arch said that staff looked at Hancock's draft of their new Comprehensive Plan and tried to incorporate some of the recommendations-that Hancock made.He explained the study was completed before their Comprehensive Plan was done.Mr.Arch said there is one proposal they have not incorporated into their recommendations and that they are waiting to hear from the Town Council regarding their thoughts.He said there are some areas in Hancock zoned HI which the staff felt due to steep slopes, topography,and access were not feasible for development under an HI classification.He said for those areas they are recommending Agriculture.He said they felt that Warfordsburg Road because of the existence of commercial operations currently along there had the potential for future development as an HI-1 and 2 classification.He said what they are proposing would eliminate a large portion of the HI area and would be consistent with the ideas expressed in Hancock's draft Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Arch said that the proposed zoning recommendations tend to reflect existing land use.They also went back and looked at the environmental characteristics,transportation,flood plains,steep slopes,soils,wetlands,agricultural districts,streams,water and sewer lines,and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan as well as Clear Spring's Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Arch stated that this is not a public hearing and that these are not final proposals.There will be a public hearing in the next two months,which hearing will cover the Interchange Groups III and V and will probably be held at the Clear Spring High School. At this point questions were taken from the audience concerning: whether the highway interchange zoning category will be wiped out when the new zoning is adopted;concern was expressed that the wording under Functional Design Capability would be eliminated and wanted to know if it will not be applicable to the HI-I and 2 zones;there was another question regarding the language in HI-l and 2 as it applies to site review as noted in Section 19.5 of the Zoning Ordinance;a comment was made regarding the traffic in Clear Spring generated by White Tail and that there seems to be no concern with the traffic problem;a real estate agent stated she 115 recently sold a HI zoned property in Big Pool to an investo~from Tennessee and they do not want the property rezoned to Conservation;why is every interchange looked at as an economic development possibility and felt that staff should look at the designation for Clear Spring again and stated that Clear Spring is a rural village,containing prime farm lands as well as having a greenway from the Potomac River to Pennsylvania and from the Conococheague Creek west to Clear Spring;a suggestion was made to have an open dialogue with the Mayor and Council of Clear Spring regarding the rezoning;a question was asked what would be deleted when they rezone to HI-1 and HI-2;wanted to know why residential development is not allowed in HI-1 zoning;asked if there has been a problem in these areas similar to Sharpsburg Pike with conflicts of uses;in reference to the proposed HI-l designation around Clear Spring a question was asked if the Planning Commission felt there is no way to keep out the heavier commercial industrial businesses the way it is now since it is prime residential land;the former chairman of the Western Maryland Rail to Trails felt they should take another look at the development plan for the Big Pool interchange because they plan to have 50,000 bikers on the rail trail;a comment was made that the Hancock interchange is prime development area instead of the proposed Agriculture;a comment was made regarding the existing gas station in the Big Pool interchange,which is proposed Conservation;another comment was made against the proposed HI-1 designation for the Clear Spring interchange;a question was asked about the special exceptions in the HI zoning and how they will be handled in the HI-1 and 2 zones;a question was asked regarding Ashton Road in Clear Spring. A suggestion was made by Commissioner Shank for the citizens to review the maps and make their comments and to place the maps showing the proposed zoning in each of the town halls for the public to view. Mr.Iseminger stated that the record will be held open for written comments for 10 days and that if there are no changes,the next step will be a joint public hearing with the County Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 116 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MAY 6,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 6,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairman,Donald Spickler;Paula Lampton;EX-Officio, James R.Wade and Robert E.Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director; Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,James P.Brittain,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Andrew J.Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of February 26,1996.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4,1996. $econded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger referred to the minutes of March 25th special meeting and asked about the motion made for Ben Shaool's property concerning the connection to King's Crest PUD.After a discussion, it was the consensus that the motion was just for Mr.Shaool's property.Mr.Iseminger said that Mr.Valentine,the owner of Kings's Crest,would have to come back concerning his property and asked that the-minutes be corrected to reflect only Mr.Shaool's property.Mr.Moser moved to adopt the minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to approve the minutes for the April 1,1996 workshop meeting.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Before proceeding with new business,Mr.Arch stated that the subdivision for 100 Western Maryland Parkway,Lot B will be deleted from the agenda. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Henry and Sandy Henson: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Mr.and Mrs.Henson.The variance is from Section 405.11B of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a lot without public road frontage.The property is located on the south side of MD 68 and is classified as a major collector. The property contains 1.26 acres and is zoned Agricultural.The property is owned by Mrs.Staley (the applicant's grandmother). There is an existing dwelling on the property where Mrs.Staley lives.Mr.and Mrs.Henson want to place a mobile home in the back of the existing dwelling and create a lot around it.The applicant is proposing access via an existing gravel drive to be extended to reach the new lot.Mr.Lung stated that site distance at the existing entrance appears to be okay but has not been checked by State Highway.He said there is a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that allows the Planning Commission to approve these type of subdivisions for immediate family members without public road frontage with the stipulation that the lot not be conveyed to anyone else for the period of 10 years.He said that type of request is generally used in an agricultural situation when they 117 are subdividing a lot out of a farm and access is by farm lane.In addition to this request,there are other things that the applicant will have to do before placing a mobile home on the property.If the Planning Commission approves this request,the next step would be to go to the Board of Appeals to seek a variance from minimum lot size.Mr.Lung said there might be a question due to the small lot size of whether they can get a septic system and well on 1.26 acres for each of the dwellings.Mrs.Henson stated that the dwelling on the property has a cistern and not a well.A discussion followed regarding access to the existing house and the hardship being topography.Mr.Spickler moved to grant the variance based on the topographic conditions,subject to State Highway approval for the driveway location and with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Richard Lowery/Russell Higdon: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Richard Lowery and Russell Higdon.Mr.Lung stated that this is a request from the Forest Conservation Ordinance to consider a nephew as an immediate family member in order to be exempt from the Forest Conservation requirement on the proposed 2.38 acre lot.The property is located west of Route 67 south of Brownsville and is zoned Conservation. The total acreage of the property is 5.39 acres.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant's aunt and uncle,the Higdon's,live in an existing house on the property.They are proposing to convey a 2.38 acre lot to their nephew,Richard Lowery.Mr.Lung said they have already received an administrative variance from the Planning Department for driveway access separation on Rt.67 due to topographic restraints and they have also been to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from 3 acre minimum lot size in a Conservation district.Mr.Lung stated that one of the Appeals Board findings in granting of the lot size variance was regarding the immediate family member status.He said they normally would use the express procedure in the Forest Conservation Ordinance and that $2,090.88 would be the payment in lieu of fee.Comments have been received from Becky Wilson of the Department of Natural Resources stating that the immediate family member definition is specific and does not include a nephew and if the Planning Commission approved the request,it would provide unfavorable precedence.Ms.Wilson also stated that this project would fall under the Express Procedure,which was designed to alleviate the requirements for such small subdivisions.A discussion followed regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals opinion,the administrative variance for access separation that was granted and the definition of an immediate family member in the Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger said they are not saying they cannot subdivide the lot,but that it would come under the same regulations as anyone else and would be eligible for the express procedure.Further discussion followed. Mr.Moser moved to deny the request to consider a nephew as an immediate family member.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance has been denied and that the applicant may go to the Board of Appeals or they can comply with the Forest Conservation Ordinance and plant the trees on site or use the express procedure to pay in lieu of. Richard Shriver: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Richard Shriver.The property is located west of Maryland Route 64 near Ringgold,south of the Pennsylvania line.The request is to create 3 lots without public road frontage.The property is located south of the Pennsylvania border containing 20.23 acres and is zoned Agricul tural.There is an existing farmhouse on the property, which is in disrepair and a demolition permit has been applied for. The property is landlocked and the access is across a deeded right- of-way on a half mile long private lane onto Goods Dam Road in 118 Washington Township,PA.Mr.Lung said there is a statement in the deed for this property stating that the private right-of-way may be used for up to 3 building lots.The applicant is proposing to remove the existing house and subdivide the property into 3 building lots of approximately 6.5 acres each.Mr.Lung said there are two access to the property.He said in speaking to Mike Christopher,Washington Township Manager,Pennsylvania regulations would not permit such a subdivision and the Township does not generally grant this type of variance.In addition,Mr. Christopher informed him that if Washington County approved the variance,Washington Township will require that some entrance improvements be made.Mr.Lung said he also spoke to Don Ringer, Chief of the Waynesboro Fire Department,and was informed they would respond to fire calls at this location and commented that they might want to make improvements to the entrance.Mr.Lung said he inspected the property and noted that the access lane has a lot of ruts,deep potholes,and uneven washed out areas and is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass.He said the applicants agent, Mr.Bayer is present to answer any questions.Mr.Iseminger noted that the deeded right-of-way is 7.5 feet in width for about the first 350 feet and then it widens to 15 feet and asked if the fire company took that into consideration.A discussion followed with Mr.Bayer.Mr.Bayer stated that the owner intends to improve the right-of-way to the full width and they are currently looking at estimates.Mr.Spickler said they do not have the right-of-way width then they cannot subdivide the property.A discussion .followed regarding the driveway width as well as the length of the proposed driveway being 2,500 feet and the fact that there is no hardship.Mr.Moser moved to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that they can go to the Board of Appeals. Dennis L.Lafferty: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Dennis Lafferty.The property is located on the east side of Reichard Road, approximately 1/2 mile south of Route 68 and is an active farm. The applicant is proposing to create a 1 acre lot with a panhandle approximately 500 feet in length out of a total of 144 acres zoned Agricul tural.Mr.Lung explained that Mr.Lafferty wants to obtain a lot from Mr.Stoner to construct a house for himself.Mr.Lung stated that the proposed site was selected because it would have the least impact on the farm and noted that there is a small mapped flood plain across the panhandle.The Permits Department has stated that it would be a routine approval process for a permit for the floodplain crossing and would also require a permit from the Department of Natural Resources,to be handled at the building permit stage.Mr.Lung stated that the access location has not been checked by the Engineering Department,however,it does appear to be acceptable from sight distance standpoint.There is a Potomac Edison power line through the property and the fapn is considered prime agricultural land.Mr.Wade moved to grant the variance.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Sharon Henson: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for Sharon Henson.The property is located on the west side of Randall Lane off of Neck Road near Williamsport.The property contains 21.7 acres (Lot 7 of Kennilworth Estates created in 1977)and is zoned Agricultural. The owner is proposing to subdivide 21 acres into two lots,one without public road frontage and the other with a panhandle length of 1108 feet.A discussion followed regarding whether there was a hardship,the fact that financial reasons are not considered as a hardship,whether Mrs.Henson would consider providing 25 percent from her adjoining lot (Lot 6)to the cul-de-sac for access to the proposed lot,reconfiguring the proposed lot and extending the 119 road.Mr.Iseminger said that the applicant needs to talk to their consultant to get frontage and would still need to apply for a variance for panhandle length.Mr.Stoner,the applicant's son, withdrew their request and stated they will come back and resubmit after they reconfigure the lot. Lester Fiery: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance for Lester Fiery.The property is located on the northeast side of Fairview Church Road and is zoned Agricultural.The owner is proposing to create a single family lot for an immediate family member with no access onto a public lane or right-of-way.Mrs.Pietro stated that John Wolford of State Highway has inspected the site and there is a sight distance problem with the existing lane.Mr.Wolford feels that the access should be shaved about 350 feet in each direction on both sides of the bank before any plat is approved.Mr.Fiery said there is a farm lane in front of the proposed lot to access the field.A discussion followed.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance with the condition that the sight distance along Fairview Church Road be improved,that when the lane is extended to Lot 3 that it be paved and that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Subdivisions: Roger Otzelberger and Margaret Hanes.Lots 1-3: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Roger Otzelberger and Margaret Hanes,lots 1-3.The property is located on the northwest side of Manor Drive,which is southwest of Harpers Ferry Road and is zoned Conservation.The developer is proposing to create 3 single family lots ranging in size from 3.5 acres to 5.5 acres.The total development is 13.6 acres with 325 acres remaining.The site will be served by wells and septics and will access onto a new county street.Lot 2 will have a panhandle.All approvals are in except for the Health Department,which needs minor revisions. Mrs.Pietro presented the Forest Conservation Plan.She explained that approximately 9 acres is in forest and that they are permitted to clear up to 4.3 acres,but will only be removing 3 acres.Mr. Moser moved to approve the Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered. Mr.Spickler moved to grant preliminary/final plat Lots 1-3 contingent on Health Department approval . Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. site Plans: CES Phase 2 Expansion: approval for .Seconded by Mr.Brittain presented the site plan for the CES Phase 2 Expansion. He said that this site was before the Planning Commission at the April meeting for a payment in lieu of request for the Forest Conservation,which was approved and payment has been submitted. He said that last September the Planning Commission approved Phase 2 for 65,800 square foot addition as well as parking and stormwater management facilities.Mr.Brittain stated that they are underway in grading and construction and there is already a need for expansion.Mr.Brittain stated that the site plan presented tonight will supersede the one previously approved.He proceeded to review the location of the new structure,parking,entrances and the relocated storm water management facility.He said that this facility will operate on a 24 hour schedule.The site plan indicates CES currently employs approximately 600 employees and 120 will be increased to 1,800.Mr.Brittain stated they are planning on relocating the back up generators on site with fuel tank facilities.The site will be served by public water and sewer. Solid waste and recycling will be taken care of in building 1.Mr. Brittain reviewed the lighting and .landscaping.All agencies have responded and they are waiting for final comments from State Highway and Water Pollution Control.A discussion followed regarding the storm water management facility and parking.Mr. Moser moved to approve the site plan for phase 2 expansion contingent upon State Highway and Water Pollution Control approvals.Seconded by Mr.Spickler.So ordered.Mr.Brittain asked that staff be given the authority to approve in house the preliminary/final replat of Lot 1,which incorporates everything onto one plat and will rerecord it.Mr.Ernst moved to grant staff the authority to approve in house the preliminary/final replat of Lot 1.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Staples,Inc.,Payment in Lieu of: Mr.Arch stated that the site is located off of Hopewell Road in the Hunters Green tract.He said that Staples,Inc.is purchasing this property for their warehouse facility.He said there wrll be a site plan and subdivision plat,which will be presented at the qune meeting.Mr.Arch stated that the subdivision plat generates the application of forest conservation and referred to the forest stand delineation and the forest conservation plan.He said that out of the 123 acres,approximately 60 acres is existing cover.He said the need to remove a large amount will require the developer to mitigate approximately 42.9 acres of forest.Staples is requesting to pay the fee in lieu of for this tract in the amount of approximately $185,000,due to their need to use the entire tract.Mr.Arch stated there is only one priority area,wetlands that they will be staying out of.Mr.Spickler moved to approve the request to pay the fee in lieu of in the amount of $185,000. Seconded by Mr.Moser.A vote was taken,Mr.Spickler,Mr.Moser, Mr.Wade and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr.Ernst voted no.So ordered.A discussion followed. Preliminary Consultations: The Stoner Property,PC-96-002: Mr.Lung briefly reviewed the consultation.The property is on 169 acres zoned Agriculture.It is located between Neck Road and Falling Waters Road.The proposal is for 25 lots on 61 acres ranging is size between 2 to 4 acres each and will be on individual wells and septics.There would also be a new street constructed off of Falling Waters Road to be dedicated to the County.Mr.Lung said that it appears that 25 lots is the maximum that can be subdivided out of this piece of property because of road adequacy problems on Falling Waters Road.The developer would like to do this development in two phases.Mr.Lung said that the Health Department has some concerns with the lots with steep slopes.He said the most interesting challenge with this property is the forest conservation issues.He said they approved a forest stand delineation in March and it indicated that there is 105 acres of forest on the site.He referred to his exhibit plat and pointed out the areas of excessive slope of 25 percent and soils of high K value (indicates high errodibility factor).He pointed out the forested areas and noted that there is a large Agricultural Preservation District adjacent to the site.He said the problem they have is which do they preserve,the prime agricultural land or the forest.He said the consultant did not submit a worksheet so they do not know how much of the forest would have to be retained to meet the requirements.In addition,this particular design may not be the best to retain as much of the forest as possible.Mr. 121 Lung stated he told the developer and consultant that the Planning Commission may be inclined to grant variances from things like stacking of panhandles and length of panhandles and various lot configurations in order to preserve the prime forest land as well as preserving the agricultural land.The developer did indicate that he may be interested in getting into the Agricultural Preservation program.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt that staff is on the right tract and feels the developer should do an innovative design to incorporate the trees.He said he would be willing to support variances from certain design standards to preserve as much of the forest as possible.Mr.Spickler stated that it is important that the prime ag land be preserved as much as possible.Mr.Arch noted that just because they have a limiting factor of 25 lots does not mean that the Planning Commission has to grant 25 lots.Mr.Iseminger stated that the message is to be creative in the subdivision design.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they were in agreement with the staff's report. Valley Mall: Mr.Goodrich informed the Planning Commission that a Preliminary Consultation was held on April 18 for the proposed expansion of the existing Valley Mall,located at the interchange of Halfway Boulevard and I-81.The plan includes expansion of the current 695,000 square feet of retail space and 3,800 parking spaces to 1,020,000 square feet and 4,900 spaces.Additions to the existing structure as well as new outlying retail or restaurant locations are planned.He noted the proposed Crosspointe development on an adjacent parcel.Each developer will be responsible for construction of a portion of the extension of Massey Boulevard to Virginia Avenue.The location and design standards for the "ring road"and maintenance of access to properties along existing Cole Road were major discussion issues during the consultation.They are affected to some degree by the timing of the Crosspointe development.A traffic study will be required.The road will also be the location of many relocated utili ties.Joint stormwater management was recommended.Provisions for pedestrian access were encouraged as well as protections for adjacent property owners from noise,glare and dirt were also recommended.By consensus The Commission indicated its concurrence with staff comments and did not request revisions at this time.It did suggest investigating an arrangement to fund the completion of Massey Boulevard should either of the developments be delayed. Bowman/Lightener Property: Mr.Goodrich presented a verbal summary of the consultation held on April 26.The property is located along the east side of I-81, just north of West Virginia/Maryland state line.The site consists of 71 acres and is zoned HI-I.There is an existing dwelling,barn and outbuildings.The dwelling is referred to as "Garden of .Eden" in the historic sites survey and dates to the late 1800's.The developer is proposing a storage trailer storage yard.They propose to convert the existing dwelling into office space and add some parking.There will be two phases of gravel parking areas and a small maintenance building.There will be 9 employees. State Highway Administration provided comments regarding the access point but ownership of the old road bed is unclear.He said that the County Engineer felt that the proposed storm water management should be sized to accomodate all phases of the development.The Health Department stated that all the well and septic requirements will have to be met on the site. Mr.Goodrich said they discussed the issue of whether public water and sewer should be provided.It was staff's opinion that this type of development,with the small number of employees,would be 122 adequately served by the well and septic system.However,the fact that the property is zoned Highway Interchange 1 and located in the Urban Growth Area,would encourage or even require the use of public water and sewer for most other HI uses.The County's Water and Sewer Department confirmed that public utilities are not available to this site at this time.The existing system ends in the industrial park at the Trendlines building.Water and sewer could be made available if the developer wanted to pick up the expense to have to extended to the site.Pumping would be required. Staff emphasized the concern that public water and sewer would be necessary for most other types of development that could occur at this location. Mr.Goodrich said there may be enough forest on the site to allow some clearing without mitigation.Buffers are also an issue.The site is located along the interstate and the majority of its frontage is a high rocky cliff.There is one spot where it is an open area which is where the development will take place.Mr. Goodrich said they will be looking for extensive buffers along the interstate. The existing buildings are on the County's historic survey.The developer has been informed of the County Commissioners policy regarding demolition permits.The developer indicated that they do not intend to remove the building but do plan to convert it to offices. A discussion followed regarding the adjacent properties.Mr. Iseminger expressed concern for dust generated by the trucks and asked if there is a stipulation that they have to keep it watered down.Mr.Goodrich said that the Zoning Ordinance states that they should keep the dust down,but does not specifically state they must keep it watered at certain time.He said that the Engineering Department specified the particular type of stone to be used for drainage purposes.An adjoining homeowner commented that the wind blows west to east directly in front of his house and that was one of his concerns with the gravel drive.Mr.Iseminger asked that the concern be passed on to the developer.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they are in agreement with staff's comments. OTHER BUSINESS: Rezoning Recommendation Samuel and Patricia Powell,RZ-96-01: and Albert McGarity,Bernard McGarity and Michael Lee RZ-96-02: Mr.Iseminger stated that they would discuss RZ-96-0l and RZ-96-02 at the same time since they are adjacent properties.Mr.Wade stated he will abstain from the discussion.Mr.Iseminger said it was his understanding that both applications are based on the fact that there was a mistake in the original zoning.Mr.Iseminger asked about the two rezonings across the street and asked if they were rezoned based on mistake.Mr.Lung said yes and that they were zoned to Business General.Mr.Iseminger asked if they were the same as these two.Mr.Lung said they were in the fact that they had existing commercial development on them prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1973.Mr.Iseminger stated that staff made an interesting point that with the nonconforming use they can still operate,since they are existing businesses subject to some limitation with regard to expansion.A discussion followed regarding the need to rezone these properties,the fact that a nonconforming use is allowed as long as the business is viable,the fact that if a business ceases for more than a period of 6 months,a business would no longer be allowed.Mr.Ernst asked with a nonconforming use are there restrictions regarding expansion.Mr.Lung stated yes and that based on the size of the property and the applicants testimony that they do not intend to expand the business.Mr.Spickler stated that what they do with it is not criteria but whether they prove there was a mistake.He 123 felt it was pertinent that in 1970 when zoning was first brought to the County that the owner did request to be given a business general or at least be given consideration that it was a commercial enterprise at that site was denied.He felt that since others were at least given the benefit to be zoned to at least the use that was in existence of the zoning that they could make a case of mistake in this case as well.Further discussion followed regarding the requested zoning and if there was another zoning that could also apply.Mr.Iseminger asked if everything around that property is agriculture or residential.He said the potential is there to create a single parcel out of the two and he is concerned with what can happen with a single parcel.Mr.Moser commented that in testimony it was stated that even if they were combined,that there would still be a problem accommodating a Sheetz type operation. Mr.Lung stated that there was a question of whether there would be sufficient septic reserve area depending upon the type of,use. With the adjacent residences there would be additional buffering and setback requirements.He said that was one of the things that led staff to comment on whether BG was the most appropriate and logical choice for this site.Mrs.Lampton asked if there is no plan for expansion or change then what is the purpose of the rezoning.Mr.Lung said it would allow the business to continue on the site without any constraints if they closed for over 6 months and then reopened again.Mr.Lung stated it has occurred in the County where there is a nonconforming use and the business ceased to exist and reverted back to residential.A discussion followed. ~r.Spickler made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they rezone RZ-96-01 and RZ-96-02 to Business General based on the findings of fact of that there was a mistake in the original zoning and staff report be made part of the findings of fact and that Business General is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr. Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Rezoning Recommendation Small and McCubbin RZ-96-03: Mr.Arch referred to the staff report.Mr.Spickler asked when they recently rezoned this area why did they not include this in the HI-l zone.He said they felt Rench Road is a logical dlvide for the rezoning.Mr.Moser stated he had a problem with rezoning to HI-l next to the PUD.He said at the time they did the rezoning they decided to exclude this property from the rezoning.Mr. Iseminger stated that when the text for HI-l and 2 was created it was not envisioned to be used outside of properties that were already zoned Highway Interchange or immediately adjacent and made sense that it was a logical connection to that interchange.He said when they did the analysis of the interchange in that area they looked at these properties and tried to find logical dividing points and decided to exclude this property from the rezoning and he said it has been a rare exception when they have gone outside the Highway Interchange zoned lands to change the zoning as part of this process.He said the applicant made a good case for change in the character of the neighborhood,but the HI-l zoning is not appropriate or logical.Mr.Spickler agreed and pointed out that if HI-l had been one of the things the applicant wanted that there would have been an application sometime before the recommendation that it be included in the original zoning of the interchange.Mr. Iseminger said that another zone that would be more transitional would be better.Further discussion followed.Mr.Spickler moved to recommend to the County Commissioners to deny the request of rezoning for RZ-96-03 from Agriculture to HI-l although the applicant made a strong case for change in the neighborhood,the Planning Commission does not believe that the request for HI-l is appropriate or logical for this piece of property and that the staff report be made part of the findings of fact.Seconded by Mr. Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. 124 APFO 6 Month Report: Mr.Arch reviewed the APFO report and stated that it is using the new school district numbers.He said there are three schools that end up having enrollment problems in using these numbers as well as redistricting program which took place last September.He said one is Williamsport Elementary,which there is a CIP project programmed for,therefore,it is considered adequate.The second one is Greenbriar and they will have to monitor it.Mr.Arch stated they are planning to meet with the Board of Education to discuss these problems after the budget is completed.The other problem is Sharpsburg.He said the Board of Education is planning to add a portable classroom there but the school will still be over capacity and it will have to be monitored closely.Mr.Ernst moved that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance be maintained.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Arch referred to the letter he handed out from Bill Wantz in regards to the Planning Commission's decision on the Trails of Little Antietam and proceeded to review a draft of his response letter.It was the consensus that the Planning Commission was in agreement with Mr.Arch's letter. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the p.m. 125 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 3,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 3,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Donald Ardinger,EX-Officio; James R.Wade and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C. Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners; Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding with the minutes,Mr.Iseminger welcomed the two new Planning Commission members Donald Ardinger and Ben Clopper. Election of Officers: Mr.Bowen made a motion to nominate Bernard Moser as Vice Chairman. ~econded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Wade moved to close the nominations for Vice Chairman.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton..So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to nominate Bertrand L.Iseminger as Chairman. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Bowen moved to close the nominations for Chairman.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Before proceeding with the minutes,Mr.Arch said that the site plan for Michael and Teresa Myers will be deleted.Under Other Business,he asked to add the recommendation that the Solid Waste Plan proceed to public hearing.Mr.Wade moved to accept the changes.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Minutes: Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting for April 1,1996.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Wade moved to approve the minutes of informational meeting.Seconded by Mr.Moser. April 8th public So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of April 11th public informational meeting.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Arch stated that they will not have the public hearing on Groups III and V just yet in order to give the towns of Clear Spring and Hancock time to make recommendations. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Home Construction: Mr.Arch stated that the developer is requesting a one year extension of his preliminary plat and that the Ordinance limits extensions to one time per approved preliminary plat.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance to allow a request for additional time extensions and to grant the request for a one year extension of the preliminary plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 126 Oakleigh Estates: Mr.Arch stated that the developer is requesting a variance for a one year extension of the final plat approval.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant a one year extension of the final plat approval for Oakleigh Estates.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Betty Monninger: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Betty Monninger. The property is located on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike,just south of the intersection with Spielman Road and is zoned Agriculture.The owner is proposing to create 4 single family lots accessing the Sharpsburg Pike.Lots 3 and 4 will have 25 foot panhandles.Mrs.Pietro stated that State Highway encourages the lots all having a shared common access onto the Sharpsburg Pike, but the proposed common access would be about 208 feet from an adjoining driveway.The variance requested is from Section 402 which states that all lots and streets shall conform to the County Highway Plan - a minimum of 500 feet is required between access points on a minor collector roadway.Mrs.Pietro said at the time that the remaining lands are developed,the 50 foot strip for the 2 panhandle lots would be used for a proposed public street.She said that this was encouraged by the State Highway Administration and the Planning Department.Mr.Iseminger asked about the total acreage of the original parcel.Mr.Townsley,of Fox and Associates,the consultant stated it is about 20 to 25 acres.Mr. Iseminger asked if the driveway will be blacktopped going back to the lots.Mr.Townsley said the entrance would have to be paved. Mr.Iseminger stated he felt that since they are going to have a road there anyway it would make sense that as the lots are developed,to have a provision where they can share the cost of putting in the black top.A discussion followed regarding the remaining lands.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance for the access separation based on the fact that State Highway determined that this is the preferable location due to sight distance problem with the stipulation that black top be placed as the lots are created as well as the conditions of Mr.Townsley's letter of May 2,1996.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Martha L.Williams: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Martha Williams.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant is requesting two variances -access separation and panhandle width.He said that Mrs.Williams owns two parcels of land at the intersection of Cavetown Church Road and wolfsville Road.The property is zoned Residential Rural and is in the Smithsburg Town Growth Area.The site is served by public water and sewer.There is an existing dwelling on·both parcels.Mr.Lung said that Mrs.Williams lives in one building and rents the other.She wants to create a lot in the back of her home for her daughter and in order to provide this lot with public road frontage it would be necessary to extend a panhandle either out to Cavetown Church Road or Wolfsville Road.Mrs.Williams would prefer to access Wolfsville Road because the other way would be too close to her driveway and,would be over her sewer line. Due to the location of the garage if they use a full 25 foot wide panhandle they would have only a 9 foot building setback and that would be approximately one foot short of the minimum side yard setback.Mr.Lung said he spoke to the County Engineer who felt there would not be a problem with reducing the width to 24 feet. The panhandle would be approximately 200 feet long.He said the other problem is that the proposed entrance location does not meet the Highway Plan's minimum access separation distance of 100 feet on a minor collector road.Mr.Lung said the proposed driveway would be 37 feet from an existing driveway to the south and 50 feet from a driveway to the north.He did not see a problem with the proposed location of the driveway but it has not been checked in 127 the field by the Engineering Department.Mr.Lung stated that staff feels it would be advantageous to give the lot public road frontage in spite of the need for variances.A discussion followed .regarding the intersection,to have the Engineering Department review the speed limit for Wolfsville Road,adding the 10 year immediate family member statement and the size of the building envelope.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance from the panhandle width from 25 feet to 24 feet and reduction in access spacing from 100 feet to 37 feet with the condition that the family member statement be added to the plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Lisa Green c/o Potomac Vistas Property Owners Association: Mr.Lung explained that this is a variance request submitted by Lisa Green for the Potomac Vistas Property Owners Association.The request is from Section 405.11.B that states that all new lots shall abut and have frontage onto a public road.Mr.Lung said the proposal is to create three new building lots without public road frontage with access to be provided by an existing private road. The property they wish to subdivide is identified as a reserve area in an 81 lot subdivision called Potomac Vistas located in the southern part of the County between Chestnut Grove Road and Harpers Ferry Road and is zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung said that this subdivision was approved before the County Subdivision Regulation requiring subdivisions to be served by public streets.He said that Potomac Vistas is accessed off of Chestnut Grove Road and the lots are served by several miles of private road.Most of the road is stone,with some paved sections and some very rough sections. He said there is approximately 23 existing dwellings.The Home Owners Association is responsible to maintain the roads.Mr.Lung said that it is the applicant's contention that in order to generate funds to make necessary improvements and maintenance to the road,they need to subdivide and sell off three lots out of the 15.5 acre reserve area.Mr.Lung said that in reviewing the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision,all of the lot owners in the development would have to approve the subdivision of this property and that has not yet occurred.He said that staff is concerned with:1)The creation of these three lots would add to an already unsafe situation of residences depending on an inadequate road system.2)The funds generated by the sale of these three lots would not significantly improve the existing situation based on the amount of road involved,the condition of the road and the extreme topography in the area (it is also doubtful that these roads could ever be brought up to County standards without spending a considerable amount of money).3) How will the funds generated by the sale of these lots be funheled towards the road improvements. Mr.Lung said he spoke to B.J.Morgan who owns property in the subdivision and was told he would have someone from Potomac Valley Fire Company present at the meeting in regard to this.Neither Mr. Morgan nor a fire company representative were present.Mr.Moser asked if Mr.McGee shared the same concerns as staff.Mr.Lung said that the homeowners have been before the County Commissioners requesting the County to enter into an agreement to bring the roads up to standards.He said the Homeowners Association was asked to do certain things and they never followed through.A discussion followed regarding who owned the open space and the cost to bring the road up to County Standards.Mr.Iseminger stated that in talking to the County Engineer,that he and Ted Wolford of the Roads Department have provided some rough estimates of what it would require to bring these roads up to County standards or at least the standards acceptable.He said that the Homeowners Association and the majority of property owners need to sit down and come up with a proposal and go to the Commissioners.He said that the Planning Commission cannot contribute to an already bad situation.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger said that the .Homeowners Association needs to get the agreement and then'come 128 back to the Planning Commission with another request.Mr.Moser moved to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger said that Terry McGee and Tim Lung would get together with the Homeowners Association to help. Subdivisions: walter and Annie Lawson,Lots 1,2,3 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Walter and Annie Lawson for lots 1,2 and 3 and the Forest Conservation Plan. The property is located along the south side of Keadle Road and is zoned Conservation.The developer is proposing to subdivide 11 acres into 3 single family lots ranging in size from 3 to 4 acres. Lot 2 has an existing dwelling.There will be 9.5 acres of remaining lands with an existing shop that is used to manufacture musical instruments.The lots will be served by wells and septics. Lot 3 will access the existing lane that serves the shop.~ot 1 will have a proposed drive that will connect to the existing lane to serve Lot 2.All of the approvals are in. Mrs.Pietro presented the forest conservation plan.She said that the site is totally wooded and that they will be clearing 2 acres. Since they are allowed to remove 3.9 acres they do not have to plant or pay a fee. Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the forest Walter and Annie Lawson,Lots 1,2 and 3. So ordered. conservation plan for Seconded by Mr.Moser. Mr.Moser moved to approve the preliminary/final for Walter and Annie Lawson,Lots 1,2,and 3. Lampton.So ordered. wintermoyer/Staples,Preliminary Plat: subdivision plat Seconded by Mrs. Mr.Arch presented the preliminary plat for the Wintermoyer/Staples property for a 1 lot subdivision of 2 existing parcels.Mr.Arch stated that they are asking for preliminary plat approval and request that staff be given the authority to grant final'plat approval at a later date.He said there are several issues with regards to stormwater management that need to be resolved before the County Engineer will sign off on the final plat approval.He stated that the County Engineer has given preliminary plat approval.Mr.Arch said they have a one lot subdivision of two existing parcels (combination of the Wintermoyer and Litten families)located off of Hopewell Road.The subdivision will create a lot of approximately 122.980 acres which will be the site for Staples with remaining lands of approximately 54 acres.All property is zoned HI-1.Mr.Arch stated that there is a historic site on the remaining lands and it may be eligible for the National Historic Register.He explained that they have completed an environmental assessment analysis required for the Community Development Block Grant.All agencies required to look at the development plan have signed off.The site will be served by public water and sewer.He said that last month the Planning Commission approved a request for payment in lieu of for mitigation of forest conservation obligations.Mr.Arch stated that they are asking for preliminary plat approval and will be back for site plan approval.A discussion followed regarding the interchange.Mrs. Lampton moved to grant preliminary plat approval and to give staff the authority to grant final plat approval contingent on all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. 129 OTHER BUSINESS: Mr.Arch requested that they add another item for clarification of Bowman/Lightner property. Bowman/Lightner Property: Mr.Arch stated that they discussed the preliminary consultation at last month's meeting.He said after that meeting they received comments from the City Water Department which stated that any development on that property would require the extension of City water to that site.He said that staff's position was that the limi ted amount of development being proposed probably did not warrant the extension of public water and sewer at this time.He said that staff has not changed their opinion but that the developer has asked for a clarification to see if the Planning Commission's position has changed in light of the Water Department's comments.Mr.Arch said that the Water Department does not have jurisdiction and that it is a call of the Planning Commission on whether or not an extension would be required.Mr. Iseminger instructed Mr.Arch to send a letter to the City stating the action that the Planning Commission took and that any substantial future development will require a hook up,which is what they stated at last month's meeting.Mr.Wade made a motion that they maintain their position discussed at the last meeting. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Sensitive Area Element: Mr.Goodrich passed out copies of the proposal to amend the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and reviewed the history to date. He said the Board of County Commissioners wanted to see the Ordinance amendments before voting on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. He also said that the proposal to regulate agricultural activ~ties with stream buffers has been abandoned.The purpose of the Planning Act and the Maryland Office of Planning's guidelines for implementation have been re-evaluated.Staff has concluded,with the assistance of SCS,that it is only the negative affects of development that are to be addressed. Mr.Goodrich stated that there are three parts to the proposed definitions,requiring information on drawings and the protective measure for the sensitive area. Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the definitions for steep slopes, streams and stream buffers.He noted that the definition for steep slopes is already found in other ordinances such as Health regulations and the Forest Conservation Ordinance.He said the streams will be defined by the Soil Survey that is used by Soil Conservation District.Stream buffers are proposed to follow Soil Conservation Service's filter strip standards.It is proposed that Soil Conservation Service will recommend a width depending on slope and the Planning Commission will approve. Mr.Bowen asked if they will be looking at well head protection. Mr.Arch said they have not been designated by the Planning Act or the County Commissioners.A hydrogeological study by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Geological survey is in its second year. Mr.Arch said a proposal pertaining to the Appalachian Trail is still under review.Mr.Goodrich said if it is determined that most trail related properties are already protected by purchase or easements,the ordinance,amendment can be left out.If not,it will remain as indicated. 130 Mr.Goodrich said that in making changes to the zoning Ordinance, they used the same standards as shown for the Subdivision Ordinance.The only new part is the first couple of paragraphs stating where these areas should be addressed.A discussion followed regarding the habitat of endangered species. Mr.Iseminger stated that staff did a good job and that they will review the changes and give their recommendations at the next meeting and then they will go to public hearing. Solid Waste: Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission was given copies of the draft for the update to the Solid Waste/Recycling Plan for their review.He said they now need to make a recommendation that the updated Solid Waste Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.A brief discussion followed regarding the changes to the plan.Mr.Moser made a motion approving that the Solid Waste/Recycling Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch stated that the joint rezoning will be next Monday,June 10th at the Court House.After a discussion it was decided to hold a workshop meeting on the fourth Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Sensitive Areas with the farm community and to invite the County Engineer and Paul Prodonovich . .ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,at 9:00 p.m. 131 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JUNE 24,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,June 24,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,·Vice Chairman;Bernard Moser,Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton and Donald Ardinger.Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were Ex-Officio;James R.Wade and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:10 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Sensitive Area Element: Mr.Goodrich referred to the revised amendment that was presented at the June regular Planning Commission meeting.He said there is a minor modification as well as something that just came to his attention in a discussion with Jerry Ditto of the Farm Bureau and Elmer Weibley of Soil Conservation just prior to the meeting beginning. He said that after further discussion with Paul Prodonovich, Director of the Department of Permits and Inspections,it was determined that the proposal needed adjustment to insure that agricultural activities would be properly excluded from regulation by sensitive area requirements.Staff's opinion is that if permits are required now,they should continue to be required after adoption of Sensitive Area regulations.If permits are not needed before adoption they would not be required after that change.It is Mr.Weibley's opinion that the amendment could be interpreted to require stream buffers of animal husbandry permit applications. The proposed solution is to state specifically that activities regulated under Article 22,Division IX are exempt.He said animal husbandry facilities already get a level of review to protect the environment and the construction of the facility is monitored by the Soil Conservation District.Further discussion followed regarding the current regulations under the Animal Husbandry Ordinance.Mr.Arch said that Soil Conservation is concerned with being involved in an enforcement provision by outside parties.Mr. Ditto representing Farm Bureau,stated he agrees with Elmer Weibley and commented that they went through the development of the Animal Husbandry Ordinance to protect the environment and give a level of review and feels they have done that.Further discussion followed. Mr.Goodrich reminded the Planning Commission of the discussion at the last meeting regarding the need to keep the Appalachian Trail protection proposal.He said that there is more to be protected than what was originally thought.The protection of the Trail is divided between the National Park Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.The Park Service has 44 parcels targeted and they are in various stages of negotiation with property owners.There is 4.3 miles of Trail that is unprotected on the National Park Service list and another 1.8 miles on the DNR list.With 6.1 miles of trail unprotected,it appears that the protective measures pertaining to the Trail are still necessary. By consensus,the Planning Commission agreed that the proposal to amend the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance should proceed as presented at the June 3rd meeting and amended this evening to exclude all agricultural activities including animal husbandry and ,retaining the paragraphs pertaining to the Appalachian Trail. 132 Mr.Arch stated that tomorrow Mr.Weibley and the Soil Conservation District will go before the County Commissioners and to ask that the County Commissioners consider the ability to allow them to charge a review fee for the sediment control review.He said that Elmer asked if the Planning Commission would go on record to endorse their request.A discussion followed.Mr.Weibley stated that this was not an easy decision but if they do not charge a fee, they will have to layoff their engineer on July 1st.If that happens they will have to send some of their clients that have storm water management ponds to the Federal Engineer in the Frederick Office.Mr.Weibley said that engineer is currently in Cumberland doing emergency work.He said they would be sending Washington County plans to an office that was handling 7 other counties and those plans would be put on a stack and be reviewed with a minimum of 30 days for review.He commented with the budget .cuts they have to do something and that Soil Conservation is working towards other ways to fully fund things.The review fees will fund their engineering position so they can keep it.He said currently their review process is completed in a week to two weeks. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have Robert Arch,Planning Director send a letter to the Board of Commissioners stating that the Planning Commission supports the request by the Soil Conservation to charge a review fee for sediment control plans.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meet~ng adjou~8:00 p.m. 133 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JULY I,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July I,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand L.Iseminger,Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Donald Ardinger and EX-Officio;James R. Wade.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were:Vice- Chairman;Bernard Moser and Andrew J.Bowen,IV. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Richard and Kimberly Mullendore: Mr.Lung presented the variance for Richard and Kimberly Mullendore.The property is located on Shinham Road and is zoned Agricultural.Mr.Lung stated that 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.The site consists of 2 acres and contains the Mullendore's home.Mr.and Mrs.Mullendore are proposing to convey the house to a sister and build a new house to the rear of the property for themselves.Due to the location of existing structures,lot configuration,location of existing well and possible setback problems,they are proposing to create the lot without road frontage and to extend the existing driveway.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance with the 10 year family member statement. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Hobart Luppi: Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Luppi is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to create two new lots with panhandles exceeding 400 feet in length,requesting permission from the Forest Conservation Ordinance to use off site retention to meet a portion of the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for this proposed three lot subdivision,and from the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance the owner is requesting to use exemption 4.1.1 which permits the creation of one building lot per 25 acres of agricultural land off of a road that is less than 10 feet wide. The property is located along the south side of Cool Hollow Road and contains 73.54 acres zoned Agricultural.There is an existing farmhouse,barn and outbuildings on the property.There is some 100 year flood plain across the front of the property.Mr.Luppi is proposing to create three building lots ranging in size from 3.79 acres to 10.79 acres.Due to the shape of the property,two of the lots are designed with panhandles greater than 800 feet in length.Mr.Lung said they will have to obtain permits from appropriate agencies to cross the flood plain.He said that the consultant has requested information regarding design standards from the Funkstown Fire Department.It is staff's opinion that if the Planning Commission grants the variance,that the developer's consultant should confirm that the access is designed in accordance with the fire department's criteria for being able to be served by their apparatus. 134 Mr.Lung said the second request is to allow the use of exemption 4.1.1.of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance which allows one lot per 25 acres of agriculturally used land to be subdivided off of a road that is less than 18 feet wide.He said that the original parcel of land is 73.54 acres which is 1.46 acres less than the 75 needed.Mr.Luppi is requesting that the Planning Commission consider the 73.54 acres to be sufficient to meet the intent of this exemption provision of the Ordinance.Mr.Lung said that Cool Hollow Road according to Mr.Luppi's consultant is at least 16 feet wide. The third request is to allow the use of off site forest retention to meet a portion of the forest conservation requirement for this three lot subdivision.Mr.Lung said that the staff received the forest delineation late today and has not had time to review it. He said the simplified forest stand delineation for the proposed development area shows only .26 acres of existing forest on the site.The developer is proposing to set the .26 acres aside for forest retention on site,however,in order to meet the requirements they need a total of 4.72 acres.The developer is proposing to provide the additional 4.46 acres on another piece of property which Mr.Luppi owns along the north side of Cool Hollow Road.Mr.Lung said without knowing the details of the forest on this site they cannot make a recommendation at this time.There will be 45.9 acres of remaining land that will go with the existing house.Mr.Iseminger asked if they could act on two of the variances and then act on the forest conservation request after staff has a chance to review the plan.A discussion followed.Mr. Iseminger said they do not have enough information to make a decision on the forest request but can on the other two.Mrs. Lampton made a motion to grant the variance request from the panhandle length for two lots to 800 feet and 900 feet due to the topography and irregular shape of the lot,with the stipulation that they construct the driveway and entrance to the standards of the Funkstown Fire Department.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton moved that the acreage meets the intent of the APFO to allow three lots.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to table the forest conservation request and to look at it as soon as possible. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Robert E.Harsh: Mr.Lung presented the request from Robert Harsh to create a new building lot.to be conveyed to an immediate family member without public road frontage out of a 125 acre parcel that also has no road frontage.The property is located north of Falling Waters Road and west of Neck Road.It contains 125 acres and is zoned Conservation. Mr.Lung said that this is a variance from Section 405.11B of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a new lot without public road frontage.The property was previously owned by the Hagerstown Beagle Club and last fall the Beagle Club subdivided a 3 acre lot containing their club house and sold the remaining lands to Mr. Harsh.Mr.Lung said that the Planning Commission approved the creation of this 3 acre lot without road frontage as well as approved creating the 125 acres of remaining lands without road frontage.Access to the property is off of Falling Waters Road via right-of-ways at two locations.Mr.Harsh also owns property which abuts this land.Mr.Harsh's son wants to build on the 125 acres however,the bank requires that the house be located on its own smaller parcel instead of the entire 125 acres.Mr.Harsh would like to create a parcel around the proposed house of at least 3 acres.Mr.Lung said they could provide access to it by one of the existing right-of-ways.He said that if the Planning Commission is inclined to grant the variance,they should be concerned with possible future subdivision of this property and how many dwellings they want to allow without road frontage.Mr.Harsh indicated that they may want to build another house on the property.He said they intend to keep the property in the family and do not have a problem 135 with adding the immediate family member statement to the plat. Mrs.Lampton moved to grant the variance to create a lot without public road frontage with the 10 year family member statement. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.' Brian Robinson: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Brian Robinson.Mr. Robinson owns a 120 acre farm off of the north side of Spielman Road zoned Agriculture.The owner is proposing to sell a 6 acre building lot.Under the Forest Conservation Ordinance they are required to provide 1.2 acres of afforestation for this lot.A simplified forest stand delineation was done which indicateq there was no existing forest or existing priority areas on Lot 1.Mr. Robinson is proposing to set up a 1.2 acre forest retention area in an existing prime forest in the northwest corner of the remaining lands.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant the request to allow off site retention.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Agricultural Preservation Land Application: William Gardenhour,AD 96-03: Mr.Arch presented the application from Mr.William Gardenhour. The farm consists of 153.2 acres and is used as an orchard.The property is located outside of the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the application is consistent with the goals and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and recommend that they approve the application. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. Subdivisions: Staples: Mr.Arch explained that this is a resubdivision of the property that the Planning Commission had previously approved for Staples of 123 acres.They are requesting to resubdivide the 123 acres into 4 parcels plus the transfer of 3 acres to an adjacent parcel owned by AC&T.Mr.Arch proceeded to review the location of the property along Hopewell Road near its intersection with Halfway Boulevard. He said they are also requesting that a variance be granted for the creation of two lots without road frontage (parcel C and DJ.Mr. Arch explained that Parcel A contains 95.6 acres,which is the parcel where the site plan they will be reviewing tonight is located.Parcel B consists of 12.375 acres.Mr.Arch said that the Planning Commission previously granted preliminary plat approval for the creation of the 123 acres parcel.Mr.Arch explained that the reason the plat is being revised is that the CDBG block grant they applied for requires the property to be acquired with the CDBG funds to be restricted to only that portion of the site proposed for development at this time.He explained that in the future when the adjacent properties around parcels B, C & D are developed,the remaining parcels will most likely be resold back to the adjacent property owner (currently Antietam Development J for development.Mr.Arch referred to the green section on the plat which is part of the original Wintermoyer tract and explained that a simplified plat will be created to transfer 3 acres from the Wintermoyer tract to AC&T.Mr.Arch stated that he is requesting that the Planning Commission grant preliminary/final plat approval and give staff the authority to approve the final plat once all of the agencies have signed off.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant a variance to create parcels Band C without public road frontage.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant preliminary/final subdivision plat approval of the entire subdivision giving staff the authority to sign off once all agency approvals are received,Seconded by Mr.Clopper.,So ordered. 136 Phillips Driscopipe: Mr.Arch explained that there will be 2 subdivision plats for Phillips Driscopipe which is located in the Newgate Industrial Park.As part of the development of the industrial park,there is a possibility of the creation of a lead track to come through this property to serve the property on the north side of Hopewell Road. Phillips Driscopipe would be serviced off of the lead track.In addition,there is a resubdivision of a small portion of Lot 1 (Purinia Mills).Approximately .888 aCre will be transferred back to CHIEF,which will be handled with a simplified plat.Mr.Arch stated that through that area would go the track to Phillips and eventually lead to the other side.In addition,at this time there would be a subdivision of 30 acres that follows track 3 (Lot 2), which Phillips Driscopipe is purchasing from CHIEF.Mr.Arch explained that as part of the Phillips Driscopipe subdivision,a corridor of approximately 3 acres will be retained by CHIEF to provide a right-of-way to Hopewell Road for a rail extension.Mr. Arch said that the plan has been routed out to the various agencies and only minor 'Comments have been received.They are asking for preliminary/final plat approval contingent on agency approvals for .Lot 2,simplified plat approval for Lot 1 'Contingent on agency approvals and request that staff be given the authority to sign off upon receipt of all agency approvals.A discussion followed regarding the alignment of the track for future expansion of the industrial park.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval giving staff the authority to sign off when all agency approvals are received.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Leon Price: Mr.Iseminger asked if this plat was sent to the town of Sharpsburg and feels that any subdivisions and/or site plans close to towns having their own Planning Commissions should receive a copy of the plat for their comments.Mr.Lung said that they received a subdivision application for a 4 lot residential subdivision for Leon Price located off of Mondale Road.He said upon receiving the subdivision application they found that this subdivision was located in the Sharpsburg Elementary school district.According to the Planning Department's capacity numbers it does not meet the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance definition of being adequate (exceeds 105 percent of rated capacity).Mr.Arch spoke to the developer and his consultant and in order for them to proceed with the project the Planning Commission should take action regarding the subdivision and the school adequacy to allow the developer to appeal the action to the Board of Appeals and request a variance from the APFO.Mr.Lung said that based on the numbers used for pupil generation,this 4 lot subdivision would generate .868 elementary school age students.Based on the criteria of the APFO, the Planning Commission could not approve the subdivision until the school is considered adequate.A discussion followed.Mrs. Lampton moved to deny the subdivision since it does not meet the criteria of the APFO.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Site Plans: Staples: Mr.Arch stated that the site is located off of Hopewell Road and is zoned HI-1.Mr.Arch stated that this is a regional distribution warehouse center.It is a one story warehouse building.There will be 250 employees initially with employment over a 3 year period estimated to increase to 580 employees at Staples and 125 employees projected to be employed by a transportation company.The hours of operation would be 17 hours a day,5 days per week.Mr.Arch reviewed the parking and landscaping.The total building square footage is 1,035,712 building height is 53 feet.He reviewed the projected vehicles per 137 day,recycling and solid waste.Water and sewer are available. Mr.Arch stated that not all agency approvals have been received. forest conservation requirements will be met through payment in lieu previously approved by the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch stated that with the CDBG grant they had to do a detailed environmental review and obtain various agencies approvals.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the site plan contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.' Phillips Driscopipe: Mr.Arch stated that Phillips Driscopipe manufactures polyethylene pipe and is located in the Newgate Industrial park along Hopewell Road.He explained there will be two methods of ingress and egress onto Hopewell Road,there will also be a rail spur to serve the property.The property is zoned HI-I and IG.He explained there is a combination because part of it was on the Wintermoyertract and part was on a piece of property owned by Dutton.This combination generated a line through the property but does not affect the use.Mr.Arch reviewed the hours of operations,parking and landscaping.The building height is approximately 30 feet and storage tanks about 50 feet in height.Mr.Arch stated that most agency approvals have been received and only engineering and water and sewer are waiting for minor comments to be addressed.Mr.Arch s~ated that recycling has not been addressed but will work with them on it.A discussion followed.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Ben Shaool: Mr.Arch referred to the letter in the agenda packet from the Permi ts Department to Mr.Shaool.Mr.Arch explained that the location of the townhouse lots in the Woodbridge subdivision were approved in 1993.He explained that this property was owned by someone else and approved under the PUD zoning,which does not allow a variance from the set back to be granted by the Board of Appeals,it must be done by the Planning Commission.The current owner,Mr.Shaool wants to modify the design so that the units would be staggered and slightly adjusts the footprint.Mr.Arch stated that the request is to modify the PUD site plan for slightly larger footprints.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to revise the setback in accordance with Ed Schreiber of Permits and Inspections letter dated June 11,1996.Seconded by Mr.Clopper. So ordered. Ruth Middlekauff,Release from Immediate Family Member Statement: Mr.Kent Oliver,attorney for the contract purchaser of the Middlekauff property briefly reviewed the history of the property. He stated that a subdivision was approved in October of 1990 for a house to be subdivided off a parcel owned by Mrs.Middlekauff to be transferred to her son.In 1991,Mrs.Middlekauff took a second mortgage on this property.In 1993 the son had difficulties which forced Mrs.Middlekauff to payoff the first mortgage and take a deed in lieu of foreclosure for this piece of land.This property is improved by a house,which has been sitting there since 1993. Mrs.Middlekauff has tried to obtain a purchaser for several years and has found one contingent upon the Planning Commission's approval that the property can be sold to a nonfamily member.Mr. Oliver stated that the house has deteriorated over the years and they do have a private right-of-way agreement and road maintenance agreement and are asking the Planning Commission to give them relief so this property can be transferred.Mr.Iseminger stated 138 that in reality a foreclosure has taken place and it was set up to allow for that situation.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to release Mrs.Middlekauff from the 10 year immediate family member statement.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Essential Utilities; Mr.Iseminger referred to the Essential Utilities text amendment in the agenda packet and stated that this is what went to public hearing years ago.He said at that time the Planning Commission recommended to the County Commissioners to adopt it.He said he reviewed it again and feels it addresses what is going on in the County now with the cellular towers and recommends that they forward it to the County Commissioners and ask that they take action on it.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to send a letter to the Commissioners to consider the essential utility amendment.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Wade abstained. So ordered. Draft amendment to 66B; Mr.Iseminger referred to Mr.Wantz's letter in the agenda packet. Mr.Wantz is on a State Planning Commission committee,which is reviewing 66B and see how to improve it.Mr.Arch stated that this is just for information purposes and they have been talking about administrative variances.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to send a letter to Bill Wantz stating that they are in support and in concurrence. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9;00 p.m. Be~trand L.Iseminger,Cha 139 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JULY 22,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a joint workshop meeting with the Board of Education on Monday,July 22,1996 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice- Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Planning Director, Robert C.Arch;Associate Planner,James P.Brittain;and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present from the Board of Education:Dr.Wayne Gerson,James Lemmert and Dennis McGee, Doreen Nepps and Tom Berry.Absent was EX-Officio,James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:30 p.m. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: The purpose of this meeting is to open the line of communication between the two boards in regards to growth,the relationship of growth to the school system and its impact on the facilities. Mr.Arch stated that the Planning Commission wants to know what the school district's thoughts are on the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.He said that Dennis McGee contacted him -about the Master Plan for the Board plus providing them with additional information.Mr.Arch said they will be in the position to provide numerical data and projections in the near future.He referred to the information sent to both boards regarding legislation concerning sidewalks and bicycle ways.He felt that this is another issue they need to spend time with. At this point the meeting was turned over to the Board of Education.Mr.Lemmert said that the Public Facilities Ordinance has had little affect on the school system because the school portion discounts property located within the projected growth area.In addition,the APFO does not cover any of the incorporated towns such as Smithsburg.Mr.Lemmert noted that the APFO has not kicked in to play in many areas of the County with the exception of Sharpsburg and Greenbriar.At this time the Board of Education does not envision recommending building any new elementary schools and none are proposed at the moment.Mr. Lemmert said they had been addressing the adjustment that occurs with relocatable classrooms.He said they have about 20 relocatable classrooms and intend to renovate Licolnshire and Smithsburg Elementary,which will yield about 6 relocatables to be moved to schools requiring them.He said they envision the enrollment going up in the public schools in the next few years and then a static enrollment.Part of that is brought on by the anticipated decline from the closing of Ft.Ritchie.Currently, the children on base attend Smithsburg High,Middle and Cascade Elementary Schools.He said their total school population is showing almost a zero growth in the next several years.He feels there will be a shifting in the population,they anticipate growth in the Williamsport area and have a watch on the Conococheague area,Black Rock,Brightwood East and Eastwood developments.He said with the shifting of the elementary population last year they feel that the middle,high schools and elementary schools will be adequate for the next 5 to 6 years except for having to move a relocatable.He said that Sharpsburg remains a problem. Mr.Iseminger asked what the Board of Education is basing their projections on and if they are tying in with the Planning Staff regarding growth projections.Mr.Lemmert said they have their projections analyzed each year by the State Office of Planning and use their figures based on historical data plus their analysis of the local scene.He said they are provided with numbers monthly,they work with Bob regarding projected hot spots 140 the Planning Commission has and receive the new development proposals.Mr.Iseminger stated that he is a member of the Ft. Ritchie committee and one of the things they are looking at is a long term lease agreement with the people transferred to Ft. Dieterick in order to keep them in their current housing. Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission has been favor of impact fees to go along with new development to be used towards the construction and renovation of schools.He noted that they met with representatives from Frederick County regarding their impact program.He said it has had little affect on construction of new homes.Mr.Iseminger said they have also discussed having large developments donate land to the school board.Mr.Iseminger stated that he would be interested in the Board of Education's opinion of the best location for new schools.A discussion followed regarding what other counties do regarding reserving school sites and asked if the Board of Education can project the needs for future school sites and forward that information to the Planning Commission.Mr.Berry commented that the areas offering incentives to build would be the area to build schools.Mr.Moser stated that the incentives are within the growth areas and the densities that are allowed, but that there is no funding process in place and that it has become a burden on the County infrastructure.He said they end up subsidizing a lot of the development activity and cited what other Counties do.A discussion followed regarding what other Counties do,problems caused by piece meal subdivisions,the ~nformation sent to the Board of Education and the impact of large developments or multi-family developments have on the schools.Mr.Iseminger said right now in the Ordinance all they can do is to require or ask the developer to make it adequate if it is not in the CIP.He referred to the APFO and noted under the school section that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to limit the number of building permits.Mr.Lemmert suggested having an impact fee proportionate for all developers. He added that when they have a development larger in size that is when they should enter into an agreement with the developer to set aside land.Further discussion followed regarding the expenses incurred by the developer before he knows if the project is profitable,the fact that Washington County's policies are open ended,the fact that Frederick County fees apply to every unit built,that Washington County is subsidizing a lot of these improvements that developers should be making. Mr.Arch said it was his understanding that the new administration of the State is to supply the schools in the UGA with some funding.Mrs.Nepps stated that in order to get funds from the State they need to have matching local funds and since their local funding has been cut in half,then they will not get as much State funding to renovate.A discussion followed regarding funding,impact fees and what other counties do and having the Commissioners look at impact fees again.Mrs.Lampton asked Mr.Lemmert what the plans were for the Sharpsburg School district.Mr.Lemmert said they plan to add one relocatable to the elementary school next year.He said he felt they could address the problem at Sharpsburg with one or two additional relocatables without the core of the infrastructure being overly tapped.He noted that both Greenbriar and Conococheague are on watch. Mr.Iseminger said they talked about some of the issues they are faced with and the next thing is to decide where they want to go next.He said they have talked all along that they need to go back and take another look at the APFO to see what they can do on that end and then take another look at impact fees at least.for the schools,some changes to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to PUD's to write it in to ask for dedicated land for schools,etc. Dr.Gerson stated he thinks that the next step should be for Mr. Arch to draft some new language to review with the Board of Education and make a presentation to both Boards.Mr.Arch said that the other thing that is going to happen is that Mr.McGee of the Board of Education is interested in updating the master 141 facilities plan.He said as they develop the GIS system it will become a lot easier to look at the areas and anticipate growth. He said that there are a variety of revenue issues and that at the Commissioner's meeting in Keedysville,the subject of impact fees was brought up and the Commissioners did not express much interest.A discussion followed regarding generating revenue including impact fees and having them countywide.Mr.Berry feels they need to put together a financial analysis of what it costs to build in the County over a period of time and take it to public hearing.Further discussion followed regarding impact fees.Mr.Arch said that this is a complex issue and so much of it is tied to other growth policies in the County including problems with the rural development policies.He expressed concern with the possibility of development increasing outside the UGA because of impact fees and that it is important to keep the lines of communication open with the Board of Education. Further discussion followed regarding the impact of development on the school system.Mr.Lemmert stated that they are considering forming a committee which would be an extended arm for planning purposes.Mr.Arch stated that he spoke to Ron Kreitner of the State about the Governors initiative and Ron will be coming down sometime to speak to the Board of Commissioners and that there may some additional cash in certain areas which the School Board may take advantage of.Mr.Arch stated that the sidewalk issue still needs to be addressed and he would be in touch with them.The Board of education stated they would like to know when Mr.Kreitner will make his presentation. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. ,Chairman 142 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 5,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 5,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice- Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Donald Ardinger,and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich, Associate Planners;James P.Brittain,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 7:00 p.m . .MINUTES: In regards to the minutes of May 6th,Mr.Iseminger stated that under members present that the minutes should reflect that Mr. Spickler was the Vice-Chairman at that time and not Mr.Moser. In addition,Mr.Iseminger stated that in regards to the variance for Henry and Sandy Henson that a condition of the approval was the addition of the 10 year family member statement on the plat. Under the zoning recommendation for Small and McCubbin,Mr. Iseminger stated that on the 8th line it should state "was not envisioned ....".Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the minutes of June 3,1996. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to approve Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. the minutes of June 24,1996. So ordered. Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch asked to add under Forest Conservation a request to utilize the payment in lieu of procedure for Samuel Burhman and to add Antietam Development under Other Business for guidance on site layout.Mrs.Lampton moved to add the items to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Clopper. So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Hobart Luppi-Forest Conservation: Mr.Lung stated that last month the Planning Commission approved a variance for this site for panhandle length and an APFO determination for a subdivision off of Cool Hollow Road.Mr. Luppi is proposing to create 3 lots and to retain forest off site.The Planning Commission tabled action on a request to use off site forest retention in order to give staff time to review 143 the forest stand delineation.Since that time staff has made an inspection of the site as well as the proposed off site forest retention area and has approved the delineation.Mr.Lung said the proposed retention area is located on the north side of Cool Hollow Road on a farm also owned by Mr.Luppi.The forest appears to be a good candidate for retention since it is considered prime forest and contains,priority areas and a pond. He said they also have to take into consideration the forest conservation priority areas that exist on the property containing the lots.He noted there is a portion of flood plain that runs across the front of the property associated with a perennial stream.The flood plain is currently in meadow at this time,and there are no wetlands associated with this stream.There is some forest on this site that will be retained.Mr.Lung said that staff does not have a problem with using off site retention for this property,however,recommends that the Planning Commission require the following:1)Designate on the subdivision plat a conservation filter strip a minimum of 50 feet wide along the perennial stream to remain undisturbed in its current condition (allow a pedestrian pathway).2)Add a note to the plat encouraging the use of Urban Best Management Practices,which .would preserve water quality in that area.Mr.Lung said they are looking for approval to allow off site retention.Mr.Moser moved to approve the request for off site retention with the conditions that a note be added to the plat indicating a minimum 50 foot wide filter strip along the perennial stream,as well as a note on the plat encouraging the use of the Urban Best Management Practices by the homeowners.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the use of denitrification septic systems. site Plans: Amtrac Office BuildinG: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Amtrac office building. The site is located on the west side of Early Drive,east of Sharpsburg Pike.The zoning is Industrial General.The developer is proposing a two story office building,approximately 4,000 square feet in size on 4.4 acres.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the proposed parking (14 spaces),lighting (building mounted dusk to dawn light),the location of the dumpster (which will be screened).She stated there is no signage proposed at this time. There will be 4 employees and the hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m.to 6:30 p.m.She proceeded to review the landscaping and stated that the access of Early Drive would be upgraded.The site will be served by public water with private septic system. All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the proximity of the site to public sewer and the access.Mr.Wade moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Dapco Welding: Mr.Lung stated that the plan is being presented for informational purposes because it is only a change in the existing structure in the Earley Industrial Park. the use of The 144 property is located off of Sharpsburg Pike zoned Industrial General.A site plan was approved in 1977 for the existing 6,520 building originally used as a warehouse.The owner wants to establish a retail welding supply business in the existing building and has been granted a variance from the Board of Appeals to allow retail in the Industrial General district and permission to install above ground storage tanks for nonpetroleum products.In addition to the outside storage tanks to the rear, the site plan also shows a storm water management pond which was not previously required.Mr.Lung said they have also enhanced the parking and landscaping.He said this is an improvement to the site bringing it up to current site plan standards.A discussion followed regarding hooking up to the sewer.The area is currently served by individual septic systems.Mr.Iseminger asked staff to check to be sure they are in compliance with the sewer hookup distance requirements and have the Water and Sewer Department look at this area to see if it makes sense to extend the service some time. Lincolnshire Elementary School: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Lincolnshire Elementary School located on Lincolnshire Road and Rosewood Drive.Mr.Lung stated that this is a site plan for building expansion and site improvements to Lincolnshire Elementary School.He said there are several new building additions planned to total 11,000 square foot expansion as well as to redesign the bus loop,loading area and parking lots.He referred to the plat indicating the location of the existing buildings,the new additions,the relocated roadway and bus loading loop and the two new proposed parking areas.The Board of Appeals granted variances from the minimum front yard set back from 150 feet to 45 feet and 100 feet and 140 feet at various locations.Mr.Lung referred to a copy of staff's concerns sent to the consultant on July 23rd.He said most of the comments were technical items that need to be included in the site plan and have received a revised plan addressing these comments.He said the following concerns need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission:1)One major concern is what is going to happen when the existing tree line,which acts as good natural buffer for the adjacent residential area, consisting of mature evergreens is removed.Staff recommended that replacement planting be done to make up for the loss of the trees.Mr.Lung stated that the revised plan shows 17 white pines along the parking lot.Mr.Lung said it may be appropriate to have additional plantings to the rear of the parking area.He said staff was concerned with the adequacy of the proposed landscaping around front of the building.He commented that at the Board of Appeals hearing the neighbors were concerned with the impact the project would have on their property and the Appeals Board told the Board of Education to provide additional landscape buffering for that property.Mr.Lung stated that staff expressed concern with the dumpster location and screening for the dumpster.The plan indicates a shelter that screens the dumpster from outside view.Another item they were concerned with was provision for recycling.A note has been added to the plan indicating the schools'recycling plan.In addition to the screening issue due to removal of the trees,the staff is 145 concerned with any proposed lighting in the parking area.Mr. Lung said that a lighting plan was just submitted this afternoon, and he did not have time to review it.The staff is satisfied with the technical notes added to the plat to meet the general site plan requirements,however,recommends additional vegetative screening,reviews of the lighting plan in more detail and would like an explanation of the screening of the dumpster.A discussion followed regarding the large increase in the parking, stormwater management,and the Board of Appeals decision.Mr. Wade moved to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals,review of the lighting plan and sign off by the staff with changes to the landscaping plan as outlined.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Gravstone Hills.Section E.Phase 2 Offsite Forest Retention: Mr.Brittain presented the delineation for Graystone Hills,which is in the Boonsboro town limits.The proposed development .consists of 22 lots on 10 acres,which currently has a FEMA flood plain on it.FEMA is in the process of reviewing it for an amendment.If the amendment does not go through,then the subdivision will not continue.Mr.Brittain said that the total site is almost 230 acres.There are high priority areas on several portions of the remaining lands.By definition if the retention area is not on the subject site being subdivided then it is considered off site.Mr.Brittain stated that the developer is proposing an easement on the remaining lands in a area that has a high priority and an established forest area.He said at this time they only have to set aside 1.5 acres.Mr. Brittain stated that they are requesting from the Planning Commission permission to use off site retention to meet the forest conservation requirements.A discussion followed regarding FEMA's review,whether approval can be contingent upon FEMA approval and whether more land is being set aside for reforestation if more subdivision occurs.Mr.Moser moved to approve the request for off site forest retention subject to FEMA's approval of the amendment.Seconded by Mr.Ardininger. So ordered.A discussion followed regarding scheduling a joint meeting with the Town of Boonsboro. Samuel Burhman: Mr.Arch stated Mr.Burhman is proposing a 2 lot subdivision off of MD 418 Ringold Pike consisting of approximately 3 acres.He stated that Mr.Burhman previously subdivided 1 lot and he is asking for 2 additional lots and is asking for approval of payment in lieu of.Mr.Burhman used the Express Procedure for the first lot and according to the Forest Conservation Ordinance once it is used,you cannot use it again unless approved by the Planning Commission.He said that the mitigation requirements for the two lots would be .6 acres and that there are no priority area or existing forest areas on the site.He does have another 20 acres that he is not proposing to subdivide.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the request for payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. 146 Preliminary Consultations: Jack Vance: Mr.Lung stated that he had no additional comments and that the consultation was held at the request of the developer.It is not a requirement for this type of project.Mr.Iseminger asked about the location and if it was near the nursing home the Planning Commission recently granted site plan approval to.He noted at the time of approval of the nursing home the Planning Commission stated that as soon as there was additional development,they would require them all hook up to public water. Mr.Lung stated that this site is about a block from the town limits.He stated that there will be an extension of the water line to this site,however,it is still a good distance away from the nursing home.Mr.Iseminger asked about the flood plain shown on the plat.Mr.Lung stated that the rear of the property drops off in the back to the Antietam Creek.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they were in agreement with the staff report.Mr.Lung stated that he would contact the City Water Department regarding the water line extension. Steve Oder Cluster Concept: Mr.Lung stated that they did not have a formal consultation on this project and that Mr.Oder had contacted him and requested that the proposal be presented to the Commission before investing additional time and money in this project.The property is located outside the Urban Growth Area on Dam #4 Road south of Downsville and is zoned Conservation.Mr.Oder is interested in purchasing 21 acres and subdividing it into six 1 acre lots and one 13 acre farmette lot.He referred to a copy of the cluster provisions from the Zoning Ordinance and stated that one of the requirements is that there should be a common open space area dedicated for the common use of the residents of the cluster development.There is no common area being proposed.Mr.Lung stated that a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals would be required in order to do that.Staff is also concerned that Mr. Oder is proposing to create a three tier panhandle lot lay-out which is not permitted by the Subdivision Ordinance.Staff is not opposed to the use of the cluster design,however,it could be more innovative.Mr.Lung reviewed the design,pointed out the existing tree line and stated that the property lies higher than the road and would be possible to cluster the houses behind the tree line so they would not be seen from the road.He said with the proposed design more stripping of the road will occur than what would occur if the property was subdivided into 3 acre lots based on the normal Conservation zoning standards.He pointed out that there is no nearby residential stripping along Dan #4 Road.Mr.Arch stated that when they think of a cluster plan they think of a trade off situation and that a certain amount of open space should be provided for community amenity in exchange for being able to reduce lot size and to use innovation.Mr. Iseminger said that the Planning Commission has always felt that clustering makes sense and what is proposed does nothing but taking advantage of reduced lot size to get as many lots as possible.A discussion followed regarding traffic in the area, the remaining lands and water quality.The developer,Mr.Oder, 147 stated that the concept is not to get maximum density.He wants to retain 13 acres and have a small farm for himself.He cannot afford the entire acreage so he is subdividing the additional lots at the front in order to pay for his lot.He said he does not have a problem with revising the concept plan,but has a problem with the buffer provision and providing open space.He said that a homeowners association would be needed to administer the open space and that it would be overwhelming for 7 homeowners to manage.He said that the proposed design provides the open space,however,it would not be useable by everyone.He does not have a problem with adding a note to the plat that he will not further subdivide the 13 acre lot.Mr.Iseminger said that it is not a matter of what they want to see,but what the Ordinance requires and it is specific in regards to the cluster subdivision and open space.Mr.Oder said he wants to go the Board of Appeals for a variance to that provision but wanted to come to the Planning Commission first.Mr.Iseminger referred to a cluster concept they had approved in the past.He said that what is presented is not a trade off,has no advantage to the residents and that what is being proposed is not consistent with the intent of the cluster provision.Further discussion followed .regarding the remaining lands and road adequacy.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission does not approve of the cluster concept as presented.He said there is a lot they can do with open space and that the purpose of the cluster concept is to cluster the homes on smaller lots and to allow the use of the remaining open space by all of the residents.Mr.Iseminger further stated that they would be in favor of a cluster concept for this property if it is in agreement with the Ordinance. OTHER BUSINESS: RZ-96-06,Jane L.Hershey,Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Goodrich summarized Mrs.Hershey's request to remove the Historic Preservation overlay,from approximately 100 acres of her farm and retain the underlying Agriculture zoning.She plans to come apply for an Agricultural Preservation district.Mr. Iseminger referred to the staff report and said that staff did a good job in addressing the issues.Since it is an overlay zone it does not require the proof of a change or mistake';just that the requested action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.He stated that his opinion was that staff made it clear that in this case it is and so they are in favor of removing the HP overlay.A brief discussion followed. Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request to remove the Historic Preservation overlay is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and that the Planning Commission recommends that they remove the HP overlay zone from approximately 100 acres and approve RZ-96-06.Seconded by Mr. Clopper,Mr.Wade and Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. RZ-96 07,Virginia Tritch and RZ-96 08,Albert Sheets: Mr.Iseminger referred to the staff report and stated that he had requested staff to look at accident reports in the area and that 148 they indicated there was nothing out of the ordinary.He stated that the applicant has shown there is a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the rezoning hinges on if the Planning Commission feels that the BL zoning is logical and appropriate and he is not sure it is.He agreed with the point made in the staff report,that if it would be rezoned,the Planning Commission would have an opportunity in site plan review to exercise some control regarding screening,drainage and buffering from adjacent properties.He stated that they received correspondence from some of the neighbors in opposition.Mr. Arch stated that Mr.Iseminger made a good point and that they have used BT in other areas along Pennsylvania Avenue.A discussion followed regarding the adjacent property owners and what they are opposed to.Mr.Iseminger stated that one of the issues brought up at the public hearing was the issue of negotiating with the County over drainage easements,and if there was a change in the zoning what affect that would have on site plan approval.Mr.Ardinger made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to rezone RZ-96-07 and RZ-96-08 based on the change of the character of the neighborhood and the fact that the requested rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not be incompatible with the adjacent property owners and would be logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper. Mr.Wade and Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Antietam Development Ltd.: Mr.Arch stated that this is a conceptual site plan for Antietam Development and is before the Planning Commission for their comments.The property is located on Sharpsburg Pike.It is currently a vacant lot next to a residence.The developer is proposing for development of a 4,000 square foot convenience store with a car wash to the rear of the property.The property is zoned HI-l with a buffer of 25 feet.Mr.Arch said that the Zoning Ordinance states that a buffer yard can be utilized for access isle if approved by the Planning Commission.In this case an isle has been proposed in the buffer area.He stated that the Planning Commission would have to grant approval of that.In addition the Planning Commission would have to state what would be the screening requirements between this development and the adjacent property since there is a residence adjoining it.Mr. Arch stated that this is before them for two issues:whether or not the Planning Commission would permit the invasion of the buffer yard and if so what would they establish for screening. Mr.Iseminger stated that he thought buffers in HI-l were 75 feet and not 25 feet if there is an existing residence and not a vacant lot.Mr.Arch stated that the original concept was 75 feet but the County Commissioners changed it to 25 feet when they adopted it.A discussion followed regarding when the buffer width was modified.Mr.Iseminger requested an opinion from the County Attorney,because he was not aware of the change.A discussion followed regarding the change of the buffer width without a public hearing,the fact that the proposed 75 foot buffer was to protect the existing residential properties and continued use of those properties for residential use,the current wording in the Ordinance in regards to buffer.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they could not make 149 a decision on the conceptual site plan for Antietam Development without an opinion by the County Attorney. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. , "---BeT .~\A and L.Iseminger,Chairman 150 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -AUGUST 26,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,August 26, 1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,Donald Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner;Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present:Director of Public Works;Gary Rohrer, Director of Water and Sewer;George Gross,and Water and Sewer Advisory Commission Members:Chairperson;Sam Phillips,Joseph Robeson,Peggy Bushey and Robert Holsinger. Absent were:Vice Chairman;Bernard Moser,Paula Lampton,Ex-Officio;James R.Wade and Water and Sewer Vice Chairman;Russell Weaver. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Iseminger stated that they did not have a formal agenda and that the purpose of the meeting is to keep the lines of communication open regarding what the two commissions are doing.Mr. Arch explained that the Planning Commission deals with approving subdivisions and site plans for development as well as handle rezonings and Comprehensive Plan development and other plans such as the Solid Waste Plan. Mr.Arch stated that Tim Lung is the primary planner who has worked with the Sewer and Water Plan.Mr.Arch stated that the plan gets into the technical as well as the coordination aspects of sewer and water service.He explained that the plan outlines the areas which are eligible for service and gives a rating classification to them.The policies primarily associated with the Comprehensive Plan deal with inside or outside the growth areas and whether or not public facilities should be or should not be extended and the circnmstances associated with them.Mr. Iseminger stated the Comprehensive Plan contains the broad objectives of the County.He explained that the function of the Planning Commission is to assure that the different plans (APFO,Forest Conservation,etc.)are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan before enacting or revising those plans.He said with regard to the Water and Sewer Plan,the Planning Commission holds public hearings and has the authority to recommend the amendments to the County Commissioners.Mr.Arch stated that the Water and Sewer Plan is not just for Washington County Government,it also includes the City of Hagerstown and the municipalities.He said the Planning Commission acts as the coordinator in putting it together.Mr.Lung explained the history ofthe Water and Sewer Plan,which was originally adopted in 1975 around the same time that the County adopted all of its Planning docnments.He said that the Water and Sewer Plan is mandated by State law and had been updated every two years,however,the regulations have recently been changed to update every three years.The last update was in 1994 the next one will be due in 1997.He said the unique thing about the Water and Sewer Plan is that it is not just for the County but includes the municipalities.He said that this plan affects any service providing agency in the County.Mr. Lung said that the plan contains a series of maps showing the County and those areas that have existing service and planned service.There is also a listing of proposed projects and a description of the different service areas.Mr.Lung stated that in the 1994 update they took the Urban Growth Area boundaries and the town growth area boundaries and used that as a planned service boundary.All of the land that falls within the UGA was given a Planned Service Designation.Everything outside the UGA was given a No Planned Service Designation.He said they also established some special service areas for special consideration like Rural Village and Restricted Use service areas.He said this gives them better control in the planning that goes along with water and sewer service.Mr.Iseminger explained that if a developer with a project in the Growth Area came in and there was no planned service,they would have had to get an amendment to the Water and Sewer Plan.The new provision speeds the process up,since it states that they want growth in that area and even though it is designated as planned service it may not be provided by the County and does not obligate the County to provide service.He further stated that the developer would be responsible for extending the lines and that it does 151 speed the process up.Mr.Lung said that one difference in Washington County from many other counties is the extension of water and sewer lines is development driven and it is difficult to show in our plan the actual location of planned extension of lines.By putting the entire growth area into a planned service area,when they do get a proposal in for a line extension inside the growth area,the classification is there and it saves a lot of time.Further discussion followed regarding the Urban Growth Area and the areas served by wells and septics.Mr.Holsinger asked if someone located outside of the Urban Growth Area wants to develop 100 acres does he have to go before the Planning Commission if he wants to develop it.Mr.Arch said he would have to come before the Planning Commission if he is going to subdivide it and build houses on it..Mr.Holsinger asked who is the ultimate person in giving him permission as to ifhe can build and the size of the lot.Mr.Arch said that would be the Planning Commission but that the plan would have to be signed off by a variety of agencies including the Health Department.A discussion followed regarding subdivision approval and the authority of the Planning Commission and discouraging growth outside of the Urban Growth Area and who is responsible when there are developments outside of the UGA on wells and septics that have problems and then request water and sewer.Mr.Iseminger stated that they have met with the Health Department before regarding the cumulative effect of small subdivisions with wells and septics. He said as long as the Health Department approves the plats,the Planning Commission is obligated to approve the plats.A discussion followed regarding impact fees outside the UGA and incentives for development inside the UGA and the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Rohrer stated that there may be some misunderstanding that the Planning Commission does not plan projects .and initiate them,such as economic development sites,but instead that comes from the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Phillips asked if the Water and Sewer Advisory Board could be notified when there is a project that is being expedited.Mr.Rohrer said they would be notified during the approval process.A discussion followed regarding preliminary consultations and the summary (which the Water and Sewer Department receives),Newgate Industrial Park and the design and cost of the sewer service and the funding of the service.Mr.Arch explained that Newgate is a sewer line extension and that the developer is a combination of CHIEF (who is the responsible party)and the County.He said that EDA grant money will be funding this project along with a temporary MILA loan and explained the process.Mr.Phillips asked who keeps track of CHIEF. Mr.Arch said he has a copy of their annual report that was published last week and said they could get a copy of it.Mr.Iseminger asked for a copy of the report for himself and Mr.Phillips. A discussion followed regarding keeping the Advisory Board apprised of upcoming projects and the function of the Water and Sewer Advisory Board.The Water and Sewer Advisory Board requested copies of the Water and Sewer Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Clopper asked if they get involved with sludge and where it ends up.The Advisory Board stated no.Mr.Rohrer stated a lot of their problem is that it is a politic topic and that no preparations were ever made at any of the wastewater treatment plants for storage capacity and part of the problem they have is when the sludge comes through the process,it has to go somewhere.He said that is a fairly expensive capital investment and their primary problems have been dealing with operation and maintenance issues and just trying to fix things and that will continue for another 2 years.A discussion followed regarding sludge application and that they are not doing anything with it and sludge coming into the County is being applied to fields and BNR (Biological Nutrient Removal Process).Mr.Iseminger asked ifthe infiltration problems for the County and City systems have been addressed adequately or are they still treating a lot of stormwater management.A discussion followed regarding the treatment plants and the Tributary Strategy Program.Mr. Iseminger told the Advisory Board that they need to decide what it is that they want and ask for it and if there is anything the Planning Commission can do to help they would be happy to and if they want to meet on a semi-annual basis they could do that.Mr.Arch stated that it would be a good idea to have another meeting as they get into the Sewer and Water Plan,since there will be major changes affecting the structural operation end.A discussion followed regarding the Water and Sewer Plan. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. \~~~ //Bertrand L.Iseminger,ChairmaI: 152 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 9,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September 9,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser; Donald Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff: Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners; Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Pallia Lampton. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:03 p.m. MINUTES: -In regards to the minutes of July 1,1996,Mr.Iseminger stated on page 3 under the Agricultural Preservation,to add to the motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application.He stated on page 4 under Site Plans,Staples the total building square footage is incorrect and should be 1,035,712.Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of July 22,1996 workshop meeting.Seconded by Mr. Wade.So ordered. Mr.Arch asked to add under "Site Plans",AC&T located in Smithsburg and Talley Steel located in the Industrial Park and under Other Business he asked to add a request of a one year extension of preliminary plat approval for White Oaks development.Mr.Wade moved to add the three items to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr.Arch said he is removing the APFO report from tonights agenda because they are trying to get additional information on the new September emollments. OLD BUSINESS: Bowman Development (Antietam Development): Mr.Arch stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission held this item pending a recommendation from the County Attorney concerning buffer yards.He said he met with Richard Douglas,the County Attorney,and reviewed the past activities associated with the rezoning request in that section of the Ordinance dealing with buffers.After a review of the minutes and of a chronological listing,it is the County Attorney's opinion that the adoption of the 25 foot section is invalid without a public hearing and that the Commissioners should hold a hearing on the 25 foot amendment prior to it being included in the Zoning Ordinance.A discussion followed regarding having a public hearing to address the 25 foot buffers.Mr. Iseminger stated that they did not have to take action other than to inform the developer that the language concerning the 25 foot buffer does not exist and should not have been amended in that manner. Steve Oder -Revised Concept Plan: Mr.Lung stated that at last month's meeting the Planning Commission reviewed a plan from 153 Mr.Oder proposing to subdivide 21 acres using a cluster concept design,reserving a large parcel to the rear for a house for himself.The property is located along Dam #4 Road near Downsville. Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission had objected to the original plan because of stripping of lots along the road,lack of open space and the general design not meeting the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the policies for development in rural areas.The plan has been redesigned utilizing a short cul-de-sac street that goes back into the property to serve the lots. Lots 1 through 6 range in size from 1.9 acres down to 1.1 acre and are zoned Conservation.A 5 acre open space area with a path and a half acre pond have been added.Mr.Lung stated that all of the lots access the internal street,however,the rear ofthe lots are still stripped along Dam #4 Road.Staff wants to be sure that access to these lots will be restricted to the internal street and also that the existing tree line that parallels Dam #4 Road be maintained and possibly enhanced along the south end in order to provide a screen from Dam #4 Road in order to maintain the rural character ofthe road.He said it is staff s recommendation if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve this cluster concept that they make it conditional upon assurance that once a forest stand delineation and forest conservation plan is done that the existing tree line is maintained and the existing vegetative screen may have to be enhanced along the frontage of Dam #4 Road in order to buffer the houses from the road.A discussion followed regarding the buffering,traffic in the area,common open space and the homeowners association.Mr.Moser moved to approve the use of the cluster concept with the conditions that individual lot access will be denied along Dam #4 Road and maintain an existing stand of trees or adding to it as required to provide screening.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mr.Lung reminded the .Commission that as part of the cluster subdivision and the reduction in the lot size there is also a reduction in building setbacks.Under Conservation zoning the minimum building setbacks are 50 foot front yard,50 foot rear yard,50 foot side yard.In this case since the developer is proposing to reduce the lot size from 3 acres down to 1.1 acre he has requested a reduction in the building setbacks to 40 feet for front,maintain 50 foot rear yard,and reduce side yard to 15 feet. This would be consistent with the normal setbacks under Agricultural Zoning and is also consistent with action taken on previous cluster plans.Mr.Wade moved to approve the request to reduce the setbacks to be consistent with Agricultural Zoning.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Site Plans: Before proceeding,Mr.Moser questioned the practice of reviewing site plans without the information included in the agenda.Mr.Iseminger suggested sending the consultants a letter advising them of what the Planning Commission is requiring and put them on notice that they will have to have a good reason to add items to the agenda or take action ifthey do not have them in a timely fashion. San Mar Children's Home: Mr.Goodrich stated that this site plan is being presented for information only.He proceeded to present the site plan for the San Mar Children's Home,which is located on MD Rt 66 across the road from the Fahrney-Keedy Retirement Village.He referred to the drawing and pointed out the existing buildings on the site and the proposed improvements.Mr.Goodrich explained that the property is zoned Agricultural and the Zoning Ordinance does not require a site plan.Since the additional development is significant,he felt that the Planning Commission should be aware of it.The proposal is to add another group home less than 3,000 square feet for approximately 8 to 10 people,as well as a training building.Mr.Goodrich pointed out the new parking area for the expansion and the relocated entrance.The site is served by a community water system at the Farhney-Keedy property and will be served by an on site septic system.The Permits Office is the lead agency and if everything is in order they will issue the permit.A discussion followed regarding the relocated entrance,the intersection and the water system.No action was necessary. 154 AC&T -Smithsburg: Mrs.Pietro passed out copies of the staff report.The site is located in the southeast corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Mapleville Road and is zoned Business Local.The developer is proposing to create a convenience store and gas station on 1.1 acres.The developer is proposing an approximately 3500 square foot building with canopy and 5 islands (2 diesel)with 44 parking spaces.It will be served by public water with individual septic systems.There will be a total of 6 employees over a 24 hour period.There will be 2 delivery trucks per week and 3 tanker trucks per week.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the location ofthe enclosed dumpster area,the signs, the access,landscaping and storm water management.Mrs.Pietro stated there will be a pick up lane and a by pass lane to the rear of the property.All approvals have been received except for comments from the Town of Smithsburg.Mrs.Pietro stated that,per Ed Schreiber ofthe Permits Department they first approved the site plan but withdrew it until the junk is removed from the site.A discussion followed regarding the location of the sewer and why the developer is not hooking up to it.Mr.Moser expressed concern that the County will be faced with paying to extend the sewer system at a later date.Mr.Wade stated that he wanted to know how far public sewer was from the site.Mr.Arch stated that if they are within 300 feet of the sewer line,they are required to tap in.Mr.Cump stated that the line is approximately 1,500 feet away and that the owners have looked into hooking up.Mr.Fulton,the developer,briefly spoke.He said they had several meetings with the Commissioners when they were trying to develop a McDonalds in that area.Mr.Fulton stated that they were willing to pay part ofthe bill for extension but wanted -the Commissioners to work it in when they were doing Phase I of Cavetown.He said it turned out to be $70,000 to $80,000 to run the line that distance and that a property tax abatement for a few years had been suggested to help off set the huge expense because there would be other people hooking up.He emphasized that nothing ever came of this.Mr.Wade said that the discussion evolved because Ewing Oil spent $60,000 to extend the line to their property on the Sharpsburg Pike and that is why it was the opinion of the Commissioners that it was not a requirement of the County to extend sewer to the AC&T site at the County's cost since other developers had been extending sewer as they needed it for their development.Mr.Fulton stated that at that point they decided they did not need it and it was not feasible for them to hook up.A discussion followed with Mr.Cump,the consultant,regarding the entrance that was abandoned, his meetings with the State and how the location of the entrance evolved and the traffic in the area.Mr.Iseminger stated that ifthey grant approval he thinks that John Wolford of State Highway should review it one more time to be sure that the radiuses are going to be sufficient with truck traffic.Mrs.Pietro said she spoke to John Wolford today and he did not have any problems with it,but will check with him.A discussion followed regarding the traffic flow and adding additional screening to reduce headlight glare onto the 64/66 intersection.Mr.Moser stated that he would like to hear from the Water and Sewer Advisory Board regarding the proposed sewer line.Further discussion followed regarding the sewer hookup and who would be responsible for payment and the developer's timetable.Mr.Iseminger stated they are looking for site plan approval.The only outstanding agencies are Permits and the Town of Smithsburg. He suggested sending it to the Sanitary Advisory Commission for their comments.Mr.Wade made a motion to grant site plan approval with the condition that screening be addressed,have State Highway look at the radius and add the stipulation on the plat that when sewer comes within 300 feet of the property,they will be required to extend the line and tap in.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Bowen abstained.So ordered. Talley Steel: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for Lot 3 Hunt Ridge Business Park and site plan for Talley Steel.He stated that the Business Park is located in the southwest quadrant of Interstate 81 and MD Rt.144.He said there is a large complex of commercial uses in a building off ofRt.144 and also the Maryland Emissions Station.He said that Lot 3 contains 5.6 acres to be subdivided out ofthe remaining 53 acres ofthe Hunt Ridge Business Park.This lot fronts on,and has access to Hopewell Road.The proposed use of the site is a metal fabrication facility called Talley Steel.He said they are proposing an immediate building with a future expansion to the north.The property is zoned HI,Highway Interchange.The applicant 155 obtained a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals for this use.He explained that there are two access locations onto Hopewell Road.There is a 75 foot buffer yard required under the HI zoning because of the residential development to the north.He reviewed the parking, building mounted lighting and landscaping.Mr.Lung stated that both the Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District have signed off on the site plan.He explained that storm water management will be controlled by a pond located to the rear of the property.Public water is available to the site.Sewer is provided via a private pumping station on the Hunt Ridge Business Park site.Sewage treatment is at the Hagerstown plant.The Permits Department has issued comments regarding provision of parking for the future building and a sign location still needs to be addressed on the plan.Mr.Lung said that an afforestation plan was approved previously for the entire Business Park,however,the tree planting has not survived. He said that the staff is currently in the process of working with the developer to get the forest conservation area back into compliance.Mr.Arch stated that Talley Metals is an existing business in the County in the Early Industrial Park.Mr.Iseminger asked if the site plan shows blacktop for the roads and parking etc.Mr.Lung stated that the plan indicates gravel.Mr. Iseminger expressed concern with regards to the adjacent residences and generation of dust,etc. and asked if there was a problem with blacktopping it or phasing it in.Mr.Arch said that they have a meeting with Mr.Talley this week and they can convey the Plarming Commission's concern.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals,addressing agency and staffs comments and with the condition that the gravel areas be blacktopped when the future expansion occurs.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: White Oaks -Preliminary Plat Extension: Mr.Goodrich stated that the developer is requesting a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval.He said that thePlarming Commission approved the preliminary plat on September 12, 1994 for a cluster concept plan in the southern part of the County with 20 acres of open space and are doing the final plats one at a time as they sold.Mr.Clopper moved to grant a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Trails of Little Antietam: Mr.Iseminger stated that he would tum the Chair over to Mr.Moser for this item.Mr.Lung stated that the review process for this development began a year ago with a preliminary consultation.The developer,Mr.Victor Peeke is requesting Plarming Commission approval of the use of clustering provisions outlined in the Zoning Ordinance for a portion of his proposed development.The proposed development is called Trails of Little Antietam.The site consists of 109 acres and is located east of Keedysville on Dogstreet Road.Mr.Lung referred to the concept plan and stated that the property consists of two parcels split by the abandoned B &0 Railroad right-of-way.He stated that a portion of the property containing approximately 20 acres is located in the Town of Keedysville and the remaining 89 acres is located in Washington County. Mr.Lung said that the portion in the town is zoned TR Town Residential and the portion in the County is zoned Agricultural.He said in September of 1995 they held a preliminary consultation.At that time there was a total of 69 lots proposed -34 in Town and 35 in the County.The town lots were to be served with public water and sewer and the County lots would be served by individual wells and septics.He said when the Plarming Commission reviewed the consultation summary they also approved a variance to allow the corporate boundary line to split some lots and allowed for a 10 acre parcel to be conveyed to the previous owner without public road frontage on a temporary basis until a new street is built.The Planning Commission also expressed concern about the sprawl type lot layout,environmental concerns,etc.During the consultation,the staff stated that the use of clustering might work well on this site in order to concentrate the development and preserve open space,however,this would probably require the extension of public facilities.He explained that the developer submitted a subdivision plat for 6 lots along Dogstreet Road with perc sites approved by the Health Department.The Plarming 156 Commission denied approval of the plat,because Sharpsburg Elementary school is over capacity based on APFO requirements.The denial was also based on the developer's lack of response to the Planning Commission's comments and concerns regarding design and access aspects ofthese 6 lots.The developer went to the Board of Appeals to appeal the Planning Commission's action. The Appeals Board granted a variance from the APFO to allow the 6 lot subdivision to go forward.The other concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the 6 lots are still outstanding.Mr.Lung said that since the preliminary consultation there has been considerable citizen input on this development and consultation with state agencies.As a result there was a letter issued in July from J.L.Hearn,Director of the Water Management Administration,Maryland Department of the Environment.The letter stated that the development of this property should only proceed using public utilities and that this will require an appropriate change to the County Water and Sewerage Plan.Mr.Lung stated that it is the Washington County Health Department's opinion that this directive from the State does not include the 6 lots along Dogstreet Road which have approved perc sites.He said that if an amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan is approved to address the MDE's directive,this would allow for the possible use of clustering provisions.Based on this information,the developer is proposing to proceed with the original plan for 34 lots in the town and change the concept to cluster lots in the County,in addition to the 10 acre parcel and the 6 lots along Dog Street Road.As part of the cluster there would be approximately 30 acres of common open space area provided.This would include approximately 16 acres in forest conservation easements.The open space area would be available for the use of the residents of the subdivision .and includes a trail system and will tie into the rail trail if it is ever constructed.The developer has also approached the Audubon Naturalist Society in regards to conveying approximately 25 acres of the open space area to them as a nature preserve.Mr.Lung stated that the issues that need to be addressed tonight are I)Forest Conservation issues -Washington County is responsible for reviewing Forest Conservation requirements for development in the town of Keedysville.Mr.Peeke is proposing to handle the Forest Conservation requirements for the town portion of his development,off site in the County.Based on the 15 percent minimum forest cover requirement,the developer will be required to retain approximately 16 acres of forest to meet the requirements for the proposed development in the Town and the cluster subdivision in the County.The Planning Commission needs to give its okay to allow the forest conservation requirements for the development in the Town to be provided in the County.2)The other request is approval to use the cluster provision of the Zoning Ordinance (Division VIII)which involves a reduction in setbacks and lot sizes.Mr.Lung suggested that at this time the Planning Commission should be considering approval of the maximum number oflots in the cluster, setbacks and the amount of open space.Any approval at this time should not include details regarding the cluster design such as lot sizes and layout.These items would be reviewed once the developer submits detailed plans.The cluster should be compact enough to ensure that sufficient land is reserved in the common open space area.3)Another item to be considered is the location of the forest conservation area and buffering.Mr.Lung stated that when the staff first reviewed this plan they were concerned with the rural view from Dogstreet Road entering the Town of Keedysville.He stated since the developer is proposing to remove forest in this area,they should be sensitive to the view from Dogstreet Road and if necessary require the developer to do vegetative screening.Mr.Lung stated that approval of the use of the cluster provisions would allow the developer to go forward with applying for an amendment to the County's Water and Sewer Plan to allow public water and sewer to be extended to this area.In addition to the amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan,there are several other issues that would need to be resolved before public facilities could actively be extended to the portion of Mr.Peeke's property that is not currently served.Concerning water service,he said that according to the town,water lines cannot be extended without annexation.This policy may change once the new joint water authority required by the State between Boonsboro and Keedysville is established.The other issue is the extension of sewer.Mr.Lung said that approval of a Zoning Appeal for the Sharpsburg treatment plant includes conditions which state that there cannot be any expansion of the Sharpsburg treatment plant or the service area until November of 1997.It appears that once these conditions expire,an expansion of the treatment plant or enlargement of the service area would require another public hearing for another special exception.Mr.Lung stated that even though there are a lot of additional hurdles to be overcome,it is the staff s opinion that this is the proper progression to be followed.First,the 157 approval of the use of the cluster concept.Second,the application for amendment to the Water and Sewage Plan,which would involve a joint public hearing between the County Commissioners and the Planning Commission.Third the submittal of a preliminary subdivision plat for the cluster development,and once the Water and Sewer Plan amendment is approved then the submittal of the final plat.Mr.Arch stated that it is important to remember if they approve the cluster concept,they are not approving the design as being presented,just the use of the cluster provisions.A discussion followed regarding using the cluster design,the fact that the first 6 lots are separate and the possibility that they may be on sewer,the fact that these 6 lots are not included in the cluster design and have separate access onto Dogstreet Road.Mr.Moser felt that the developer has come a long way in addressing the Planning Commissions concerns and he does not have a problem with off site forestation.Further discussion followed regarding the APFO,the schools,and the use of the cluster concept.Mr.Peeke briefly spoke regarding his proposed design,followed by a discussion.At this point,George Maharay,representing the residents in the area spoke.He expressed concern on a number of issues including the 6 lots,the 10 acres in the proposal that belongs to Mr.Diavatis and feels that the Planning Commission needs to consider the impact from the total plan,in addition there is also a question of the effect of the development on the town of Keedysville.He feels this development will just about double the population and expressed concern with the impact of this development on the schools and roads and feels they should move slowly.Mr.Moser pointed out that what is before them tonight is not the approval of any plans but the approval of the use of clustering.Another resident commented that she lives on Main Street near its intersection with Dogstreet Road and is .concerned with the amount of storm water run off that will come into her back yard,blasting and its affect on the spring and the fact that there are now more houses being proposed with the cluster design.Mr.Drew Birnbaum of Keedysville also commented.He stated he is in agreement with Mr.Maharay on the impact of this development on the APFO and that one way to address it would be to include the proposed 6 lots along Dogstreet Road to be part of the cluster.He added that Keedysville is not a targeted growth area and agrees with Mr.Maharay that they need to go slowly and asked that the Commission impose the cluster as one step towards making this work.A discussion followed regarding buffering along Dogstreet Road and the open space.Mr.Moser asked ifthis proposed plan has been presented to the town of Keedysville.Mr.Lung stated no.Mr.Moser asked the developer if he would be willing to forgo the 6 lots.Mr.Peeke responded no and that the 6 lots are larger in lot size than the lots in a nearby subdivision by Mr.Babbington.In reference to the comment on doubling the size of Keedysville,Mr.Peeke said the portion of his development in the town represents 34 lots and noted there are other approved subdivisions in the area that have not built out yet.Mr.Moser said he is aware of the growth in the area.He stated that the first question before them is the approval of off site forest conservation for the proposed subdivision in the town of Keedysville.Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve off site mitigation to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for the portion of the development in the town of Keedysville.Seconded by Mr. Bowen.So ordered.Regarding the clustering proposal,Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the cluster concept for the development ofthis property taking into consideration staff s concerns regarding buffering and establishing minimum building setbacks of an 8 foot side yard,25 foot front yard and 40 foot rear yard and to include the maximum number oflots not to exceed 66 (including the 6 lots and the I large lot)in the County portion and retention of a minimum of 30 acres of common open space.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger abstained from both motions. St.James PUD Revised Plan: At this point the chair was turned over to Mr.Iseminger.Mr.Arch stated that the proposed revision is to provide gas service to St.James Village through the use of a propane system.He explained that they will be establishing a holding facility for the propane gas with underground tanks and will have a network system going behind the lots to supply the propane.By approving the revision they will be allowing the development to have propane gas.Mr.Moser moved to approve the revised PUD plan to add the propane lines to St.James Village North.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. 158 Forest Conservation Fund: Mr.Goodrich stated he is bringing this item to the Commission for their initial review of a proposed program to use payment in lieu of funds.He referred to the outline in the agenda and proceeded to review it.He said the program proposes purchasing easements from private property owners to allow planting of new forest.This should produce a net gain in forest cover in Washington County.At this point Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the proposed program covering promoting the program,educating the owner,identifying the property,preparing the property,planting,Soil Conservation Service as the property manager,and follow-up.A discussion followed regarding the costs and value of easements,bonds and requirements to spend the money.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt before they go with this program they need to identify County owned property and to make sure that they set aside funds for priority areas.A discussion followed regarding easements and the Forestry Board and putting together some cost estimates.Mr.Iseminger asked that Eric Seifarth send a memo to the Agricultural Advisory Board to advise them of what is going on.It was the consensus to proceed with the concept presented. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. :J.~~ 159 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -SEPTEMBER 30,1996 The Washington County Planning Connnission held a workshop meeting on Monday,September 30,1996 in the Connnissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;R.Ben Clopper,Donald Ardinger, Andrew 1.Bowen,IV and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Planning Director;Robert Arch and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were:Vice-Chairman;Bernard Moser and Paula Lampton. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Highway Interchange Study Changes -Groups III and V: -Mr.Iseminger stated that they had held two public information meetings and met with the Mayor and Council of Clear Spring.Mr.Arch said he wanted to review the changes that staff has made and if the Planning Connnission is in agreement the next step would be to take the changes to the County Commissioners and schedule a joint public hearing in October. Mr.Arch stated he would review the changes for the Town of Clear Spring first since there were two people present from there.He explained that last spring public informational meetings were held for both Groups III and V.Due to connnents from the Town of Clear Spring,staff and Bert Iseminger met with the Mayor and Council of Clear Spring as well as Mr.Arch meeting again with the Town of Clear Spring and the Town of Hancock.Since that time,additional letters and correspondence were submitted from citizens,the Hancock Planning Connnission and the Clear Spring Town Council. Mr.Arch stated that for Clear Spring they had previously proposed that a large area currently zoned HI be zoned HI-I and HI-2.He said there was concern expressed by the citizens and the Town Council thatthey want to retain the rnrallook ofthe area and asked that stafflook at the water and sewer capacities.Staff looked at that interchange again and reviewed the requests from the property owners,which resulted in some changes.Mr.Arch stated that there were three significant changes from the time the zoning was proposed.1)The Town of Clear Spring has adopted a Comprehensive Plan 2)It was anticipated that there would be a growth area boundary determined,which has not occurred and 3)There has been a revised Sewer and Water Plan, which substantially changed the sewer and water extension areas.He said the proposed rezoning reflects that no town growth area has been developed.He said it also reflects the idea that the Comprehensive Plan of Washington County reconnnends that a growth area be developed.He explained they do not have a growth area but they do have an areas the surrounds the town which does have public water and sewer facilities.The plan is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan and is also consistent with existing land use patterns in the area.There is a major reduction in HI-I zoning,which will be confined in and around the interchange ramp areas.All of the HI-2 has been eliminated and there is an addition of Residential Rural and Agriculture.Mr.Arch said this proposal depends on the water and sewer service plan for direction and reviewed the location of the water and sewer.He said the area shown as Residential Rural is proposed to have water and sewer service.The Residential Rural zoning is consistent with the existing zoning above it that also has water and sewer service.He feels this is consistent with the town's request to keep the rural character of the town and consistent with the Agricultural zoning around the area.He said this addresses a lot ofthe requests they received from the citizens.Also,it addresses existing development and allows for some economic development while retaining the rural character of the area.Planning Staff recommends that this 160 be the proposed reclassification for the Clear Spring area.A discussion followed regarding the changes and the upcoming public hearing and the town growth boundary. aig Pool Mr.Arch stated that this interchange is similar to the Beaver Creek Interchange,which they previously rezoned.He said that staff originally proposed this area to have two Agricultural quadrants and two Conservation quadrants.He said that this interchange was eliminated from HI-I and HI-2 because there is no growth area or public facilities for water and sewer.He said at the meeting in Hancock there were two people who commented on the proposed zoning.Dot McDonald,real estate agent for Ali Yazdi,stated that her client purchased property for investment purposes in the future.Another gentlemen in the area wanted the entire area to be zoned Conservation.Mr.Arch said they did receive written correspondence after the public informational meeting for Conservation Zoning.He said they also received a request from Mr. Yazdi requesting either HI-lor HI-2.He said they received a letter from an attorney representing Andrew and Connie Michael requesting that a 6 acre parcel that they own be zoned either HI-lor HI-2 and that their 82 acre parcel be either HI-lor Agriculture.He said after reviewing the requests of the individuals,staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan and policies associated with the rural agricultural area and not those associated with the urban growth area so they did not recommend that any HI-lor HI-2 zoning be implemented.He said that HI-I would not be consistent with the growth area and they would apply the rural area policies.There are no 'provisions for water and sewer in the Comprehensive Plan.The Water and Sewer Plan shows no water and sewer service in these areas and there is also sensitivity for the historical and environmental issues,such as Fort Frederick,the C&O Canal and the rail to trails.Mr.Arch said that staff recommends that they do not have a problem with making it Conservation because it would probably be more appropriate because the area around it is Conservation.With regard to the request by Mr.Michael to change the section to HI they would prefer to see it as Conservation.Mr.Arch said that the area above that parcel is shown as being Conservation,but that staff would not have a problem in changing Mr.Michael's parcel to Agriculture.He said they are recommending that the Yazdi property also be zoned Agriculture because it abuts Agricultural zoning and the Exxon gas station is in the area.A discussion followed regarding the proposed changes and if they were consistent. Town of Hancock: Mr.Arch reviewed what was proposed for Hancock -eliminating one area that had a lot of steep slopes and making it Agricultural and recommending to keep the area along Warfordsburg Road as potential economic development area.He stated that at the public meeting in Hancock Terry Hepburn testified on the interchange and felt it is a prime area for development and should not be zoned Agriculture and that there were motels interested in it at one time.He referred to the bridges to Pennsylvania and felt that at some point there could be another interchange off of 1-70 to provide access down here,Mr.Arch said that if that occurred it would be a prime candidate for piecemeal rezoning.Mr.Arch said there were not too many people from Hancock at the public informational meeting and that the Mayor was hoping for some of the property owners to attend and give their position.One lady who was present said that she wanted HI-2 for her residence instead of HI-I but did not submit any correspondence.Mr.Arch said that the Mayor and Town Council did send a letter recommending that the plan be approved as presented as well as the Planning Commission for the Town of Hancock so at this point they do not have any changes for that plan. Group III -Rt.40 and 1-81.Salem Avenue and Rt.58 and 1-81 and Maugansville Road: Mr.Arch reviewed the comments from the public hearing most of which were from Mr.Groh who asked about different areas.He said Mr.Groh never stopped in to talk to him and never sent a letter.He said another gentleman requested that his property be zoned to Agriculture for tax purposes.Mr.Arch said that the zoning classification should not change his tax use and does not 161 recommend changing it because it is along 1-81.Mr.Arch stated that they are not proposing any changes for Group III.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt they have done a good job.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend that the County Commissioners take Groups III and V of the Highway Interchange Study to public hearing.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Wade abstained. So ordered. Adjournment: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~~v,:~~ 162 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 7,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday October 7, 1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser;R. Ben Clopper,Donald Ardinger and Paula Lampton.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Associate Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary;Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Absent were:Andrew J.Bowen,IV and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. Before proceeding with the meeting,Mr.Arch asked to add under Other Business the Sensitive Area amendment recommendation.Mr.Moser moved to add to the agenda the recommendation on the Sensitive Areas amendments under Other Business.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications: Jane Hershey -AD-96-02 and LeRoy and Mary Jane Myers -AD-96-04: Mr.Arch presented the Agricultural Land Preservation Applications for Jane Hershey (AD-96- 02)and LeRoy and Mary Jane Myers (AD-96-04).AD-96-02 consists of 100.95 acres,zoned Agriculture.AD-96-04 consists of 142 acres,zoned Agricultural.Both properties are located outside of the Urban Growth Area as well as are outside of the 10 year water and sewer service areas and have both been recommended by the Agricultural Board for adoption.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they approve the applications for AD-96-02 and AD-96-04 because they are consistent with the goals and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Variances: Trails of Little Antietam: At this point Mr.Iseminger turned the chair over to Mr.Moser.Mr.Lung presented the variance for the Trails of Little Antietam.He explained that the developer is proposing to create 6 lots using a private lane via a single access onto Dog Street Road.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the history of the property.He said that the request is based on comments the Planning Commission made last November when they reviewed the Preliminary Consultation.He said at the time of the consultation the concept plan showed 6 individual driveways accessing Dog Street Road.At the consultation meeting,the Planning Commission endorsed the staffs comments regarding preserving the stone wall and to reduce the number of accesses onto Dog Street Road.Mr.Lung commented that the developer was not present when the consultation was presented to the Planning Commission.He said some time later a subdivision plat was submitted for the first 6 lots and that the number of accesses had been reduced to 4 by using shared driveways.The Plauning Commission was not satisfied with the revised plan.The 6 lot subdivision plat was denied due to school inadequacy based on the APFO and the access issue.The developer was not present at the meeting.Since that time,the school issue has been resolved through a variance from the APFO granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.The developer's consultant is preparing to re-submit the subdivision plat for the first 6 lots.Mr.Lung said that the developer is proposing the same lot configuration previously shown but instead of using individual or shared 163 driveways there will be one entrance onto Dog Street Road located within a 30 foot wide panhandle between lots 3 and 4.He said there will have to be wording in the deeds setting up right-of-ways and responsibilities for maintenance since the access drive will be crossing several properties.Mr.Lung said that the existing stone wall along Dog Street Road will be maintained with this configuration.There are also some scattered trees that the Planning staff recommends to be preserved for a buffer with the access road being behind the wall.Mr.Lung said that the stone wall does not extend across lots I,2 and 3.The staff recommends that if the Planning Commission approves the variance that it be conditional upon a requirement that there be plantings done between the Dog Street Road and the access road of native species trees and shrubs that would soften the impact of the lots along the road.Mr.Lung said there are several alternatives to this design.The first one is the staff s original recommendation that these lots be served by an internal street such as a cul-de-sac.Mr.Lung said that staff has discussed the design with the developer and the developer feels that due to physical constraints of the site,this type of configuration is impossible because of the topography.The other alternative is what is proposed and the third one would be to reduce the number of lots.A discussion followed regarding the stone wall.Mr.Lung pointed out that the lots have been increased in size to approximately 2 acres each.He said that once the lots are increased to two acres there is a provision in the County Storm Water Management Ordinance that the County Engineer may waive storm water management requirements for the large lots.He said that he checked with the County Engineer and was told that it does not necessisarily mean that they will waive the storm water management requirements.He said they will have to wait and see the run off .computations.Mr.Lung said if that is the case then this configuration will not work and that this design is contingent upon getting the storm water management waived by the County Engineer. Mr.Moser expressed concern with who will be responsible for the stone wall if the road is widened.A discussion followed regarding the wall,the open space,the County Engineers requirements regarding road improvements,the access,the common area,the creation of a homeowners association,deed conveyance and the Zoning Board of Appeals.Mr.Ardinger moved to grant the variance to create the 6 lots utilizing a private lane to provide access via a single entrance onto Dog Street Road,with the condition that the stone wall in the vicinity of lots 4 through 6 be maintained along with the existing trees behind the wall and with the condition that plantings of native trees and shrubs should be provided along the frontage of lots 1 through 3 in order to maintain the rural view from the north side of Dog Street Road and that the plantings be located behind the future right-of-way dedication line.Seconded by Pallia Lampton.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered.Mr.Maharay briefly spoke regarding the proposed wells and septics for the 6 lots.At this point the chair was returned to Mr.Iseminger. Brian and Susan Albert: Mr.Lung presented the request from Brian and Susan Albert to create a lot without public road frontage.The property is located off of Harvey Road west of Clear Spring and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.and Mrs.Albert own approximately 30 acres located at the very end of the portion of Harvey Road that is maintained by the County.Mr.Lung said that until a detailed survey is done,it is hard to tell how much frontage the Alberts have on Harvey Road,it appears to come to a point at the end of the pavement.The road continues as a stone road through the Alberts property and goes over the mountain and connects with Rt.40.Mr.Lung said that the town of Clear Spring has a right-of-way across the road to use as a secondary access to their water reservoir.There is also an adjacent property owner who has the right to use this lane. Mr.Lung explained that on this 30 acre tract there are two existing houses.Mr.and Mrs.Albert are proposing to subdivide the tract so each house would be on its own lot of approximately 3.5 acres each.Mr.Lung said that the County's adequacy policy would not come into play because the lots contain existing dwellings and that by doing this subdivision it would bring the property more in line with the current Zoning Ordinance requirements which allows only one principle dwelling per lot of record.A discussion followed regarding the remaining lands.Mr.Moser moved to grant the variance to create a lot without public road frontage.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. 164 Subdivisions: Leon Price.Lots 1-4: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Leon Price lots 1-4.The property is located on the north side of Mondell Road near Sharpsburg and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that in July the Planning Commission denied this plat due to Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)considerations for school inadequacy in Sharpsburg.The action was appealed to the Board of Appeals and they approved a variance from the APFO to allow the subdivision to proceed.Mr.Lung stated that it was the Appeal Board's opinion that since the subdivision was already in the works and the developer's consultant was not aware of the school adequacy problem at the time they made application and since there were only 4 lots involved,they granted a variance.A discussion followed regarding the APFO,the Board of Appeals variance and the school capacity problem.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung said that the application is back before the Planning Commission to rescind their previous denial and to approve the plat based on the revisions.Mr.Moser moved to grant subdivision approval for lots I through 4. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Rock 'N Spring: Mr.Goodrich referred to his memo of September 25,1996 regarding two projects,Rock 'N Spring and the Lightner property.Mr.Goodrich said that the developer is proposing that these two projects share the same site to meet the Forest Conservation retention requirements.He referred to his surmnary in the agenda packet and stated that there are some issues that need to be addressed.First,is offsite retention of existing forest an acceptable form of mitigation for the Rock'N Spring parcel and if so is the spot where the mitigation is proposed to take place,which is on the Lightner property,an appropriate place for forest retention. Mr.Goodrich explained that the Bowman Group recently purchased the Lightner property,which is located at the interchange ofI-81 and MD 68,south of Williamsport.He said they had a preliminary consultation on this property a few months ago when the Bowman Group was proposing to establish a storage trailer storage and maintenance facility.He referred to the drawing of the Lightner property and noted the currently forested acres which consists of approximately 30.5 acres.The entire site is 63 acres in size.Mr.Goodrich stated that it is important to remember that the development that will occur on this property will be retaining on site forest to meet its Forest Conservation obligation. Mr.Goodrich stated that the developer has an option to purchase the Rock 'N Spring property. He noted that the site is 9.2 acres in size,completely forested and that they have an approved forest stand delineation.He said that the property is located at the interchange of Halfway Boulevard and I -81.There are no development plans at this time.They propose to completely clear the site to facilitate marketing.This will necessitate an application for a grading permit which will cause the mitigation requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance to kick in. The proposal is to mitigate the Rock 'N Spring clearing through retention of existing forest on the Lightner site.He explained that clearing all 9.2 acres offorest will require planting 4.8 acres and referred to the area to be retained shown on the plan of the Lightner property.A discussion ensued where it was revealed that the Bowman Group wished to clear the entire site for easier marketing but there is no proposal for development at this time.There are no priority areas on the site.Commission members did not appear to object to the concept of off-site retention as a form of mitigation for commercial development but it also wanted some effort at on-site retention to be made during development design and review.The Commission had reservations about allowing clearing of the site without knowing what the later development will be.Mr Goodrich noted that calculation of the Break Even Point,or the amount of clearing that is permitted with no mitigation,allows removal of approximately 60%of the existing forest. It was explained that the area proposed for off-site retention as mitigation for clearing on the 165 Rock N'Spring site is located partially in the floodplain and also has an existing easement to the National Park Service as part of the C & 0 Canal National Historical Park.The land is already restricted by the Park service and Floodplain Management Ordinance.The Commission did not express a blanket objection to mitigation with floodplain areas but wanted agreement from the Park Service before placing the forest retention easement on the same area already under easement. In regards to the request to do off site mitigation on the Lightner property including the floodplain area and the C&O Canal easement area,Mr.Iseminger said he would like to see some correspondence from the National Park Service on that easement.Mr.Moser moved that the Plarming Commission agrees to setting aside the Park Service and Flood Plain area with proper correspondence from the Park Service for the Lightner property.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.A discussion followed. Site Plans: Huyetts Business Park.Lot 8: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for development of Lot 8 of Huyetts Business Park.He said that Lot 8 was approved on a subdivision plat for Huyetts Business Park some time ago.The site is located off of MD Route 63 just north of the 1-70 interchange.Mr.Lung said the site plan is ·for a warehouse,office shell building on 1.21 acres and is zoned HI.He said that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the 75 foot buffer yard requirements down to 10 feet. He explained that the adjoining property has a dwelling on it that is some distance away.An 80 x 125 foot building served by public water and sewer is being proposed.Access to the site will be off of Business Park Way,a new county road.The storm water management on the site is being proposed temporarily to the rear and will eventually be handled by a regional facility that will handle the entire business park.Mr.Lung said that forest conservation was addressed at the subdivision stage and for this lot they are using payment in lieu of afforestation.Mr.Lung said that staff had some concerns regarding the proposed use of the building.At this time the developer wants to get the building up to attract a tenant,they do not know the number of employees,the hours of operation,freight delivery requirements,etc.Mr.Lung said that there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which allows the Plarming Commission to grant Preliminary Site Plan approval.He explained that they do this often for County shell buildings. They provide as much information as possible on the plan to show that they meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and prior to occupancy they submit a detailed site plan verifying that they have enough parking spaces and meet the loading requirements.The plan before them shows future parking,landscaping,buffering within the 10 foot buffer yard and building mounted lighting.Mr.Lung said they are requesting preliminary site plan approval with the final plan to be submitted at such time when they know who the tenant will be.He said he has verbal approvals from Water and Sewer and is waiting for written comments.A discussion followed regarding whether the parking area is paved or graveled.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval contingent on agency approvals and to give the developer the right to begin construction with the Preliminary approval and give staff the authority to grant final site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Bowman Travel Plaza: Mr.Lung said that last month they held a consultation for Bowman Travelers Plaza.He stated that it is not a County requirement that a preliminary consultation be held and that it was held at the request of the developer.The property is located at the intersection of Hopewell Road and Halfway Boulevard.At this point,the developer's representative,Mr.Dave Selner proceeded to give an overview of the project phasing.He stated that the current site contains 26-27 acres,and has not been improved in some time.He said there are some service buildings on the site.Mr. Selner said they felt they could significantly upgrade the appearance and viability of this major 166 intersection to a high level and still not radically change the current use.He referred to the plat and pointed out the access into the site leading to the gasoline pumps for 4 wheel vehicles,there would also be a convenience store with a truck fueling area to the rear.He said they are proposing to bring trucks down Halfway Boulevard to the intersection as they currently do for the AC&T project and tum left onto Hopewell Road and then a left hand tum into the site.He stated that the plan presented tonight shows the full build out which they envision will take place within 3 to 5 years.He said they are proposing a 12,000 to 13,000 square foot convenience store with express food,a full service restaurant,truck fueling areas,an automobile car wash,a strip center with about 4 or 5 stores and possibly a grocery or small department store and on the comer a fast food restaurant and a 60 to 80 room hotel.He stated that all of the heavy duty truck business would be conducted at the rear of the site.He said that is their 5 year plan,but in the interim they are proposing to have the gasoline pumps,the 12,000 to 13,000 foot convenience store,about half of the proposed truck fueling facilities,the car wash and a truck wash for the first phase.He referred to the plat and pointed out the areas for landscaping and storm water management.He stated that the parking for the trucks in Phase I would remain out front and in Phase II all of the truck parking would be in the rear.Also in Phase I,the existing buildings would remain in place with some screening.Mr.Selner stated that they are projecting capital outlay of close to 20 million dollars for the entire project,they feel there will be approximately 225 employees (including part time)and there would be a substantial addition to the tax base as a result of this development.Mr.Iseminger asked if they will be starting this project in the next year.Mr.Selner stated if all goes well they wanted to start by the end of the first quarter of ·1997.Mr.Lung explained the planning staffs's concerns outlined in the consultation summary. A discussion followed regarding phasing,traffic count increases and developer involvement with offsite improvements.Mr.Arch stated that the County Engineer is requiring a traffic study. Mr.Selner stated that there are plans to extend this road to MD 63 and 144 and once that roadway is completed out to that section of the County,that will be strategic entry area to the Weasel Boulevard Valley Mall area.The Planning Commission concurred with the staffs comments. Happv Hills: Mr.Goodrich presented the consultation for Happy Hills.He explained there is currently a campground on part of the property with 200 camp sites.The developer is proposing in time to create a residential subdivision with a new street and 60 lots.He said there are three large issues that came up during the consultation.I)The provision of water and sewer service to the new development site.A package treatment plant has been approved for the camp site and the original proposal was to use the treatment plant for the 60 new lots.He said use of community systems would be inconsistent with the Water and Sewer Plan and the Comprehensive Plan because it promotes development in the rural areas.A Water and Sewer Plan amendment would be necessary and would have to analyze the balance of 60 wells and septics or one treatment system.2)The proposed dead end road is 5,000 feet long.At some time in the future,the Commission will need to address the length issue.3)Staff advised of the availability of clustering and the need for Planning Commission approval if it was to be used. Mr.Goodrich said he briefly spoke to the developer prior to the meeting and believes that the proposal has been changed to lower the number of lots to 24 and make the lots larger in size.He said staff will still have the question of the Water and Sewer Plan amendment.Mr.Arch asked if the road being proposed will be dedicated to the County.Mr.Goodrich said yes and that there is a road that goes from Seavolt Road into the campground and this road is proposed to hook onto that road.He said they were very clear that the County public road standards would have to be met from Seavolt Road to the end of the proposed road.Mr.Arch said if they are going to build that much road,he would strongly encourage that they get an engineer to do a cost estimate because they could be looking at a million to half million dollars in road improvements.A discussion followed regarding the road improvements,using the cluster concept and preserving the open space.Mr.Iseminger suggested at some point when the developer makes a decision they might want to bring it back to the Planning Commission for their review before investing a lot of time and money. 167 Antietam Acres: Mr.Iseminger referred to the summary and said his only problem is to be sure that storm water management is taken care of because he is aware of problems in that area and if there is a problem with drainage on the site to be sure it is taken care of.He said they need to show on the plat that they will provide for off street vehicular parking and that the Planning Commission concurred with the comments in the summary. OTHER BUSINESS: APFO Periodic Report: Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they continue the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Sensitive Areas: Mr.Iseminger referred to the comments they received at the public hearing and asked if there was any merit that the Mt.Briar Swamp and Sideling Creek Water Shed be added.A discussion .followed regarding going ahead with what they had presented at the public hearing,well head protection and impact fees.Mr.Moser moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-96-09,SO 96-01 and CP 95-02 because they are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated they were recommended to be adopted as advertised. Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch stated that they will be holding the Highway Interchange meeting in Clear Spring.He said at some point in time he would like to schedule a workshop meeting with the Planning Commission and staffto discuss some items that were brought up tonight.He said he will try to start a process to update the Comprehensive Plan most likely next year and having a consultant do it.He said that they may be able to get a grant to do the work and wants to sit down with the .Planning Commission to decide to focus on certain areas and to get their thoughts and ideas.Mr. Iseminger agreed and said he would like to have a public meeting to introduce to the public who is doing the work,what is being done and where they are going and to get their comments. Adjournment: Tho"b,ing no furtbcr b""~,tho ~ting "'jO~'~ 6~1.Iseminger,&airrnan 168 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-NOVEMBER 4,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday November 4, 1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,R.Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton, Donald Ardinger and Andrew J.Bowen,IV.Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner; Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary; Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were:Vice-Chairman;Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio;James R. Wade. 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 August 5,1996.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Gerald Rhodes: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Gerald Rhodes to create a new lot via the simplified plat process without road frontage.Mr.Lung explained that Mr.and Mrs.Rhodes own Lot 21 in the Mountain View Estates Subdivision in the Big Pool area.The lot is 12.45 acres in size.The zoning is Conservation. The owner is proposing to subdivide out a 7.45 acre parcel for conservation purposes using the simplified plat process.The remaining 5 acres would contain the existing dwelling where they currently live and it would continue to have its public road frontage via a panhandle onto Garrison Hollow Road.Mr.Lung said that the panhandle is 25 feet wide and a little over 400 feet long.He explained that the 7.45 acre lot would be done on a simplified plat not for development purposes that it would not have any road frontage.The new parcel would have a right-of-way granted across the remainder of Lot 21 for access.He said that the Subdivision Ordinance allows these type of lots to be created by the simplified plat process for agricultural purposes and requires that a note be placed on the plat stating that it is not for development.If they want to develop it they would have to go before the Planning Commission for approval.A discussion followed regarding the length of the panhandle and the purpose for subdividing the property at this time.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant the variance to create a lot without public road frontage.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Charles and Susan Blake: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Charles and Susan Blake to create a new building lot without public road frontage with access to be provided by an existing private drive.The property is located on the east side of Crystal Falls Drive south of Smithsburg.He stated that the Blakes lot consisting of .81 acres was created prior to zoning.In 1980,Virginia Smith,Mrs. Blake's mother conveyed to them via the simplified process,2.19 acres (parcel A).Mr.Lung stated that she did the same thing for her son on an adjacent parcel,which brought them both up to about 3 acres each.He said that the zoning boundary in that area between Agricultural and Conservation runs between the Blakes original lot and Parcel A.He stated that when Mrs.Smith created the lots she went before the Zoning Appeals Board and they granted her a variance from 169 lot width in the Conservation zoning.Mr.Lung noted that in April of last year the Blakes came before the Planning Commission to subdivide this property into 2 lots so they could give each of their children a lot and the request was to create the lots without public road frontage.Mr.Lung said that staff informed them that if it was approved that they would have to go before the Appeals Board to request variances from minimum lot size,setbacks,lots widths etc.The variance was turned down because they were unable to establish a hardship.Since that time,Mr. and Mrs.Blake have changed their plans and instead of dividing the property into two lots they are now proposing to turn the 2.19 acres into a development plat for one lot so that their son can build a house on the parcel.Mr.Lung stated that the lot has access two different ways.One access would be off of Hidden Valley Road,which is a private road that currently serves at least 3 dwellings and another way would be off of the Blakes Driveway.Mr.Lung said that the Blakes feel their hardship is that even if they could provide the lot with road frontage it would not be useable frontage because of the steep embankment along Crystal Falls Drive.Mr. Iseminger asked ifthey approve the variance to create the lot without public road frontage would they then have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for other variances.Mr.Lung said yes because before a subdivision plat could be approved to turn the simplified lot into a buildable lot they would have to get an okay from the Appeals Board on lot size,lot width and building setbacks.A discussion followed regarding access off of Hidden Valley Road and the other variances.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern with access off of Hidden Valley Drive and said there would be the same situation next door.He suggested that they make a site inspection and requested an opinion on the condition of the private road from the County Engineer.It was the .consensus of the Planning Commission that the site inspection would occur between now and the next regular meeting.Mrs.Lampton moved to table the variance request until the December meeting or until the Planning Commission has an opportunity to make a site inspection. Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Mr.Clopper abstained.So ordered. Subdivisions: Ray Lewis and Donna Kay McCauley,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the subdivision plat for Ray Lewis and Donna Kay McCauley.The property is located on the west side of Wishard Road and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 4 single family lots ranging in size from I to 2 acres,for a total of 5.8 acre subdivision with 20 acres remaining.The site will be served by individual wells and septics and all lots will access Wishard Road.The forest stand delineation indicates that one acre needs to be afforested and they have requested to pay fee in lieu of into the Conservation fund in the amount of $5,096 since it is farm land and there is no existing forest on the site.All of the approvals are in.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the request for payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the preliminary/final plat. Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Hobart Luppi: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Hobart Luppi.He reminded the Commission that they granted a variance from the panhandle length and to use off site retention for forest conservation.The property is located on the south side of Cool Hollow Road off of Rt.40A. Mr.Lung explained that the owner is proposing to create 3 lots out of 74 acres zoned Agriculture.Lot I contains 5.83 acres,Lot 2 contains 9.474 acres and Lot 3 contains 9.82 acres. The remaining 45.98 acres contains the house and farm buildings and Mr.Luppi has stated that he has no further plans for subdivision of this property.The lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems and each lot will have its own driveway off of Cool Hollow Road. Access to Lots 2 and 3 will be across panhandles about 850 feet in length.Mr.Lung stated that when the variances were granted there was some discussion regarding the Fire Department concerning adequacy for fire fighting equipment and that has been worked out between Mr. Luppi's consultant and the Funkstown Fire Department to ensure that the culverts and the construction of the driveways will be sufficient to handle the size of the equipment that the fire 170 department has.Mr.Lung stated that there is a 100 year flood plain associated with some of these lots and Mr.Luppi will have to obtain waterway construction permits from MDE prior to the construction of the driveways across that flood plain and they are currently in the process of obtaining those permits.Mr.Lung stated in regards to the Forest Conservation Ordinance,the worksheet calls for 4.72 acres of afforestation for the subdivision and about .25 acre will be handled by retention of existing forest on Lot 3.He noted there is not a lot of existing forest on the site.The remainder of the forest retention (4.5 acres)will take place on another farm offsite, which is owned by Mr.Luppi.This use of off-site retention was approved with the condition that Mr.Luppi retain the area in the flood plain across the proposed lots in its natural condition as a stream buffer and there will be note on the plat stating same.All agency approvals are in except the Health Department.They received a revision about a week ago addressing technical questions they had.Mr.Lung said he spoke to the sanitarian on the phone this morning and was informed that the plat looked okay but they had not entered the approval into the computer and they should be getting it this week.Mr.Iseminger asked if there is a note on the plat regarding Urban Best Management Practices.Mr.Lung said that needs to be added.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary/final subdivision plat approval contingent upon Health Department approval,and adding the note regarding Urban Best Management Practices.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding scheduling a meeting for a site inspection of the Blakes property.Mr.Iseminger stated that he wanted Terry McGee and Paul Prodonovich to be present -and would try to do it one day at lunch. OTHER BUSINESS: Comments by the Planning Commission on the City of Hagerstown Comprehensive Plan: Mr.Arch stated that he sent the Commission excerpts on the Comprehensive Plan from the City of Hagerstown and that he wanted to get input from the Planning Commission.He stated that at this point the County Commissioners did not have any comments.He also noted that the City Planing Commission held a public meeting and the next step will be for the City Council to hold a meeting on its adoption.In a joint meeting with the Commissioners the City Council said they have not looked at it too much and pretty much left it in the hands oftheir Planning Commission. Mr.Arch said there are about 100 pages to the total Comprehensive Plan.He said that staff has looked at it and that he is in the process of compiling staff s comments and will submit them to the City.Mr.Goodrich attended the public hearing the other night and proceeded to give a summation of the meeting.He stated that the City's consultant gave a presentation of what the plan includes.He noted that the plan breaks the City down in neighborhoods,with goals, policies and recommendations for changes in the neighborhoods as well as some broad overall recommendations in change and policy to help revitalize the City.He said that the theme of the presentation last week was that a lot of the City's current problems with keeping businesses downtown and keeping people living in the City has to do with the County growth area boundary.The fact that it is too big and too flexible and is more attractive to development than the City and is a major focus of things that need to be fixed in order to revitalize the City.Mr. Goodrich said that as far as the public input there were 7 people present in the audience and only one person spoke about the plan in detail and that was Joe Swope.He said that Mr.Swope's comments were similar to those he had concerning the County's Comprehensive Plan.He said there were a few questions about the transportation plan.Mr.Iseminger stated that he did not see anything that was in direct conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan but noted that the City wanted development to occur within the boundary of the City of Hagerstown and if it is not within the boundary they will extend the services as long as they can annex them into the City of Hagerstown and was not sure ifhe agreed with that philosophy.Mr.Arch said some of the discussion that staff has had is that the plan itself may not be a pure land use document but more of an economic revenue generator for the City of Hagerstown.Mr.Arch expressed concern that no legislation action taken by the County;will necessarily change land use and economic issues in the City of Hagerstown.He felt the City has to create the environment that people moving here from other areas or who are moving out of the City of Hagerstown want to live in.He said 171 he does not have any problem with development taking place in the City of Hagerstown but has some concern and knows the Commissioners have some concerns that if the development cannot go in the City of Hagerstown,especially economic development project,that they may bypass the County altogether.A discussion followed regarding the fairgrounds and the existing stadium. Mr.Arch explained that staff has attached two drawings concerning water and sewer service areas.He said that the City plan refers to the County's Urban Growth Area.He noted that the County's Urban Growth Area boundary was created in a joint effort of the City and County with public hearings etc.He noted that this is not just for the City of Hagerstown and pointed to Funkstown and Williamsport and Smithsburg and Clear Spring.He referred to the City's Urban Service Boundary,which is where they want development to take place.A discussion followed regarding the City's priorities,possible problems for water line locations and treatment plants. Mr.Iseminger commented that whoever did the original growth area for the County did a terrific job and that a lot of the growth has followed the boundary.Mr.Arch said that the State feels that the City has done a good job because it fits in pretty much with the State's goals in trying to keep development in the Urban areas.Mr.Arch said that a concern of the County Commissioners is that they do not want to see growth retarded from the areas of the Conococheague waste water sewer system.Mr.Iseminger asked if anyone has taken a realistic look at that area for development and what areas will develop industrially and commercially since these types of uses will not fill that plant up as much as a large scale residential development will and he is concerned that it will be a long time before the Conococheague plant will be paying for itself. Mr.Iseminger commented on page 79 regarding annexation and feels that sums up what the City .is after and proceeded to review it.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the City of Hagerstown has its highest population ever,their home ownership program and the need to expand that program,and that the City needs to pay attention to the suggestions of the Chamber of Commerce.Mr.Iseminger referred to page 77 regarding density bonuses and asked if there is an opportunity for the County to use them for TDR's.Mr.Arch said maybe down the road.He added that he does not have a problem with creating a primary Urban Growth Area and a secondary urban Growth Area and noted that when the City refers to sprawl that the County did not build Wesel Boulevard or Hagerstown Commons,which were created by the City.A discussion followed regarding what the City of Baltimore is doing to encourage growth.Mr. Iseminger said he would like to meet with the City to work towards one entity for water and sewer and feels they should hold open the idea ofTDR's but does have a problem with the proposed annexation.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ~ Bert~and 1.Iseminger,Chairman 172 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 2,1996 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 2,1996 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Bernard 1.Moser,R. Ben Clopper,Donald Ardinger,Andrew 1.Bowen,IV and Ex-Officio James R.Wade.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 Paula Lampton. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Bowen moved to approve the minutes of the workshop meeting of August 26,1996. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Charles and Susan Blake,Variance Request: Mr.Lung explained that this variance request to create a lot without public road frontage was tabled at the November meeting so that the Planning Commission could make a site inspection. He said that the Planning Commission requested comments from the fire company and the County Engineer.Mr.Lung stated that he spoke to Ron Jeter,Chief of the Smithsburg Fire Department and was informed that if there was an emergency at the property they would get to it. The condition of the road and the time of year could affect their response time.The County Engineer attended the site visit and submitted his comments in writing.A copy was forwarded to the Planning Commission.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer does not support the request for the variance and proceeded to review the County Engineer's written comments.Mr. Lung said that the County Engineer has been consistent with his opposition to the approval of subdivision lots on roads that are not built to County standards and dedicated to the County.Mr. Lung stated that there is provision in the Subdivision Ordinance for immediate family member conveyances with signed certification absolving the County for any responsibility for the roads and restricting sale for a period of 10 years.He further stated that even if the Planning Commission granted approval of the variance,the Blakes will have to obtain variances from the Board of Appeals to reduce the minimum lot area from 3 acres down to 2.19 acres,reducing the lot width from 300 feet to 107 feet and there would also be setback variances required depending on the location of the house on the lot before approval of the subdivision plat can be granted.A discussion followed regarding the family member statement,how the existing simplified lot was created (not for development purposes)and the fact that there is potentially the same situation with another simplified parcel next door and the location of the property.Mr.Bowen expressed concern with the road to the lot being very steep and without considerable improvement there would be problems getting fire equipment to it.Mr.Bowen made a motion to deny the variance based on the comments received from the Fire Department,the County Engineer and the Planning Commission's site inspection.Seconded by Mr.Moser.A vote was taken.Mr. Bowen,Mr.Moser,Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Iseminger voted aye.Mr.Wade and Mr.Clopper abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger informed the Blakes that they may appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 173 NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Ronald Forsyth -Create a lot without public road frontage: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Ronald Forsyth.The property is located on the north side of Fairview Road and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Forsyth has a 5 acre tract ofland and is proposing to create 2 lots because there are 2 existing dwel1ings on this tract now.Part of the land is to be conveyed via the simplified plat procedure.Mrs.Pietro said that if Lot 8 is created it will have no public road frontage.She said that in the application,Mr.Forsyth indicated that due to the location of the existing dwelling and the mobile home,that to put in a panhandle would not be reasonable to access Fairview Road because of the location of the existing septic reserve area and the location of the house.She said that rear and front yard setback variances for Lots 7 and 8 were granted by the Board of Appeals recently.The State Highway Administration does not have any objection to the proposed variance but did indicate that if the variance is granted that a note be put on the plat stating that Lot 8 would have the right to use the existing gravel driveway to access Fairview Road.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance request to create a lot without public road frontage with a note on the plat giving right-of-way to Lot 8. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Darin Longerbeam -Variance request to create 3 lots without public road frontage: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Darin Longerbeam.The property is located at the end of Dargan School Road.Mr.Lung explained that Dargan School Road dead ends at the County LandfiU Transfer Station and the Potomac Valley Fire Station.He stated there is a parking lot for the transfer station and the fire station located at the end of the road.In 1989 the Planning Commission granted a variance to aUow 2 lots to be subdivided,approximately 12 acres each,without any road frontage.The property abutted County owned property,however it is about 100 feet from the actual end of the road.Mr.Lung stated that this subdivision was approved using the simplified plat process not for development and the two lots were approved for Conservation or Agricultural purposes only and not for development.There is no existing development on these two lots.Mr.Lung stated that prior to the approval of the subdivision,the property owner at the time went before the County Commissioners to request permission to have access across the parking lot to reach Dargan School Road.The Commissioners approved the request and required that an existing fence be relocated and that a new fence be built along the side of the property line due to the location of a landing pad for emergency helicopters close by. He said that Mr.Longerbeam is interested in purchasing Lot 2 and would like to subdivide it into 3 building lots.Lot 1 would be for himself,Lot 2 and the remainder would be for immediate family members.AU of the lots would have access to Dargan School Road across the existing lane.Mr.Lung said that according to the County Engineer,Dargan School Road is at least 16 feet wide out to Harpers Ferry Road and this subdivision would meet the County's Road Adequacy Policy as far as the number of lots accessing this road.He said that the configuration of the lots is somewhat suspect in regards to compliance with Subdivision Ordinance design requirements.He said they are not actuaUy panhandle lots,however,but they are in a stacked configuration which the Subdivision Ordinance does not permit.In addition,the last lot is at least 700 feet away from the access to Dargan School Road.Ifthese lots were designed with panhandles,the last one would be 700 feet long.Mr.Lung also noted that the owner of Lot I recently inquired to the Planning Department about possible subdivision and building on his lot and was informed that a variance would be necessary.This was not further pursued.According to the application,the reason for the subdivision is that the applicant's parents are getting older and the son would like to live near them to take care ofthem and the second lot is for his sister and her family.Mr.Lung said that as far as the staff is concerned they do not see this as a hardship because the applicant does not yet own the property.Mr.Lung said that staff believes the best approach for development of either one of these lots would be for the owners or developers to get together and approach the County about the possibility of extending Dargan School Road and constructing a cul-de-sac on their property.This would allow them to 174 subdivide in compliance with the Ordinance using panhandles to meet all of the requirements of the Ordinance regarding road frontage and access.A discussion followed regarding accessing the property and the gates for the landfill.Mr.Lung stated that when these lots were created it was not for development.Mr.Moser said if they grant this variance they would be hard pressed if the adjoining owner comes in with a similar request.Further discussion followed.Mr.Moser moved to deny the variance request due to the fact that a hardship was not proven.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger informed the applicant that they may appeal this decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Cross Creek: Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for Cross Creek.The developer is requesting to use the simplified process to create a lot for acquisitional purposes.Mr.Goodrich referred to the plat in the agenda packet and the area outlined on the plat marked office and business park as well as Lot 1.He said that the purpose is to transfer ownership for development by a separate entity sometime in the future.At that time a development plat will be submitted.Mr.Townsley, consultant,of Fox and Associates,Inc.said it is their intention to subdivide the property into single family lots.He explained that the plat will have a note stating "for acquisition purposes only",so they will have to re-submit it for development with the preliminary plans,forest conservation,etc.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked if staff had a problem.Mr. Goodrich stated no and that they wanted a note on the plat stating not for development purposes . .Mr.Ardinger moved to grant a variance to use the simplified plat process for a nonagricultural purpose with the condition that notes be added to the plat stating not for development purposes. Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. Van Lear Manor -Request for One Year Extension of Final Plat Approval: Mr.Arch presented the request for a one year extension of final plat recording for Van Lear Manor.Mr.Moser asked if there were any changes in the Ordinance that would impact these lots.Mr.Arch stated no.Mr.Moser moved to grant a one year extension of the final plat recording Section 13.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Subdivisions: Buri:esser Subdivision Lots 3.4.&5.Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Lots 3,4 and 5 for the Burgesser's subdivision along with the Simplified Forest Stand Delineation and Conservation Plan.The property is located on the south side of Fairview Road and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 3 single family lots approximately I acre each.The total site area is 3.3 acres with 40 acres remaining.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics.Lots 3 and 4 will share an entrance onto Fairview Road in order to comply with access spacing.Mrs. Pietro stated that all approvals are in.She said that the remaining lands contain forest and will not be touched and forest retention will be on site.Mr.Moser moved to grant approval of the Simplified Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Trails of Little Antietam.Phase I.Lots 1-6.Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Iseminger stated that he would turn the Chair over to Mr.Moser for this item.Mr.Lung proceeded to present the preliminary/final subdivision plat and forest conservation plan for Phase 1,Lots 1 through 6,Trails of Little Antietam.The property is located on the north side of Dogstreet Road,just east of the town of Keedysville and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that a plat was previously submitted for the 6 lots and was denied by the Planning Commission due to the APFO requirements for school adequacy at Sharpsburg Elementary School and other considerations.The Board of Appeals granted a variance from the APFO on June 19,1996 to allow the creation of these lots within the Sharpsburg School district.Mr.Lung stated that 175 following the granting ofthe variance,the applicant submitted a new preliminary/final plat and forest conservation plan.Mr.Lung said that each lot is over 2 acres in size and explained that the subdivision is divided by a 30 foot wide strip ofland that is part of the 83.26 acres of remaining land.He said there is 3.70 acres of forest retention area proposed along the rear of the lots and 1.78 acres offorest is to be cleared in the vicinity of Lots 1 and 2.Each lot will have its own well and septic system.Mr.Lung said that perc tests and septic reserve areas have been approved by the Health Department and as a point of information these lots are not subject to the MDE directive that the applicant's property shall not be developed on wells and septics.He said that the existing wells in the vicinity have been located and shown on the plat.Each lot has frontage on Dogstreet Road.In order to minimize the number of individual accesses,the Planning Commission granted a variance to allow the lots to access Dogstreet via a single shared private drive location between Lots 3 and 4.The existing stone fence that runs along Lots 4,5 and 6 is to be retained and a vegetative landscape strip along the front of Lots 1,2 and 3 is to be installed by the developer.The developer will be required to post a surety with the County to assure that this will be put in a timely fashion.It is the developer's plan to first build the access road to the lots and then put the vegetative planting in during the spring planting season.Mr. Lung said that the Engineering Department has approve the access location.Based on the Engineering Department's road adequacy policy,improvements to the intersection of Dogstreet Road and Redhill Road are required.The Engineering Department has approved the plans for this improvement and the developer has posted a bond to assure its completeness before July 15, 1997.Mr.Lung said that all of the agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung stated that this phase is ·not part of the concept of the cluster design that Mr.Peeke presented to the Planning Commission in September.At that time the Planning Commission approved the use of the cluster concept and established a maximum density of 66 lots for the portion of Mr.Peeke's property located in Washington County and that figure does include these 6 lots.Mr.Lung said that what is being requested tonight is preliminary and final subdivision plat approval for Phase I,Lots 1 through 6.He said that the consultant needs to revise a note regarding the developers responsibility for putting in the landscape strip.Mr.Lung said that this afternoon he received a copy of a letter addressed to the Planning Commission Chairman from the Citizens of the area. The letter brought up a number of items regarding the review process.He proceeded to review the development process including the County Engineer's review,road adequacy,storm water management,and the review process of State Water Resources Administration.Mr.Lung said what is before them tonight is a Preliminary/Final Subdivision for 6 lots and also a Forest Conservation Plan approval for the 6 lots.Mr.Lung stated that a forest stand delineation was approved last year.Based on the 20 percent forest retention ratio,3.7 acres offorest would need to be retained and they are proposing that within a forest retention easement on the individual lots.There is also 1.78 acres of forest that is to be removed.Mr.Lung said that based on the information on the approved forest stand delineation there are no priority areas designated within the area to be removed.Mr.Lung said that preliminary/final subdivision plat and forest conservation plan approval for phase 1 is being requested.A brief discussion followed regarding what the intersection improvements will look like.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant approval of the Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.Mr.Clopper moved to approve the preliminary/final plat for Lots 1-6.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.At this point Mr.Moser turned the Chair back over to Mr.Iseminger. Mary Myers,Lot 1-3 Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final.plat and Forest Conservation Plan for lots 1-3 for Mary Myers.The property is located on Mondell Road and is zoned Conservation.The developer is proposing to create 3 lots.Lot 1 consists of3.58 acres and has an existing dwelling,Lot 2 consists of 3 acres and contains an existing dwelling.Lot 3 consists of 3.44 acres and is currently undeveloped.There are 32 acres remaining.Lots 1 and 2 will be served by existing wells and septic systems.Lot 3 has a proposed septic area and well that has been approved by the Health Department.The County Engineer has approved the access locations onto Mondell Road.Mr.Lung said that Mondell Road meets the County's adequacy standards and this subdivision is exempt from the APFO road requirements.Mr.Lung said that a variance was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals from the APFO regarding school adequacy for the 176 SharpsbUrg Elementary school gistricti,All agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung stated that forest conservation requirdmentsare oj1ly al?lplicaqje to Lot}.Lots;)and 2,are exempt since they have existing developmel}tand therecis no change il}hlUd !Jse.Thiforest ~tand delineation shows 3 acres of forest coverand some steep slopes located on Lo.t 3 which aie consiqered priority areas. Mr.Lung said that a maximum of 1.69 acres can be cleared and the plan calls for 1.05 acres to be cleared.Some of the clearing is located in the steep slope area which covers about .10 acre.A discussion followed regarding the area being disturbed,the Sensitive Areas text amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance and getting input from the Soil Conservation District.Mr.Moser moved to approve the Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered.Mr. Wade moved to approve the preliminary final subdivision plat contingent upon review by Soil Conservation of the steep slope area on Lot 3 and the staff s review of the Sensitive Area amendment's affect on this lot.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.A discussion followed. Site Plans: Tony's Pizza: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Tony's Pizza.She explained that it is for the expansion of an existing restaurant located at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Bayshore Drive and is zoned Business Local.Mrs.Pietro said that the owner is proposing to construct a 3100 square foot addition to the existing restaurant and once completed will total 6200 square feet.The hours {)f operation will be Monday through Thursday from 11 :00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.and Friday and Saturday from 11 :00 a.m.to 1:00 a.m.The number of employees will be 10 and seating capacity will be approximately 280 people.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the provisions for solid waste,recycling and parking.She stated that the owner went before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance for the requirement of 90 parking spaces down to 65,which includes 3 handicapped spaces.She proceeded to review the location offreight and delivery,signage and directional signs in the parking lot,lighting,and landscaping.Public water and sewer service the site now and will continue to service the site.Mrs.Pietro stated that one thing the developer did not put in due to the constraints of the site are sidewalks.She referred to the plan and pointed out the proposed parking and noted that anyone who parks in the back wili have to walk around the building through the parking area to the front of the restaurant.She said this was a concern expressed by the Planning staff as well as the Permits Department.She added that the site is small and that it may be a problem to put sidewalks in.All approvals have been received.Mr. Tim Cormany,Consultant,from Martin and Martin was present.A discussion followed with the consultant regarding the traffic flow through the parking area.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern with not having sidewalks from the back parking lot to the front.Mr.Cormany referred to the Zoning Ordinance stating that it only requires sidewalks for PUD zoning and another zone that is residentially located.He said he spoke to Paul Prodonovich and Ed Schreiber from the Permits Department about that and they agreed that the Ordinance does not technically require it and they also brought up the issue of sidewalks generally around the building.He said he spoke to the owner about it and that the design all along was not to have sidewalks.Mr.Cormany stated that they felt if they try to get the sidewalks in at this time that it is so tight that they will start to lose on both sides and noted that with the stormwater management pond and parking spaces there is not enough room for 4 foot wide sidewalks.Mr.Moser asked about having another access to the building.Mr.Iseminger stated that the only problem he had with not having sidewalks is going from the new parking lot around the side of the building.This forces people out into the lane of traffic.He said one of the things they look at is the health and safety of the population.This is a safety situation and he would like to see a sidewalk along at least one side to get people from the back to the front or another entrance in the back of the building.The consultant stated he did some rough calculations and if they added a sidewalk they would lose 2 parking spaces.A discussion followed regarding not having through traffic along the side and to keep the parking there.Mr.Cormany said he will try to work something out with changing the access.A discussion followed regarding the number of parking spaces and relocating spaces to the green area.Mr.Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections said that one thing that concerned him with the new design was parking next to the building since there is no space between the building and parking area.This may create more damage to the building with people pulling up and hitting it.Mr.Prodonovich also suggested having another entrance to the building and asked 177 about cutting the building size by 3 feet.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would not make it a requirement but they wanted the consultant and owner to take another look at the sidewalks again.Mr.Wade moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Michael Myers: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Michael and Teresa Myers for mini warehouses.The property is located on the east side of Oak Ridge Place in the Antietam Industrial Park and is zoned Industrial Transitional on 1.9 acres.Mr.Lung explained that the site plan is for Phase I, the construction of a strip of mini warehouses with 36 bays and a stormwater management facility.He referred to the plat and pointed out the access road to be constructed and the future phases which include 6 additional storage buildings and office building.All agency approvals are in and it is exempt from forest conservation because it is located on an existing lot of record. Mr.Clopper moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Wade.Mr.Ardinger abstained. So ordered. Bowman Sales and Equipment: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Bowman Sales and Equipment.The subject site is located on the south side ofI-81 just after it crosses the Potomac River.The entire site contains .63 acres.The proposed area to be developed is less than 5 acres and is zoned HI -I.The owner is proposing to develop it as a storage and maintenance area for storage trailers.The development will include extension of the existing driveway.Mr.Goodrich reviewed the parking,50 x 70 maintenance shop and storm water management pond.He said there will be minor improvements to the intersection of the existing driveway and old Rt.63 (Spielman Road).He said that the State still owns the right-of-way of the old road and he reviewed the improvements required to existing Rt.63.The site will be served by a private well and septic system.Mr. Goodrich said there was originally plans to use the existing house as the office but those plans have been changed and the existing house will not be used at this time. Buffering from the interstate is a primary concern.The developer is proposing enhancement to that area and explained the types of trees to be added.He said it will be an improvement but it is difficult to tell in the winter if the necessary complete screening will be accomplished.Staff recommended retaining the option to request additional planting if the proposal is not effective. Mr.Goodrich said there is also a buffering issue on the south and east side of the property which will be done by way of a berm. Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the Forest Conservation Plan.The Forest Conservation Plan for this development will be handled by retention of existing forest on site and referred to them. Mr.Goodrich said that 13.2 acres of existing forest will be retained under easement to mitigate for this development,which includes the easement area within the C&O Canal National Historical Park.He said they are still waiting for formal response from the Park Service regarding their agreement to allow for an additional easement (verbal has been received).He said that a portion of this is also in the flood plain.He said there is a another area of 4.8 acres which will be under easement as mitigation for future development on the Rock 'N Spring property,which was discussed at the November meeting.He reminded the Planning Commission that they approved a concept for Rock'N Springs to put an easement on the property and at the last meeting the Planning Commission permitted clearing to the break even point, approximately 60 percent of the forest cover.After a discussion it was decided that they would plan for the ultimate.Mr.Arch said staff interpreted the Planning Commission's request for a development plan prior to allowing full clearing was equivalent to a site plan.The Commission confirmed that interpretation.Mr.Goodrich stated that all agency approvals are in except for the Permits Department,but that revised plans have been resubmitted and that the comments from Permits Department have been addressed.Mr.Bowen moved to approve the forest conservation plan with the condition that a reserve area of 4.8 acres be set aside for future forest mitigation needs of the development.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr.Ardinger moved to grant 178 site plan approval contingent on the Zoning Administrators final approval.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Assad Ghattas: Mrs.Pietro presented the consultation for Assad Ghattas for the 14 acre property on Maugans Avenue.The owner is proposing 3 commercial establishments including a Burger King,a restaurant and a motel.There is currently a gas station on the site.Mrs.Pietro explained that this consultation was held on November 27,1996 and the summary has not been completed. She stated that State Highway is requiring a traffic study for the 1-81 ramp intersection of Maugans Avenue and in addition the County Engineer's office recommended that after the Burger King is constructed they will require a full traffic impact study and signal warrant analysis.She said that the County Engineer is allowing them to proceed with the initial construction of Burger King,but when the other two parcels are subdivided the other requirements will come into play.She stated that the County Engineer's office has an alignment design for improvements along Maugans Avenue for three lanes.The developer will be required to build the improvements designed by the County along the entire length of his property.Mrs. Pietro stated that sewer is available in the area.She said that Paul Melby of Water and Sewer attended the meeting and mentioned that the pumping station for that area is at capacity and that ·they are recommending that an analysis be done.She said there was some discussion between Mr.Melby and the developer regarding who should pay for the analysis.She stated that one of the main reasons why this is before the Planning Commission tonight is that this property is zoned HI-I.The Zoning Ordinance states in the HI district,if a property zoned HI-I is next to a residential property that they would need a 75 foot buffer.Mrs.Pietro stated that the developer is proposing a 50 foot buffer which will include the parking spaces.She added the request to do that will have to go before the Board of Appeals unless the proposed text amendment reducing the buffer yard to 25 feet is approved.In accordance to the Zoning Ordinance,the Planning Commission does have to take into consideration screening that would be provided along the property line in case the adjacent property is developed into a residential development.A discussion followed with the developer,the consultant and Paul Prodonovich (Director of Permits and Inspections)regarding the buffer yard.Mr.Prodonovich stated that his position at the preliminary consultation was to have the developer go to the Board of Appeals and request the variance from the 75 foot buffer to include parking.Mr.Iseminger stated there is not much the Planning Commission can do at this point except say yes they agree with applying for a variance and if the text amendment is adopted they do not have a problem.Mr.Frederick, consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates stated that the other two issues they had were landscaping and forestation.Mr.Iseminger said before they discuss forestation he wanted to talk about buffering.He asked if there will be some screening provided along the property line.Mr. Frederick said there is some screening there now and that there is a stream that has trees along it of a deciduous nature.To have true screening they would have to plant some things and that they intend to do that.The other issue is screening along the highway.Mr.Frederick said they do not want to screen along the highway because this kind of use wants to be seen off of 81.He said they do plan to plant trees along there to make it aesthetically pleasing.He said the other issue they want to get the Planning Commissions'opinion on is off site forestation.Mr. Frederick said there are no priority areas on the site and since they do not have a site for forestation,they would like to pay the fee in lieu of.Mr.Iseminger suggested that they contact the adjacent property owner and plant there.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the developer would not have to plant onsite but would not agree to payment in lieu of at this time.Mr.Arch asked the consultant what did he have for pedestrian access.Mr.Frederick stated they will have a closed street system.He said they are not showing sidewalks around their street area but will have sidewalks in front of the buildings.They did not show any connectors as far as sidewalks from the motel to the restaurant and did not know if Mr. Ghattas planned to do anything like that.Mr.Ghattas said they could and that it would enhance the property.He said what they are presenting tonight is just preliminary.Mr.Arch said that he should keep that in mind and also keep in mind access along Maugans Avenue.A discussion followed regarding having sidewalks along Maugans Avenue as the road improvements are 179 made,the County Engineer's road improvement plans and the motel.At this point a resident of Maugansville spoke.She expressed concern with the existing traffic conditions in the area and asked the Commission if they would consider asking the developer to do the traffic study prior to the first phase.Mr.Frederick said that they have been told by State Highway and the Engineering Department that the traffic study would be required prior to proceeding with the second phase.Mr.Iseminger said that the County Engineer has evidently done a preliminary traffic study in order to require the improvements by the developer and asked Mr.Arch that since he is going to discuss the improvement plans with Mr.McGee,to ask him about the status ofthe traffic study and reaffirm that it is at the second stage.A discussion followed regarding storm water management. OTHER BUSINESS: Ben Shaoo!.Woodbridge PUD,Townhouse Setbacks: Mr.Lung said that this is for the Plarming Commission's consideration for an amendment to the approved PUD development plan for Woodbridge.Because this is a Plarmed Unit Development, the Plarming Commission is charged with the responsibility of establishing setbacks.The Board of Zoning Appeals does not get involved.Mr.Lung said that this was before the Plarming Commission in the summer for a change in the building restriction lines because of the design of the townhouse units.On July 1,1996 the Plarming Commission acted on and approved the -reduction of a 25 foot front building restriction line to no less than 22 feet and a reduction of the side building restriction line for the end units to no less than 6 feet.This was done by the Plarming Commission through the PUD process due to the fact that the standards originally established were considered acceptable to the developer and are not subject to an appeal for a variance from the Board of Appeals.Mr.Lung referred to the plat and stated that the units shaded in yellow are under construction and there has been some infringement on previously established setbacks.He said that Mr.Prodonovich has the details on what changes are necessary for the individual units.Mr.Prodonovich referred to the plat and stated that the area outlined in red is the building envelope from which the structures were to be constructed with the variances that had been granted by the Plarming Commission on July 1st reducing the front yard setbacks from 25 to 22 feet and the side yard requirement to 6 feet and the rear yard would stay the same,20 feet.As a result the developer wanted to stagger the buildings.The townhouse blocks had been staked out by Frederick Seibert and Associates and then the developer and his staff staked out the building locations that are currently under construction.Mr.Prodonovich stated that the lending institution asked for a survey to make sure that they had the right information as part of their loan process and at that time they discovered that the buildings did not meet the minimum requirements that were established for the 22 feet front and the 6 foot side yards.Mr.Prodonovich referred to his handout and said it specifically lists the requirements, what is existing in the field and the number of inches they are off and proceeded to review the buildings and the amount of discrepancy.Mr.Prodonovich said that the most that any of the buildings is off is 1 foot 3 inches.He proceeded to review each of the buildings.Mr.Iseminger asked iffor the most part they are off by inches.Mr.Prodonovich stated yes.He said that the party walls are all off a little bit and will have to be replatted.A discussion followed regarding the setbacks.Mr.Iseminger asked the developer if he is aware that he has to resurvey and resubmit the plats.Mr.Moser asked what action is needed.Mr.Arch said they need to grant a variance so that the exact dimensions presented tonight become the new setback dimensions. Mr.Prodonovich said that the only reason why he brought it before the Plarming Commission was because they had already granted a reduction in the setbacks.Mr.Clopper made a motion to adopt the setbacks proposed as the official setbacks for the PUD just for the affected buildings that Mr.Prodonovich noted.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Mr.Arch said that he has a draft of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan from the consultant.He said he is working on revisions and once they are completed he will hand them out and have the consultant come in a make a presentation.He said that the second item is that at some point in time when they get further along they will bring in the alignment for Hopewell Road as soon as they get something back from the consultant.Mr.Arch stated that the last item is impact fees and that they will be asking the Board of COllh'llissioners to retain 180 Tischler Associates to do a preliminary analysis of what it vyoulddo to do the detailed cost analysis scope of work for aRFP so they can putit out for bid.Mr.Arch said thatthe Board has authorized them to retain a consultant to do that.He said they will goto the Commissioners probably next week to get authorization.He explained that they will analyze up front what they need to be looking at and the factors and information the County needs.Mr.Arch said that this firm has done most of the Counties in the area.He said they would give the County the basic information and the County would do the RFP.A discussion followed. Mr.Arch said he would like to have a few more workshops to discuss some other items,such as Robinwood upgrades and look at sidewalks and to revisit the Subdivision text regarding streets. He said that Terry McGee wants to come in and talk to the Planning Commission regarding problems that Engineering is running into.Mr.Arch referred to staff comments of the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan and asked that the Planning Commission review it and get back to him.Mr.Wade asked about Ag Land Preservation.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch stated that the other item they will be dealing with next year is the update of the County's Comprehensive Plan and that the County is looking to put in an application for a $100,000 grant for a consultant to do that but it will need to focus on economic development as well as the other issues.Mr. Wade asked if they are going to get together again and discuss the Ag issue.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger said that they have discussed it enough and feels they should take it to public hearing.Mr.Arch suggested that when they go through the Comprehensive Plan update at that point they should look at making major revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to address the rural agricultural areas.A discussion followed regarding TDR's and the Comprehensive Plan Update and impact fees. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. :/~I'Jwl\;:. Be. ."