HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 Minutes6
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 5,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 5,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.
Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.
Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior
Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by the Chairman.
Mr.Iseminger commented that there may be some people present for the FMW Partnership
rezoning.He stated that they were welcomed to stay and that the Commission will be making a
recommendation later tonight.He explained that a public hearing was held on November 10th
and that the record stayed open for 10 days for comments and that there will be no additional
comments accepted either from the general public,adjacent property owners or the applicant.
Mr.Souders,a neighbor commented that he did not receive a notice and that the property was not
posted.A discussion followed regarding notifications.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Cynthia Hollis:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Cynthia Hollis to create a new lot using a right-of-
way across an existing lot for access to a public road.The property is located along the west side
of Wheeler Road and is zoned Conservation.In 1994 a variance was approved to create a new
lot using a panhandle 413 feet in length,and 20 feet wide.Mr.Lung stated that the variance was
approved based on a letter issued from the County Engineer in 1989 which approved the location
for a residential entrance.He added that the lot was never created.Since that time the County
standards have changed regarding sight distance and the access location no longer meets the
County's minimum requirements.Mr.Lung stated that the current request is to correct a safety
problem with the driveway location.Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the variance request.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Paul and Paula Rhoderick:
Mr.Iseminger turned the chair over to Mr.Moser.Mr.Lung presented the variance request to
allow a new lot to be created having a panhandle approximately 2,000 feet in length.The
property is located on the east side of White Hall Road and is zoned Agricultural.Mr.Lung
stated that the lot is coming out of a 157 acre farm owned by the applicant's parents and added
that the location ofthe proposed lot will have the least impact on the farm.The Mt.Aetna fire
department made a site inspection and noted due to the location of a telephone pole that the
entrance onto White Hall Road may need to be relocated slightly to the south in order for a fire
truck to have adequate access.Mr.Lung stated that this is an immediate family member
conveyance and added that since the lot is in a rocky area they could not locate the septic area on
the lot.The Health Department does not have a problem with the drain fields and reserve area
being on the remaining lands within an easement.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the
variance as well as the request to locate the septic reserve area off site.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.Mr.Iseminger took over as Chair.
7
Todd Easterday:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Todd Easterday to create 4 lots out of 18 acres with
three lots utilizing panhandles greater than 400 feet in length.The property is located on the
southwest comer of Greenbriar Road and San Mar Road,and is zoned Conservation.There is an
existing dwelling at the front of the property.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant purchased the
property last year,renovated the house and has constructed an entrance off of San Mar Road.
Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Frederick has done a detailed survey and they are proposing a
panhandle for Lot 4 that is 1,023 feet long,a panhandle for Lot 3 that is 630 feet long and a
panhandle for Lot 2 that is 500 feet long.He said that this is a very steep piece of ground and
referred to his staff recommendation in the agenda packet.Mr.Lung said they could reconfigure
the lots and possibly get 3 lots without any variances and noted that it is too steep to build a
public road.It is the County Engineer's opinion that access would be a problem and that in bad
weather it may be difficult to maintain a driveway on such a steep slope.Mr.Lung stated that he
has not heard from the fire department.A discussion followed.Mr.Frederick briefly spoke.He
explained that Mr.Easterday has improved the existing house and wants to sell Lot I with the
house.He stated that the three lots they want to create are all family lots and explained how they
came about with the present configuration.He said that Mr.Easterday spoke to Oley Griffith of
the Boonsboro Fire Department and brought in a letter from him stating that they can service the
property.A discussion followed with the developer regarding the lot configuration,the
topography and access to the site.Mr.Iseminger asked if at this point in time are they willing to
grade it,pave it to some kind of reasonable standards and with the coordination of the Boonsboro
Fire Company.A discussion followed regarding the County's Engineer's comments and the fact
that the Planning Commission would like to have clarification before the variances come before
them.Mr.Easterday stated that he has entrance permits.Mr.Moser concurred that they need to
have the County Engineer's comments in writing.Mr.Iseminger stated that he would also like
to see more detailed comments from the Boonsboro Fire Company regarding the driveway
location once it has been cleared with the County Engineer.Mr.Iseminger suggested that they
table this request until the next meeting.Mr.Moser made a motion to table the variance request
until the next meeting.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Hagerstown Washington County Industrial Foundation,Inc.70/81 Industrial Park,P /F Plat and
Forest Conservation Plan:
Mr.Goodrich presented the preliminary/final plat for the Hagerstown Washington County
Industrial Foundation.He said that the 5.25 acre parcel is located in the 70/81 Industrial Park at
the corner of Elliott Parkway and Elliott Place and is zoned Industrial General.The site is
proposed to be conveyed to Maryland Paper which is directly across the street for use as part of
their operations.No improvements are planned at this time.There is no minimum lot size and
the set backs are shown on the drawing.All agencies have given their approval.Upon
development in the future a site plan will be prepared.Mr.Goodrich stated that the final issue is
the forest conservation for this parcel which is tied to the other lands owned by the Industrial
Foundation.He reviewed the Foundation's plan to address forest conservation in the
development of its remaining acreage in the Airport 70/81 and Interstate industrial parks.The
117.9 acres includes 57 acres of existing forest.40.5 acres will need to be cleared for
development creating a need to afforest 11.88 acres to add to the 16.5 acres retained.Acreage
figures need to be finalized and a planting plan prepared.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve
the preliminary/final plat for the Maryland Paper parcel.Seconded by Paula Lampton.So
ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the conceptual Forest Conservation Plan for the
Chief industrial parks.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission that they want to see the planting plan.
8
Lot 3 Newgate:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Lot 3,Newgate.The developer is proposing to
create a 65.67 acre lot for future industrial development.The property is part of the Newgate
Industrial Park being developed with the Hagerstown Washington County Industrial Foundation.
It is located along the west side of Hopewell Road and is zoned Industrial General.This parcel is
to be conveyed to Bowman Development Corporation.The existing house and barn are no
longer occupied and will be removed.There is a mapped flood plain through this property and
impacts the rear portion of the lot.Mr.Lung said that the County is working on a map
amendment to the FEMA maps,and is before FEMA now for approval.The amendment will
show that this flood plain was inaccurately depicted and actually impacts less of the lot than what
is shown on the plat.He said they are still awaiting approval ofthat study.Mr.Lung stated that
there are existing water and sewer facilities available to serve the site,there are 2 proposed
entrances onto Hopewell Road,storm water management will be required however,it is not
shown at this point.In regards to forest conservation,the forest stand delineation indicated no
existing forest on the site.The flood plain area would be considered a priority area for
afforestation.Forest conservation will be addressed on a regional scale for the entire Industrial
park.Mr.Lung said that there will be a mixture of forest retention and some afforestation.Mr.
Arch stated that there is no qualified forest area,there are steep slopes and flood plain areas
where they will plant.Mr.Arch stated that they will be seeing the site plan most likely at the
February meeting.A discussion followed regarding the new sewer line,the rail road right-of-
.way and the easements.Mr.Lung stated that the plat does show some easements.He said they
are not on the lot,however,they are items that need to be resolved with the approving agencies.
He said they have some agency approvals.The Water and Sewer Department's approval is
contingent upon agreement of an easement for a new sewer line and the County Engineer wanted
to review the drainage easement.Mr.Arch said they will also forward a copy of the railroad
easement to CSX.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the
preliminary/final plat for Lot 3 of New Gate contingent upon agency approvals,and giving staff
authority of final approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.
Clopper made a motion to grant preliminary forest conservation approval for planting in the
flood plain and retention on site.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Pin Oak Terrace:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat and site plan for Pin Oak Terrace.The developer
is proposing to create 32 townhouses on 3.9 acres zoned Residential Multi-Family.The site is
located on the west side of Hickory Lane off of West Oak Ridge Drive.Mrs.Pietro explained
that the site was previously approved in 1974 for 50 townhouse units.She said they had a
consultation in the spring and at that time the developer was informed that they were exempt
from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since there was an approved plan prior to the Ordinance
taking affect.The site will be served by public water and sewer.The units along Pin Oak Road
will be one story townhouses and those along Hickory Lane will be two story.Mrs.Pietro
reviewed the access,storm water management,school bus waiting area,the recreational area and
stated that sidewalks will be installed in front of all ofthe townhouses on Pin Oak Road and
Hickory Lane.She said that the Permits Department noted that the recreational area has some
slope to it.She said that she informed the consultant to be sure that it is adequate for all of the
items proposed for that area.She said there is a sign for the development located on Lot G6 and
taking care of the sign will be written in the deed.She proceeded to review recycling,trash
removal and parking.Lot N4 will have the underground sewerage system and will be dedicated
to the County.She said that at the consultation in the spring,Ed Schreiber of the Permits
Department stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Residential Multi family district
for town homes have a minimum lot area of 5 acres.She said the total for this site is 3.9 acres
but noted that this plan was previously approved in 1974 for 50 units.Therefore,they are
decreasing the number of units down to 32 and still meet the requirements of 10 houses per acre.
Mrs.Pietro said that she had recommended street lighting at the intersection and along Pin Oak
Road since they do have sidewalks and commented that the Ordinance does not specify the
amount of lighting but that the Planning Commission may have a recommendation.She said that
9
she spoke to the developer and he is willing to discuss it with the Planning Commission.Mrs.
Pietro referred to the memo in the agenda packet from Terry McGee regarding that the sidewalks
being extended to Larch Avenue.The developer does not want to extend it that far and referred
to the exhibit plat.She added that side walk maintenance is also a concern and that the
Homeowners docwnents have not been submitted.All approval are in,Permits approved with
the condition of the lot area,and the County Engineer still has a question regarding the
sidewalks.In regards to the sidewalks,Mrs.Pietro commented that there are no sidewalks in the
adjacent subdivision that the County Engineer wanted the sidewalk extended to.A discussion
followed regarding sidewalks and lights.Mr.Iseminger suggested that the developer prepare a
lighting plan for Staffto review and if they have a problem with it that it will come back to the
Planning Commission.In regards to the sidewalks,Mr.Moser commented that he did not have
a problem with what is proposed by having sidewalks in the area being developed.A discussion
followed regarding the lighting.Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat
and site plan with the condition that a note be added to the plat stating that this plan reflects a
revision to a previously approved site plan,contingent upon adequate grading of the tot lot area,
provision of street lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff,submittal of Homeowners
Association documents for review by appropriate agencies and the County Attorney.Seconded
by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Auto Zone,Inc.:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan application to create an 8,521square foot automobile retail parts
store on an existing .97 acre lot on the north side of Virginia Avenue in front of the Food Lion.
The property is zoned Business Local.Access to the site will be off of the internal access road
serving Food Lion.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the parking (44 spaces),loading area,
dumpster,landscaping,storm water management,and noted that public water and sewer will
serve the site.All agency approvals are in except for the Permits Department.They are
reviewing a revision of a note on the plan regarding the nwnber of parking spaces.A discussion
followed regarding headlights shining onto Virginia Avenue from the parking lot.Mr.Ernst
made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on the staff looking at the elevation of the
parking area to see if screening is necessary for head lights.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.Mr.Ernst amended the motion to be contingent on looking at the elevation of the
parking area to see if screening is necessary for head lights and on the Permits Department's
approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
SAMPUSA:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for SAMP USA.He stated it is for the expansion of an existing
business in the Interstate Industrial Park along the west side of Governor Lane Boulevard.The
property is zoned Planned Industrial.The plan is to add a 80 x 100 foot addition and a 122 x 100
foot addition and to reconfigure the loading area and parking area.Mr.Lung explained that
SAMP USA is a wire drawing equipment manufacturer.The equipment is manufactured in Italy
and shipped to the United States where it is unpacked and prepared for installation in other
industrial plants.Also in this building they house a parts inventory and a sales and service staff.
He said with this expansion they are not proposing additional employees.He added they are
proposing additional landscaping,and will be utilizing the existing entrance and water and sewer
connections.Mr.Lung stated that the existing storm water management pond is being rebuilt to
bring it up to standards and to accommodate the addition.At this point no written agency
approvals have been received.The staff does not anticipate any problems,they have been
granted a grading permit for the parking lot.Mr.Lung stated that they are requesting that staff
be given the authority to approve the site plan once they have received all agency approvals.A
discussion followed regarding fire protection.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan
approval contingent on all agency approvals and to give staff the authority to grant site plan
approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
10
(Mr.Ardinger left at 8:45 p.m.)
Other Business:
Colonial Park East Section D Request to use Simplified Plat:
Mr.Lung referred to the letter in the agenda packet.The developer wants to convey a 9.59 acre
portion of Colonial Park East via the simplified plat process.A preliminary subdivision plat had
been approved for lots within this section,however,they want to record the plat as a simplified
parcel at this time for agricultural tax planning purposes.The consultant,Mr.Frederick briefly
spoke and stated that the Planning Commission has done this before.Mr.Iseminger stated that
he would like to hear from the tax office and County attorney regarding the process and tax
consequences.Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the request.Seconded by Mr.Lampton.So
ordered.
RZ-97-7 FMW Partnership:
Mr.Lung stated he had nothing else to add to the staff report.Mr.Iseminger referred to the staff
report that dealt with conditional zoning.He asked if the Planning Commission grants approval
that they can impose or make recommendations for additional buffers or access or deny access to
.certain streets.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked if they want to provide a buffer
around Hickory Elementary School they could make that part of their recommendation or if they
want to deny access to Hickory School Road or any ofthe surrounding residential roads that
access would be off of relocated Cole Road or Massey Boulevard.Mr.Iseminger commented
that when they did the Comprehensive Highway Interchange rezoning they relied on Aushermans
development plans when they rezoned this tract of land.He said that the surrounding area is
being developed commercially and noted the expansion along Wesel Boulevard,the expansion of
Valley Mall and added that maybe they should have taken that into more consideration when
they rezoned it as well as the access to 1-81.He said one of ideas of the Highway Interchange
area is to take advantage of those kinds of assets and concentrate that kind of commercial
development where they have roads in place and where sewer and water are available.A
discussion followed regarding buffering and denying access to residential roads.Mr.Moser
made a motion that the applicant has demonstrated that a mistake was made in the zoning and
that what they are proposing is appropriate and logical with the condition that adequate buffers
be placed around the school and adjacent residential properties,with the condition that no access
to this development will be provided through the residential neighborhood roads,that access
would be off of an extended Massy Boulevard or relocated Cole Road and recommend to the
County Commissioners that they approve RZ-97-7.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Wade
abstained.So ordered.
RZ-97-10 Elizabeth and Waldo Arnett:
Mr.Arch stated they had nothing to add to the staff report.A discussion followed regarding
development off of Sharpsburg Pike.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that they adopt RZ-97-10 because the conclusion that the Planning Commission
and Board of Commissioners reached at the public hearing was based upon the best available
information at that time and it is showing that there is a potential error because there is more
factual information based on the process now and what is proposed is logical and appropriate.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch stated that there will be a joint rezoning with the County Commissioners on January
26,1998.
11
Mr.Arch stated that they are in the process of developing a Strategic Long Range Plan for the
Planning Department and asked if they had any comments to let him know by January 16th.Mr.
Wade stated that one of the things they talked about was the Comprehensive rezoning of the Ag
land and feels that is something they should discuss with the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch
stated that the strategic plan is more for staffing.Mr.Iseminger feels that the Planning
Department will need more staff and will need to have someone in addition to Eric dedicated to
the Agricultural Preservation.Mr.Arch said that at some point he would like to have the
consultant they are hiring to do the Fiscal Impact Analysis to come in and speak to the Planning
Commission to get their input on this project.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
N~~
Bertrand L.Iseminger,Chairm
12
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 2,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 2,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Don
Ardinger,Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert
C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Park &Environmental Planner,Bill
Stachoviak;Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.
Kirkpatrick.Absent was Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Minutes:
.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of November 3,1997.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
In regards to the minutes of December 1,1997,Mr.Iseminger stated that on page 3 for Creative
Kitchens on the 10th line it should read "(5)"and not "(50)".Mr.Ernst made a motion to
approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Before proceeding with old business,Mr.Arch asked to add under Forest Conservation the
Forest Conservation Plan for Antietam Acres.Mr.Clopper made a motion to add the item to the
agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Todd Easterdav:
Mr.Iseminger stated that this item had been held over from the January meeting for additional
information.He said that since that time,Mr.Moser has looked at the site and believes that the
Commission should make a site inspection before taking action.Mr.Moser made a motion to
table this item until the work session.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Rowland Brandenburg:
Mr.Lung stated that this variance request has been on hold pending the County Engineer's
comments and proceeded to review the application that was previously before them.He stated
that the proposed lot would create 3 tier panhandle stacking,which is not allowed.He said when
this first began it was the staff s and the County Engineer's opinion that it was time to extend
Branden Terrace to at least the end of Lot 16.The developer had a problem with extending the
road to serve only one additional lot.Mr.Lung stated there were meetings with the County
Engineer and Mr.Brandenburg's engineer and what they finally agreed upon was that Mr.
Brandenburg would be responsible for grading to the top of the hill for the road extension and at
such time that Mr.Brandenburg or anyone else would develop the remaining lands he would be
responsible for paving the road and finishing the job.He explained that the applicant's
consultant reconfigured Lot 16 so that the right-of-way does not go across the top of Lot 16.He
referred to Mr.McGee's response in the agenda packet.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the
variance to allow the stacking of 3 lots contingent on the conditions outlined in the County
13
Engineer's letter of January 2,1998.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Colonial Park East.6 Month Extension Preliminary Plat.Section D:
Mr.Arch explained that this project is coming up for termination and this is only a 6 month
extension.He explained that the developer will be submitting the final plats shortly but could
not have them ready in time for this meeting.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant a 6 month
extension of the preliminary plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Nancy Foltz.Request for Immediate Family Member Conveyance:
Mr.Lung referred to his memo in the agenda packet.He explained that the Subdivision
Ordinance,Section 405.II.B.I states that the Commission may approve the subdivision of land
solely for transfer to a member or members of the immediate family of the owner of the lot of
record where subdivided lots will front on a private road or right-of-way existing at the time of
the original parcels acquisition by the current owner and no more than one lot can be conveyed to
anyone member ofthe immediate family.He stated that the site is located on the south side of
MD 68,Lappans Road and consists of approximately 86 acres.He explained that it was once
part of a larger piece of property that included farm buildings and the farm.This piece was
separated out.Mrs.Foltz and her brother now own the 86 acre parcel through the estate and
they wish to divide the property in 2 with parcel A going to Mrs.Foltz's brother and parcel B
going to Mrs.Foltz.Mr.Lung explained that if the property were divided into 2 parcels it would
not require any special consideration because there is sufficient road frontage along MD 68.He
said that what Mrs.Foltz would like to do is to get the Planning Commission's approval to create
2 additional lots out of parcel B to be conveyed to her sons in addition to the dwelling that she
wishes to build for herself.He said that the two lots would access a lane that goes into the
property.He said normally they consider the immediate family member condition a valid use
when there is an existing farm house on a lane and a child wants to have a house fronting on the
lane.He said in this case it is not the same since this property was subdivided out of the original
farm years ago.A discussion followed regarding the fact that Parcel A will not be subdivided,
and that the lots on parcel B will use a shared access.Mr.Iseminger asked if they would have a
problem with a note on the plat stating no further subdivision except to immediate family
members.Mr.and Mrs.Foltz and Mr.Grove said they did not have a problem and added they
will not be subdividing in the hardwood areas.Mr.Arch stated that they will want to see a Forest
Conservation evaluation for the 3 lots and if it is more than 40,000 square feet that needs to be
cleared then the Forest Conservation Ordinance would apply.Mr.Clopper made a motion to
grant a variance to allow the immediate family member conveyance to subdivide the main parcel
into two large parcels and to subdivide those parcels for immediate family members only,with
the condition if they disturb more than 40,000 square feet that the Forest Conservation Ordinance
will apply.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Lung asked if the Planning
Commission wanted to see the subdivision plat.Mr.Iseminger said that staff can approve it in
house.He said that Mr.Lung brought up some good points regarding the Ordinance and would
like to address them at a workshop session.
Donald Reid.Request to Create a Lot with 15 Foot Wide Panhandle:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request to create a lot with a 15 foot wide panhandle.The
property is located on the east side of Ashton Road south ofI-70.He said it is a 20.5 farm zoned
Agriculture.Mr.Reid is proposing to create a 4.5 acre lot for his daughter.Mr.Lung said that
this would meet the criteria for a lot without road frontage off of an existing farm lane,however,
in this case Mr.Reid wants to go ahead and convey a panhandle with fee simple road frontage to
this lot.Mr.Lung stated that the problem is with where Mr.Reid needs to locate the panhandle
runs along the side of the property line where there is an existing barn.In order to get the 25 foot
width and the building set back,it would require him to remove the entire barn.He explained
that Mr.Reid is asking to reduce the panhandle width to 15 feet.They will still have to remove
14
a corner of the barn and go to the Appeals Board for a reduction of the side yard set back.Mr.
Lung said that he spoke to the Engineering Department and that in this case a driveway could be
located within the 15 foot width without any problems.Mr.Lung said that the only problem it
creates is that on Ashton Road there is a power pole and C&P telephone box at the end of the
driveway and that the driveway will come out between the two boxes.He said at this point it is
questionable whether or not they will be able to get the driveway in without moving the pole or
the C&P box.Mr.Lung said that the Clear Spring Fire Department had not yet been asked for
their comments.He said that site distance appears to be okay.Mr.Moser commented that it is
only fair to get comments from the fire department and that the property owner may have to pay
to move the utilities.Mr.Iseminger stated that they are looking for a variance to reduce the
panhandle width from 25 feet to 15 feet with the immediate family member condition and
contingent upon receiving a letter of approval from the Clear Spring Fire Department and
satisfactory resolution to the entrance.A discussion followed regarding keeping the panhandle
width 25 feet up to the barn and then down to 15 feet,and the option of acquiring additional land
from the adjacent property owner.Mr.Lung explained there is another lane on the adjacent
property that runs parallel to this property.Mr.Gehr,the consultant said that the adjoiner,Mrs.
Seibert,owns the lane by title from Ashton Road to her farm.He said they had thought if the
Planning Commission approved their variance to ask her about obtaining a right-of-way off of
her 10 foot strip.Mr.Iseminger said that if they approve the variance it does not stop them from
reaching an agreement to build a shared access to a certain point instead of moving the telephone
pole or tearing the comer of the barn down.Mr.Gehr asked how far back did they want the 25
·feet to go.Mr.Iseminger said whatever makes sense and what ever they will need up front to
accommodate the turning radius,etc.He strongly encouraged him to negotiate with the adjacent
property owner so they will only have one driveway.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the
variance from 25 feet to 15 with the condition of approval from the Clear Spring Fire Department
and designing the entrance to the County Engineer's standards with the 10 year family member
statement on the plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger suggested they
meet with the County Engineer if they pursue a joint driveway.
Subdivisions:
Cross Creek South,Preliminary Plat and Forest Stand Delineation Review:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for Cross Creek South.The property is located on the
south side of the Sharpsburg Pike and is zoned HI-2.The developer is proposing to create 44
single family lots out of 25 acres and minimum lot size will be approximately 9,000 square feet.
The lots will be served by public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro noted that Battlecreek Boulevard
connects with the Sharpsburg Pike and will eventually connect to Poffenberger Road and all of
the proposed lots will access the interior street system.She said that the storm water
management area will be located next to the railroad tracks and all agency approvals have been
received.She referred to the consultation summary from a few months ago and noted that the
developer shortened the cul-de-sac area.She referred to the agenda packet and said that the main
issue tonight is complying with the Forest Conservation requirements.She said instead of
planting on site they would like to use top priority forest located to the rear of the remaining land
to meet the requirements and referred to the sketch plan.A discussion followed regarding the
fact that there are no priority acres on the section being developed,and screening along the
railroad tracks.Mr.Iseminger asked staff to check the preliminary consultation regarding
comments to fence around the railroad tracks.A discussion followed with the consultant
regarding this section and the extension ofthe road and improvements to the Sharpsburg Pike.
Further discussion followed regarding sending a letter to Gary,Terry and Rod expressing the
Planning Commission's concern and requesting them to look into the future connection to Rench
Road.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plat,subject to conditions set forth
in the preliminary consultation including the fencing required along the railroad tracks and set
aside land for the connection to Poffenburger Road with the understanding that the developer
will pay for the improvements when the County is ready.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So
ordered.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the request to comply with the forest conservation
act by off site retention.Seconded by Ben Clopper.So ordered.
15
Asad Ghattas,Preliminary/Final Plat Lots I &2:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Asad Ghattas.The site is located on the
northwest corner ofI-81 and Maugans Avenue and is zoned HI -1.The developer is proposing to
create 2 commercial lots.The lots will access a newly constructed street that will connect to
Maugansville Avenue.Total acreage is 6 acres.Both lots will be served by public water and
sewer.Lot 2 has a small amount of delineated wetlands.All approvals are in.The developer
has elected to pay the fee in lieu of since they meet the express procedure requirements and that
will be approximately $4,000.00.Mrs.Pietro stated that in speaking to the County Engineer
when they had the preliminary consultation there was a suggestion about a traffic study.Since
the Burger King was being located on an existing lot it was not required until these lots were
developed.She said that in speaking to Terry McGee they do not have a problem with approving
the subdivision plat without a traffic study because the lots will require site plans and when they
come in that is when the traffic study will be required.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve
the preliminary/final plat for Lots 1 and 2.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst and Mr.
Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Lot 4,Huyetts Business Park,Amed-Clean Building:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Lot 4,Huyetts Business Park Ameri-Clean located off of the
Greencastle Pike north ofI-70.Lot 4 is approximately 1.6 acres in size and the site plan is for a
commercial building for Ameri -Clean,a rug and carpet cleaning business.Mr.Lung stated that
the building size is 125 x 80 feet.He proceeded to review the location of the dumpster,loading
area and dock,parking area and storm water management facility and noted that public water and
sewer will be provided.All agency approvals are in except for Permits and Inspections.Mr.
Iseminger asked if the parking areas will be paved or gravel.Mr.Lung said that part will be
paved and the rest will be gravel.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger asked to have a
meeting regarding paving with the County Engineer.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan
approval contingent upon Permits and Inspections approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.
Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Forest Conservation:
Antietam Acres:
Mrs.Pietro presented the Forest Conservation Plan for Section 2,Lots 32 to 43.She stated that
they previously had a consultation and the developer wants to pay the fee in lieu of in the amount
of$17,000.She explained that a formal request was not made to the Planning Commission.She
stated that the plat has now come in for review and they need to get the Planning Commission's
approval.Mr.Frederick stated that the developer is going to do 5 lots at a time and wanted to
break the payment down for that ratio so he does not pay the $17,000 at one time.A discussion
followed regarding making the payments when each phase is completed,which in this case will
be two.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the request for payment in lieu of in order to meet
the forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Forest Conservation Planting Plan:
Mr.Goodrich referred to the information in the agenda packet and stated he would review the 3
proposed planting sites for the Planning Commission's approval.He explained that the forest
conservation payment in lieu of funds will be used for these sites and referred to the summary of
funds he passed out.He stated that the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners
previously approved the concept of using the payment in lieu of funds for planting new forest on
private property,and the cooperation between the Planning Department and the Soil
16
Conservation District.He reviewed the results of the pilot program.The three sites identified
for either new planting or easements on existing forest for this year are:1)Charles Downs -25
acres of new forest to be planted,2)Brian Taylor -an easement on 18 acres of existing forest and
3)Anna Bowers a combination of planting and easements on approximately 90 -95 acres.
Mr.Goodrich refereed to the agreements between the owners and the County in the agenda
packet and proceeded to review each site.The Downs property is located on Broadfording Road
in Clear Spring.They are proposing to plant new forest on approximately 25 acres of a former
cultivated field out of a 393 acre farm.The site has two intermittent streams and a perennial
stream and will be planted in a minimum of 5 species,one of which must be black walnut and
because of the wetness of the area there will be sycamore,bald cypress and pin oak.Mr.
Goodrich stated there will be 435 seedlings per acre in 10 x 10 spacing.He said there will be a
3100 foot stream buffer.A discussion followed regarding how these sites were selected and the
fact that they all have high priority areas and the restrictions regarding timber harvesting.
The Taylor site consists of 23 acres and is located on Boonsboro Mountain Road.There are
approximately 16 acres of existing forest on priority areas that include flood plain,steep slopes
and streams.
The Bowers site is located southwest of the junction of Spade Road and Mt.Tabor Road.There
is a total of 60 to 70 acres of existing forest that will be in easement and approximately 25 to 28
·acres of new planting.Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the types of trees to be planted.He
stated they are paying $800/acre for stream buffers and everything else is $500/acre.There is a
fee of $500 per acre that goes to Soil Conservation Service,and the cost for surveys will be
$6,000 to $7,000 for all three of the sites.The cost of new planting is estimated based on the
pilot program at about $2,400 to $2,500 per acre.He said that the total project is approximately
$278,000 for 130+acres of either new forest or existing forest under permanent easement.
Mr.Goodrich referred to the summary of funds that he passed out and proceeded to review it.A
discussion followed regarding the maintenance of planting and the need to plant by March.
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the three planting plans.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So
ordered.A discussion followed.
Preliminary Consultations and Forest Conservation:
Raymond Divelbiss:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary consultation for Raymond Divelbiss.She referred to the
agenda packet and noted that Mr.Divelbiss is requesting in order to meet the requirements of the
Forest Conservation Ordinance that he be allowed to set aside existing forest on the remaining
lands.The developer is proposing to create a 5 lot single family subdivision on Ashton Road in
Clear Spring.Mrs.Pietro stated that 2 lots have been approved in addition to the 5 lots and noted
there will be 116 acres remaining.She stated that the owner would like to do a total of 20 to 25
lots.Mrs.Pietro said that she recommended if he had plans to do that maybe he could look into
taking some of the lots in the front and using the interior street system.She said he stated that
he wanted to do the 5 lots first and may never do the rest so that may be a problem.She said that
the main thing is that they need the Planning Commission's approval for the forest conservation.
Mr.Iseminger asked if there were priority areas on the site.Mrs.Pietro stated that the consultant
submitted a delineation summary and reviewed it.Mr.Frederick briefly spoke.There are no
priority areas on the site to be developed but there is existing forest on the remaining lands.Mr.
Iseminger asked if Lots 8 and 9 could use a shared driveway.Mr.Frederick said they will and if
they build a road to standards they will access it.It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission that they concurred with staffs comments.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the
request for use of off site retention for the forest conservation plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.
17
OTHER BUSINESS:
Request for staff to approve final plat for Phases 3 and 4 St.James Village North:
Mr.Arch explained that when Phases 3 and 4 were before the Planning Commission for
preliminary approval they forgot to request staff having the authority for final approval.Mr.
Moser made a motion to give staff the authority to grant final plat approval for Phases 3 and 4.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch stated there will be a public hearing with the County Commissioners on March 9,1998,
and possibly a work session for either the third or fourth Monday of this month to meet with Mr.
Tischler regarding the Fiscal Analysis Study.Mr.Arch stated that the Board of Commissioners
and the Planning Commission will also have a joint meeting.He explained they had a lot of
rezoning applications for this quarter so they will be having the map amendments on March 9th
and the text amendments will most likely be held at the end of March at Shaeffer Park.A
discussion followed.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
18
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 23,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,February
23,1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Don
Ardinger,Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert
C.Arch;and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,Paul Tischler,Tischler and
Associates;and Bounie Parks and Mike Armel,Water and Sewer Advisory Board.Absent was
Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr.Iseminger stated that the purpose of the meeting was to have an informal conversation with
Paul Tischler,of Tischler and Associates who has been contracted by the County to do a Fiscal
Impact Analysis Study.Tischler and Associates is a Maryland firm that has done Fiscal Impact
Analysis Studies through out the Country.Mr.Arch briefly spoke.He explained that the County
-Commissioners have given the go ahead to proceed with the Fiscal Analysis Study.He stated
that this study is in three sections:Fiscal Impact Analysis,Impact Fees and Feasibility of Special
Assessment Districts and is expected to take approximately 5 months.
Mr.Tischler briefly spoke.He explained that they focus on a case study marginal cost approach
and explained how that works and that they are looking at General Fund activities.He stated that
he will be meeting with the County Commissioners tomorrow to decide what the land use
scenarios should be.He added that they will be working with the Planning staff to provide
information.A discussion followed regarding their process and the scenarios.Mr.Tischler stated
that in their fiscal impact evaluations they will be suggesting up to 5 fiscal impact zones to be
utilized (area west of Clear Spring,Clear Spring and Greencastle Road,the area around
Hagerstown,area south of 1-7011-8 1 and the area east of Hagerstown).He explained that if they
are the 5 areas the scenarios would be defined by fiscal impact zone and aggregated and
proceeded to review the 5 tasks involved.
With regard to impact fees,Mr.Tischler stated that,at present,they would probably recommend
against any impact fees for parks,fire and roads either due to minimal amount of spending of
General Fund Dollars or the small percentage of new growth affecting the need for new capital
facilities.He said that impact fees are strictly related to capacity and proceeded to review what
they have done in other counties.Further discussion followed regarding how the County shares
the cost of roads and whether they would consider that and the different areas involved in the
study.Mr.Tischler reviewed the process which includes liaison with legal council regarding
what would have to happen for an ordinance,presentation of the study to the Board of County
Commissioners,and then a public hearing.Mr.Tischler stated that the County has also included
a Liaison Committee.He said that the purpose of the Committee is to allow interested parties to
understand the land use demographic costs and revenue credit and supporting documentation that
is being used in the calculation of impact fees.It will be an opportunity for these interested
parties to understand the soundness and the reasonableness of the impact fee methodology.They
anticipate two meetings with this group (first after the signing by the client and the second to
discuss the draft report).Mr.Tischler stated that they have found this to be beneficial.
Mr.Tischler stated that the last task is the feasibility for special assessment districts.He said
there are special assessment districts that are good for roads.He said that this task will review
the likely development trends of the County to determine whether the presence of infrastructure,
primarily roads,will enhance the economic position ofthe County and whether a special
assessment district would help to achieve the completion of any particular road in a timely
fashion.He said they will then prepare a memorandum on desirability of a special assessment
19
district and then prepare a special assessment district feasibility analysis.Once the cost is known
they will evaluate the feasibility to attain the revenues to finance the cost.They will also present
specific steps that would have to be taken and finalized.This would include any detailed analysis
of cost,and financial legal requirements.He said they would then prepare a report entitled
Special Assessment District Feasibility Analysis for presentation.A discussion followed
regarding special taxing districts.Mr.Iseminger asked what does Mr.Tischler see happening
once they start this process.Mr.Tischler stated that each jurisdiction is different but that it will
raise the level of consciousness of education and will answer the question "does it pay for itself?"
Mr.Ardinger had a question regarding the final document that they will be voting on.Mr.
Tischler said that they hope to have an executive summary of the fiscal impact report.He said
there will hopefully be educational findings that will come out of it and they can take positive
steps.A discussion followed regarding how this study will tie into the APFO,the problems with
the APFO and the Water and Sewer problem.Mr.Armel from the Water and Sewer Advisory
Board briefly spoke regarding their current problems.He commented in regards to Water and
Sewer,don't add to the debt and asked if somehow they could work out the fair share of
infrastructure debt in the process and asked if they came up with a recommendation for impact
fees.Mr.Tischler referred to his feasibility report.He said that they recommended the
possibility of looking into this issue and was not reflected in the RFP and that as they go through
the process there might be something that changes that.Mr.Iseminger suggested that Mr.
Tischler contact the Sewer Advisory Board and speak to them and based on that conversation it
may develop into another contract.Further discussion followed regarding the APFO.Mrs.
Lampton asked who do they recommend to be on the Liaison Committee.Mr.Tischler stated
that it is up to the client who they want on the committee.Mr.Clopper asked if any of the
scenarios address anything in regards to Agricultural Preservation or Open Space Preservation.
Mr.Tischler said they would to the extent of if it would influence the development or lack of
development within a fiscal impact study.Mr.Tischler encouraged the Commission to get a
copy of the initial feasibility report where they recommended the scope of work and
recommended that they get a copy of the scope of services report.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
,
20
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 2,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 2,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand Iseminger,Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Planning
Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Plarmer,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Plarmer,Timothy
A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,Permits and Inspections Director,
Paul Prodonovich.Absent was Paula Lampton.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
Todd Easterday:
-Mr.Lung briefly reviewed the variance request which had previously been before the
Commission in January for Todd Easterday to create 3 lots using panhandles in excess of 400
feet in length.At that time the Commission had requested comments from both the County
Engineer and the Boonsboro Fire Department and for the Commission members to inspect the
site.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant purchased the 18 acres zoned Conservation last year and
has renovated the existing dwelling located at the front of the property.He said that Mr.
Easterday wants to subdivide the property into 4 lots:one 3 acre lot around the existing dwelling
and 3 additional lots for immediate family members.He explained that Lot 2 is a little over 3
acres in size and has a panhandle to Greenbriar Road approximately 500 feet in length;Lot 3 is
over 3 acres in size and has a 630 foot panhandle to San Mar Road and Lot 4 is a little over 7
acres and has a 1023 foot panhandle to San Mar Road.Mr.Easterday has obtained an entrance
permit and has constructed a residential entrance to San Mar Road and has also done some
clearing and grading on the site.Mr.Lung stated that Oley Griffith,Chief of the Boonsboro Fire
Department called and said that the fire department would be able to access the proposed lots.
Mr.Lung said that the Commission had also asked for the County Engineer's comments in
writing and that they were sent out last month.He said that he did not have anything else to add
except that if this was a 3 lot subdivision it would not be before them because it would meet all
of the requirements of the Ordinance pertaining to panhandle length and design.Mr.Iseminger
commented that this was originally heard at the January meeting and that the reason why they
tabled it was to give the members time to visit the site.He further commented on the violations
for Sediment and Erosion Control that were detailed in the agenda packet.He stated that the
County has various regulations such as the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance which
they expect to be followed and that ifMr.Easterday expects to do business in the County in the
future he will abide by the laws and regulations they have in the County.Mr.Moser reiterated
that this is not the first occasion that this has happened and cited problems on Porterstown Road
and Redhill Road with Forest Conservation requirements.He asked Mr.Lung if this subdivision
falls under the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Lung stated that if it is an immediate family
member conveyance it would be exempt up to a point of allowing 40,000 square feet of trees to
be disturbed.He commented with the activity going on now,the Plarming Department was not
involved because all that was needed was a permit issued by the Permits Department and
reviewed by the Soil Conservation District.Ifthere were more than 40,000 square feet of forest
being disturbed it would have fallen under the Forest Conservation Ordinance and does not know
if that had occurred.Mr.Moser asked if the proposal meets the immediate family member
definition.Mr.Lung said that at the previous meeting Mr.Easterday said that he intended to
convey the lots to immediate family members.Mr.Moser asked Mr.Easterday who the
immediate family members were.Mr.Easterday stated they are himself,his brother and his
cousin.A discussion followed regarding the fact that a cousin does not meet the criteria of
21
immediate family member and the problems that Mr.Easterday has had with complying with the
Ordinances in the past.Mr.Easterday briefly spoke regarding the request and reviewed the site,
the topography and the history of the area.He explained that he and his brother renovated the
house which they plan to sell.He wants to create 3 lots,one for his brother,his cousin and
himself.He added that the property is in trust with his grandmother and that she will convey a
lot to each of them.A discussion followed regarding ownership of the property.Mr.Iseminger
told Mr.Easterday that he still has not addressed why he feels a variance is justified and referred
to the County Engineer's comments regarding the access off of Green Briar Road.Mr.Easterday
said they were going to do that but it made the panhandles longer.Mr.Iseminger stated that he
felt that the driveway is at a grade that is on an incline that is unsafe.He further commented that
Mr.Easterday applied for permits for two driveway entrances for an existing lot and that they are
not cutting the driveway in for an existing lot but for new lots.He added that Mr.Easterday is
coming before them for a variance from the family member statement and that they do not
qualify because a cousin is not considered an immediate family member (the original request was
for a cousin)and there is no existing lane.He told Mr.Easterday he is also asking for a variance
for panhandle length and with the situation with this lot and other mountain lots in the County,
he is inclined not to recommend approval of panhandle lengths greater than 400 feet.He referred
to Mr.McGee's comments and stated he could build a County road off of Greenbriar Road,
subdivide and meet the requirements of the Ordinance and would not need the variance.A
discussion followed regarding the fact that there is no existing lane,the intent of the family
member statement and other variances that have been approved.Mr.Lung stated that the
jmmediate family member statement does not apply to this variance because the proposed lots
have road frontage,however,it would affect the Forest Conservation and APFO requirements.
Further discussion followed regarding the owner of the property,the variance request,the other
option to build a road off of Greenbriar Road and the County Engineer's comments.Mr.
Easterday said in answer to justifying the variance,he wants it because he,his brother and cousin
want to live there.He said that if the Commission turns him down he can still get two lots using
the same driveway and wanted to know what difference another driveway made.Further
discussion followed regarding the steepness of the driveway and the variance request.Mr.
Iseminger asked if it was possible to cut the grade on the driveway.Mr.Easterday said that he
intends to cut the grade when he paves it.A discussion followed regarding a maximum grade of
14 to 15 percent.Mr.Clopper commented that he also felt that the driveway was unsafe and
asked if the applicant could reduce the grade to 15 percent with breakers.
Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the variance provided that the minimum County Standards are
met.Mr.Clopper asked if they could add to the motion to have a landing at San Mar Road and
expressed concern with the pipe and culvert being close to the driveway.A discussion followed
regarding adding a condition that they must meet the County Standards (Mr.Easterday will
remedy the situation to Mr.McGee's satisfaction),condition with paving the driveway,with the
immediate family member statement on the plat and no further subdivision.Mr.Easterday
stated that he wanted to be heard and that everyone was attacking him. A lengthy discussion
followed,regarding Mr.Easterday's violations,the unsafeness of the driveway,concern that
there will be no further subdivision and that this would be an immediate family member
conveyance.Mr.Moser withdrew his motion.Mr.Wade commented that he felt Mr.
Easterday's presentation was disorganized and confusing and that he had no intention on voting
either way.He added that at some point they have to come to grips with panhandle variances
and that there are some properties that do not lend themselves to development.A discussion
followed regarding variances and the fact that if the variance is denied that the applicant can go
to the Board of Appeals and the fact that some properties are not meant to be subdivided.Mr.
Ardinger made a motion to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Wade
abstained.So ordered.The motion was denied based on the fact that no hardship was presented.
22
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Robert Beckley:
Mr.Lung stated that this is not a variance but a request to use Section 405 .11.B of the
Subdivision Ordinance which allows the Planning Commission to approve the subdivision of
land for members of the immediate family where the proposed lots front on a private road or
right-of-way existing at the time of the original parcel's acquisition.He proceeded to review the
history of the property.He stated that in 1973 Dr.Richard Brennan subdivided Slots out ofa
farm he owned along the south side ofMD 68,there were remaining lands in the back and when
that subdivision was created there was a 50 foot strip between two of the lots that was reserved as
access for the remaining land.In 1980 Dr.Brennan conveyed the 66.52 acres out of the
remaining lands to Robert Beckley which includes the 50 foot right-of-way.In 1988 18 acres
were conveyed to an adjacent property owner via the simplified plat process and in 1989 Mr.
Beckley conveyed approximately 26 acres to Robert Hose.Mr.Lung stated that after all of the
conveyances Mr.Beckley was left with 22.45 acres.In 1994 Mr.Hose subdivided a 1.48 acre lot
for an immediate family member and access to that lot was approved across the existing right-of-
way on Mr.Beckley's property.Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Beckley's son now owns the property
and has constructed a dwelling and uses the existing right-of-way to Route 68 and wants to
.subdivide a building lot for his in-laws.The proposed lot would not have any road frontage and
would utilize the existing right-of-way as a means of access.Mr.Lung stated that what is before
them tonight is whether or not the Planning Commission would allow one additional lot to be
created without road frontage,with access across the existing right-of-way and if they are
inclined to do that they may want to consider that this would be the last lot they would allow
before the road would be constructed.Mr.Clopper made a motion to create a lot without public
road frontage for an immediate family member with the stipulation no further subdivision until a
public road is constructed.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
La,ppans Estates:
Mr.Lung stated that the only thing he had to add was he received the County Engineer's opinion
on the need for an emergency turn around,however,he did not receive anything from the fire
department.Mr.Llmg said that the County Engineer's comments are sufficient and are on record
from a previous consultation that there is a need for an emergency turnaround.He said the other
was a comment he received from State Highway Administration regarding having internal
connections provided to adjacent properties.A discussion followed regarding internal
connections and forest conservation.It was the Commission's opinion that internal street
connection to adj acent property may not be appropriate in this case.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Edward Snook.Beaver Creek Recreation:
Mr.Arch stated that this item does not require approval by the Planning Commission but in the
past they have brought other items for the Planning Commission to review similar to this for
comments as part of the review process.Mr.Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections,
made a presentation.He stated that this development started in 1993 and at one point they issued
all of the permits in order to construct the recreational center.He explained that permits were
issued for the water slide and other buildings and some of the work for the footers and
foundations have been poured on some of the buildings but work had ceased for a long period of
time.Mr.Prodonovich stated that he also received numerous complaints from Delegates,a
Senator,some of the County Commissioners as well as citizens about the eyesore.He said that
one of the things that needed to be done was to get an approved entrance and road improvements
for Route 40.He said that those things have been accomplished.They have the permits and the
23
driveway entrances to the site are completed and the next phase is storm water management,
which needs to be completed before any more permits are i~sued for the site.Mr.Prodonovich
stated that he revoked all of the building permits because of the lack of work and the fact that the
first site plan did not show all of the fill that was being placed in the slide area.He said that once
the storm water management is addressed he will issue the permits one at a time.A discussion
followed.Mr.Snook briefly spoke regarding what they have done,and family health problems
they encountered causing the project to come to a halt and noted that they had State approvals for
the slide.Mr.Prodonovich commented that he spoke with the State official and he informed him
that they had an application but never made inspections nor had they approved the water slide.A
discussion followed regarding the slide and doing the storm water management pond first.
RZ-98-0 I -Mansoor and Janet Shaool:
Mr.Lung stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report.Mr.Arch pointed out that since
this is a PUD the applicant does not have to prove whether there was a mistake or change in the
neighborhood.Mr.Iseminger stated that it is his understanding that the County Engineer is in
favor of the addition of this property because it enhances the design of the project.Mr.Clopper
made a recommendation that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-98-1 because it meets the
criteria outlined in the Ordinance regarding PUDs,and is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Wade and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So
ordered.
RZ-98-02 -Doris Doub:
Mr.Goodrich stated that there is no additional information for the staff report.Mr.Iseminger
commented that the applicant made a good case for a mistake in the zoning and what they are
proposing is compatible with the adjoining properties.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that they approve RZ-98-02 based on its consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan,the findings offact outlined in the Staff Report,the applicant's
demonstration that there was a mistake in the original zoning and that the proposed classification
is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.
RZ-96-04.1 Highway Interchange Group III 1-81 at Maugansville Road and MD 58:
Mr.Arch stated that he had nothing to add.He said there was only one piece of correspondence
and no testimony for or against it and the only correspondence received was from a couple on
Point Salem Road and that area was not being proposed for change.Mr.Iseminger asked ifthe
revision was requested by the property owners.Mr.Arch stated that the revisions were from the
residents in that area asking to change from HI-2 to HI -I.Mr.Ernst made a motion to accept the
staff report as findings of fact and recommend that the County Commissioners adopt
RZ-96-4.1 as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.
RZ-96-5.01 -Highway Interchange Group V 1-70 and MD 68:
Mr.Arch referred to the staff report and said that they received a lot of correspondence,
testimony and a petition.He said that the opposition was primarily to two pieces of property east
of Clear Spring along Route 40 (Bragunier Farm and the Groh property).Mr.Iseminger asked if
this change to the original hearing was requested by the two property owners and the County
Commissioners.Mr.Arch stated that it is a combination of the property owners and the fact that
the original recommendation was rejected by the Board of County Commissioners.He noted
that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of what was presented at the original
hearing and the Board of Commissioners felt that some of that area should be left in a
commercial type zoning and one of the property owners expressed objection to what was
proposed.A discussion followed regarding what would happen if both Boards recommended
denial and whether they would have to go back to a public hearing.Mr.Iseminger stated that he
felt they were dealing with just the two property owners and that the Planning Commission had
originally recommended Agriculture.He added that they have given the town of Clear Spring
every opportunity to indicate if they were willing to serve the two properties with water and
24
sewer and they never indicated that those properties were part of that plan and felt that was a big
criteria in the Planning Commission's decision to recommend Agriculture zoning.The other
criteria was the fact that the residents of that area were overwhelmingly opposed to the intensity
of the Highway Interchange zoning.Mr.Iseminger stated that in the second hearing some people
made a point that zoning those properties Highway Interchange I and opening it up to
commercial development would greatly impact existing commercial developments in the town of
Clear Spring.A discussion followed regarding the fact that both of the properties in question
were purchased during the comprehensive rezoning process (which was advertised),the fact that
both individuals are in the development business and the fact that the Zoning Ordinance states
that they have to go back and look at the properties to rezone.Mr.Iseminger stated that nothing
else has changed since the time they previously looked at this interchange other than the fact that
the commissioners denied it and that the Planning Commission had previously approved it for
Agriculture.Further discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger commented that the possibility of
rezoning is always there if they bring in Water and Sewer.He feels nothing has changed since
they recommended Agricultural and his recommendation would be to deny it.A discussion
followed regarding the two additional pieces that were added for HI -I verses the Ag zoning
previously proposed.He added that he did not have a problem with the property being
commercially rezoned if they have sewer and water.A discussion followed regarding the Town
of Clear Spring's position of providing water and sewer and the fact that they want to keep the
rural village atmosphere.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny RZ-96-5.1.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
A vote was taken Mr.Moser,Mr.Ernst and Mr.Iseminger voted aye.Mr.Ardinger and Mr.
.Clopper voted nay.So ordered.
Draft of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Rural Village:
Mr.Arch stated that the proposed amendment is scheduled for public hearing on March 31,1998.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment is required due to the Smart Growth legislation passed by
the Maryland legislature last year.The State of Maryland is required to target growth related
funding to Priority Funding Areas.,Rural Villages are one of many Priority Funding Areas.
Rural areas often need state funding assistance to correct infrastructure problems and they may
no longer be eligible ifnot designated.The amendment must be implemented by July I,1998.
Mr.Goodrich reviewed the proposed text,the method to determine the initial list of potential
Rural Villages and the difficulty in developing reliable criteria to be used to determine the final
list of villages to be formally designated by the Plan.A discussion followed regarding the listed
villages with the Commission mentioning specifically Mapleville,Big Pool,St.James,Ft.
Ritchie and Greensburg.Following the discussion,it was the consensus of the Commission that
the amendment should be presented with the entire list of 54 villages and the addition of
Greensburg rather than the selected list of IS.
APFO:
Mr.Arch reviewed the 6 month APFO report and noted that the only school over capacity is
Hickory due to prekindergarten students.A discussion followed regarding developer obligations
and having a comprehensive rezoning instead of individual rezonings so they can plan for
infrastructure in the future.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the APFO and recommend its
continuation.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Ardinger opposed.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
d 1.Iseminger,Chairman
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 1Q'~
.75
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 6,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,April 6,
1998.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;R.Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton,Don
Ardinger and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,
Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung;Farmland
Preservation Administration,Eric Seifarth and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were:
Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.
CALL TO ORDER:
MINUTES:
Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the minutes of January 5,1998.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.So ordered.
Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes of February 2,1998.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Agricultural Land Preservation Districts:
Mr.Seifarth reviewed the 6 applications for the Agricultural Preservation District and noted that
these applications have been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board.
AD-98-01,Lynn and Paula Kendle.The property is located along Ruble Road,Stottlemyer Road
and Route 40.Mr.Seifarth noted that this property will be before the Planning Commission later
tonight for a forest stand delineation for a 2 lot subdivision.He stated that the Kendles are
proposing to put 129 acres in agricultural preservation and to exclude approximately 17 acres
along Stottlemeyer Road and Route 40.He said that an issue has come up that for more than 4
lots a preliminary consultation is required and that he discussed with the landowner that he may
not be able to develop all of the lots along the road.Mr.Seifarth added that the owner does not
have the intention to do that at this time.Mr.Seifarth explained that the Kendles recently
purchased the farm and are excluding the lots for insurance purposes.Mr.Seifarth said that the
Agricultural Advisory Board does not have a problem with it because it meets the requirements
and that the retention ofland is out of their scope and felt that is up to the Planning Commission.
A discussion followed regarding Stottlemyer Road and the fact that the Kendles are requesting to
put 129 acres into a preservation district,and the fact that maximum development rights within
the Agricultural Preservation Program are one lot per every 20 acres.Further discussion
followed regarding the fact that if the 17 acres were not excluded,that the owner would be
allowed to develop 7 lots according to the regulations ofthe Agricultural Preservation Program
and whether it would be appropriate to have a condition to that affect.Further discussion
followed regarding whether Mr.Kendle's financing is contingent upon the number oflots that
could be developed and the fact that this has never been done before.Mr.Seifarth referred to the
two lots along Route 40 and stated they currently have those in for review.Mr.Iseminger
commented on the reserving of lots and feels this goes against the intent of the Ordinance and
does not want to encourage the continual stripping along the roads.Further discussion followed
regarding the reservation of lots to be developed along an existing road and encouraging farmers
to participate in the Agricultural Preservation Program.Mr.Iseminger felt that the Agricultural
Advisory Board needs to talce a look at this issue and give the Planning Commission an opinion.
He feels this is counter to the intent of the Agricultural Preservation Program.
26
AD-98-02 is also owned by Mr.and Mrs.Kendle.Mr.Seifarth noted that one acre is being
excluded for an existing cellular tower and pointed out that it is contiguous to an existing
Agricultural District.
AD-98-03 -Lynn and Rita Strite.Mr.Seifarth stated that they are also excluding 39 acres for
financial security and do meet the criteria.AD-98-04 and AD-98-05 belong to the Martin
family,Ivy Hill Farm.Mr.Seifarth stated that neither property has enough acreage alone but
together they form a block of over 100 acres.AD-98-06 -John and Beth Shank is located along
Alternate 40 qualifies with soils and acreage.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners to approve the Agricultural Land Preservation applications because they
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with a note that they need to discuss the stripping of
lots.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst stated that he was abstaining on AD-98-01 and AD-
98-02,both for Lynn and Paula Kendle.So ordered.
Variances:
Michael R.Baylor:
Mr.Arch presented the request for Michael Baylor.The subject site is located off of Mt.Aetna
Road in Black Rock Estates.The applicant is requesting a variance from the access spacing
requirement associated with a previously approved plat showing two driveways sharing one
.access point.Mr.Arch referred to the memo from the County Engineer,which recommends no
change in the approved plan.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Baylor is in the process of building a new
house and is concerned from an access and safety standpoint of using the same driveway.His
primary reason for the variance is to allow him to have his own driveway.
Mr.Baylor briefly spoke.He stated that the prior owner had been given a recommendation by
the County to place the driveway at a certain point and that was not done.He stated by leaving it
the same has created a hazard.He explained he has to go up a hill and make two sharp turns.
He added that twice this winter he has slid out onto Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Arch commented that
at the time the Black Rock subdivision came before the Planning Commission there was
considerable discussion regarding limiting access onto Mt.Aetna Road.He said that the
preferred resolution was to have all of the lots access interior roads and that the County Engineer
looked at it from a standpoint that if they were going to upgrade the road they should upgrade the
spacing requirement.He said that the driveway spacing requirement became 300 feet and they
felt it was the most correct way to address the situation.A discussion followed regarding the
existing driveway and what had previously been approved.Mr.Iseminger stated that Terry
McGee did not specifically comment on the driveway and would like him to make a site
inspection.He added that when the Planning Commission initially approved this subdivision,
they wanted all of the lots to access an interior road.After discussion with the developer they
came to a compromise to allow a few lots using shared accesses.He feels that traffic is going to
increase in that area and would not be in favor of reducing the access spacing.He cannot
consider the request without inspecting the site and without specific comments from the County
Engineer.Mr.Baylor requested that they table it until they visit the site.A discussion followed
regarding the site inspection,reviewing both the replat and the previous minutes.Mrs.Lampton
made a motion to table the request.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Further discussion
followed regarding the Planning Commission making a site inspection with Mr.McGee.
Gadway/Easterday:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Lisa Gadway and Todd Easterday.The property is
located on the southwest corner of Greenbriar Road and San Mar Road,has an existing dwelling,
consists of 18 acres and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that this request is an alternative
to a previous request that was denied at the March meeting.Mr.Lung stated that the deed for
this property is in the name of Tod Easterday,Michael Easterday,Douglas and Lisa Gadway.He
said that the owners wish to subdivide the property into 4 lots.Lot 1 would contain the existing
dwelling which is currently for sale.The 3 remaining lots would be conveyed individually to the
27
persons named on the deed.Mr.Lung stated that the previous request was denied for two
panhandles off of San Mar Road.He commented that the County Engineer believed the entrance
onto San Mar Road presented a safety hazard and both the County Engineer and staffwere
concerned about the steepness of the driveway off of San Mar Road.He added that the County
Engineer indicated a preferred entrance location would be onto Greenbriar Road because it is less
steep and was a safer entrance location.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant has redesigned the
subdivision so that all of the lots access onto Greenbriar Road.He explained that this creates
three panhandles side by side and the maximum allowed is two.It also creates a three tier
stacking arrangement and two of the panhandles exceed 400 feet in length.The panhandle for
Lot 2 is 491 feet and the longest one is 993 feet.The applicant is proposing to eliminate the
entrance on San Mar Road and create a shared access onto Greenbriar Road.Mr.Lung referred
to the hardship statement on the variance request regarding the shape of the property and the
topography.A discussion followed regarding the access and adding a condition that there will be
no further subdivision.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant a variance with the condition that
the access onto San Mar Road will be eliminated and stabilized,with the stipulation that there
will be no further subdivision of this property due to the topographic constraints.Seconded by
Mr.Ernst.A vote was taken.Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ernst and Mr.Iseminger voted aye.Mr.
Ardinger and Mrs.Lampton voted nay.So ordered.
A discussion followed with Michael Easterday regarding the contingencies stipulated in the
variance approval.
Subdivisions:
Michael Whetzel.Preliminary/Final Plat.Lots 1-3:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Michael Whetzel.The property is located on
the southwest corner of Maugansville Road and Railroad Street and is zoned Business General.
The owner is proposing to create 3 new lots with existing structures on them.Lot 1 will access
Maugansville Road and Lots 2 and 3 have frontage onto Railroad Street.All lots are served by
public water and sewer.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation and all agency approvals
have been received.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the prelimianry/final plat.
Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Antietam Acres,Section 2,Preliminary Plat:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for Antietam Acres,Section 2,located on Garris Shop
Road.She stated that this was previously before the Planning Commission for payment in lieu
of for Forest Conservation.The developer is proposing 13 single family lots 1 to 1.5 acres in
size zoned Agriculture.The total acreage is 22 with 116 acres remaining.The lots will be
served by wells and septics and a new interior street system.All agency approvals have been
received except Engineering.The County Engineer needs minor revisions to the Storm Water
Management Plan.Mrs.Pietro noted that the developer is going to pay $17,042.00 into the
Forest Conservation Fund and that the remaining lands are now in an Agricultural Preservation
District.Mrs.Pietro stated that they needed additional land for their storm water management so
they had to take off Lot 35 at this time.She explained that a note will be added to the plat that
Lot 35 will be for future development and would not be part of this development until such time
that the remaining lands goes out of the Agricultural District and then it will be submitted for
preliminary/final plat approval.A discussion followed regarding the stormwater management
area.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for 13 lots in Section 2
contingent upon final stormwater management approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Reno Heights,Preliminary/Final Plat:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Reno Heights.The developer is proposing to
28
create five residential lots on the south side of Reno Monument Road.The property consists of
35 acres zoned Agriculture.The lots are approximately 2 acres in size with 24 acres remaining.
All of the lots will be served by a new public street and there will be no individual access onto
Reno Monument Road.Mr.Lung stated that the preliminary consultation for this plan was
previously discussed.He stated that the existing vegetation along Reno Monument Road and
along the western boundary line are to remain to buffer the lots from the road and to help
maintain the rural character.Forest Conservation will be addressed through retention of 2.88
acres of existing forest located on the remaining land and was approved by the Planning
Commission when they reviewed the Preliminary Consultation on January 6,1997.The lots will
be served by individual wells and septics.All approvals have been received except for
Engineering,which will be granted once the revision to the roadway drawings have been signed.
Mr.Lung noted that at the Preliminary Consultation the original proposal was for II lots and that
the Planning Commission expressed concern with the design of the lots since it is located in a
rural/agricultural area and concurred with the staff recommendation that the developer consider
clustering.Due to the soil conditions in this area they were not able to get a large enough area to
perc as a common septic area and as a result the II lot subdivision was reduced to 5 lots,the
street is much shorter and there is less impact on the land.A discussion followed regarding the
number of panhandles,the buffering and the cluster process.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to
approve the preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
.Site Plans:
Total Lube Center:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for total Lube Center.He explained that it is a proposed
automobile Lube Center and Retail Parts store on Route 64.The site is 37,026 square feet in size
and is zoned Business Local and is the site ofthe old High's Dairy store.The existing building
will be retained and there will be a new 60 x 60 addition on the east side.The existing septic
will be relocated.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the proposed screening,parking,hours of
operation and noted that oil separators may be needed and permits from MDE may be required
regarding burning of waste oil for heating purposes and that would be addressed at the permitting
stage.He stated that he has requested that a note be added to the plat to that affect.All agency
approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated that he is waiting for a revision with the note on
the plat regarding the possible need for the soil separators.A discussion followed.Mrs.
Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval with the condition that a note be added to the
plat regarding oil separators and with the condition there will be no floor drain to the septic.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Prime RetaiL (Outlet Village of Hagerstown.Phase II):
Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for the second phase of the Outlet Village formerly referred
to as Prime RetaiL The property is located in the northwest quadrant ofMD 65 and 1-70.Phase I
was 216,800 square feet out ofa total of460,000 square feet.Phase II is an additional 101,500
square feet and parking spaces will increase by 640 to over 1,900 additional spaces.Mr.
Goodrich stated that Phase I addressed most of the complicated issues.The water will be
provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer will be through the County system to the City of
Hagerstown plant.Road issues have all been addressed through improvements to MD 65 and
Oak Ridge Drive and approved by State Highway Administration and the County.Mr.Goodrich
stated that the site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it is an existing lot
of record and less than 40,000 square feet offorest is to be disturbed.He noted that bus parking
the Commission requested when approving Phase I is shown in this phase on the western edge.
There will be 8 spaces.All approvals have been received except for Engineering,State Highway
Administration and City Sewer.Staff does not expect any complications.A discussion
followed with the developer regarding the improvements to the intersections and extending
sidewalks.Mr.Iseminger stated that they could address the sidewalks at the next phase.Mr.
Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan for Phase 2 of Outlet Village contingent on all
29
agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Forest Conservation:
Lynn and Paula Kendle.Request for Off Site Retention:
Mr.Lung stated that this is the same piece of ground that Mr.Seifarth reviewed for an
Agricultural District application.He explained that the applicant is requesting to use off site
forest retention.He said that about two months ago the Kendles submitted an application for a 2
lot subdivision off of Route 40.At that time they were proposing to use payment in lieu of
afforestation because there is no forest where the lots were created and no priority areas.Since
that time,Mr.and Mrs.Kendle changed their minds and are now proposing off site retention of
existing forest on remaining lands to meet their obligation for forest conservation.The property
is located on Route 40 near the Family Recreation Center.Mr.Lung explained that the
remaining lands are in two parcels.He referred to the exhibit plat delineating the proposed
subdivision,the existing tree cover and the area they want to retain which consists of .39 acres.
He said they submitted a forest stand delineation and reviewed the narrative in the agenda packet.
Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the request for off site retention.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Other Business:
Mack Truck request to use simplified plat:
Mr.Arch stated that at the time of the rezoning there was a section proposed for future industrial
development.At this time Mack Truck would like to separate this section using the simplified
plat process since there is no development planned at this moment.Mr.Johnson of Davis,Renn
and Associates stated that they want to convey the land to a separate entity and at the time when
they are ready to develop,will come back with a development plan.Mr.Clopper made a motion
to grant the use of the simplified plat procedure.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.
Iseminger spoke to Mr.Bob Darby in the audience who was present regarding storm water
management issues.Mr.Iseminger stated that they will be addressed at the time of site plan.
RZ-97-06.Garrett and Smith:
Mr.Lung stated that the only thing he had to add to the staff report was a correction regarding
the Roach parcel.Mr.said that Mr.Wantz,the attorney for the applicant,informed him that they
do not currently have a contract to purchase this property and at this point Garrett and Smith
have only discussed possibly acquiring the property with Mr.Roach and that Mr.Roach thought
his property was already zoned HI-I.
Mr.Iseminger said that one of the major concerns of the property owners in that area was
drainage and sewer issues and stated that as brought up at the hearing any plans will have to
address that situation and that in order for development plans to proceed they may have to go
beyond what is required for their particular development to help remedy that situation.Mr.
Iseminger stated that the other issue that came up at the hearing is that the residents do not want
any access through any of the roads that serve the residences.He said that at the prior rezoning
their approval was with the condition that the commercial site would not access the roads serving
the residences and felt that if they approve this request it would have that the same condition as
well as the condition for buffering Hickory Elementary School.A discussion followed regarding
the extension of Halfway Boulevard,the fact that in the past the Planning Commission has been
reluctant to make contingencies to rezonings,the fact that the Planning Commission is not
putting a contingency on what they can and cannot do with the site,the fact that the applicant can
do whatever is allowed under HI-I zoning or BG but that the Planning Commission can put a
30
contingency on the rezoning approval based on the fact that they will not access through
residential roads,that they will provide a buffer and that they will provide for possible future
access to Hickory Elementary School.Mr.Iseminger stated that the applicant has made a case
with regard to the lack of development of the Residential Multifamily property and the fact that
the Planning Commission's rezoning to RM was based on previously approved plans can be
construed as a mistake.He feels that what is being proposed is consistent and compatible with
what is in that area and that buffering can be addressed to take care of some of the problems
with the residential properties and that the applicant demonstrated that the rezoning is
appropriate and logical.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners
to approve RZ-98-06 based on the fact that there was an error in the original comprehensive
rezoning and that the proposed zoning is logical and appropriate based on the character of the
development in the area and is compatible.That the issues of buffering can be addressed at site
plan time.With the conditions that there will be no access onto the residential roads and that
adequate screening and buffering be provided along the school and adjacent residential
properties.Depending on future development plans they will hold open the possibility of access
to Hickory Elementary School off of those roads.Any development will have to address the
sewer problems.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered a discussion followed regarding the
land transfer.
RZ-98-04,632 Joint Venture:
Mr.Iseminger commented on the fact that they just received the staff report and that they need
time to review it.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to table the rezoning recommendation for RZ-98-
04.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
RZ-98-05,Millard and Beverly Kretzer:
Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing else to add but noted that this same property was heard in
1995 and that nothing has changed.Mr.Iseminger stated that he feels the parcel is too small and
does not feel that the applicant made a case and that safety is a problem with the traffic in the
area.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend denial.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Resolution 98-1 (RZ-96-4.1 and RZ-96-5.l):
Mr.Arch explained that this is this resolution is the formal document for the action the Planning
Commission took last month for the Group III and V interchanges and that he will then take it to
the County Attorney to be presented to the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to adopt Resolution 98-1.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Kings Crest:
Mr.Arch explained that the developer,Stan Valentine,is requesting that the Planning
Commission allow him to replace a basketball court with a putting green and that he was unable
to attend the meeting.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the amenities for the Kings Crest PUD
Development.He stated that during the plat review there was discussion regarding amenities and
sidewalks.Mr.Lung said that Mr.Valentine initially proposed a putting green and that it was
brought to his attention that he had not provided any of the tot lots that were required.
Subsequent plans for the putting green were dropped and a tot lot was placed in one corner.At
one time there was a plan for a tennis court located near a large drainage swale which called for a
redesign and a basketball court was proposed instead.In addition,the developer is proposing to
put in benches and a horseshoe pit.Mr.Lung stated that they had several discussions at past
Planning Commission meetings regarding sidewalks and amenities.He said that Mr.Valentine
is now proposing to replace the area that initially called for a basketball court with a putting
green.Mr.Valentine has met his requirements with the tot lot and anything else would be
31
considered additional amenities as part of the PUD and not specifically towards any requirement
in the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Lung noted that the garden style apartments shown on the site plan
have not been built yet.He stated that when he inspected the site today he noticed that none of
the amenities have been put in and that all of the units are in but that the horseshoe pits and
benches are not and will have to check with the Zoning Administrator.Mr.Lung stated that his
only comment on the putting green would be access.He said he was not sure how the people in
the single family homes would access it because of the size of the drainage swale and added that
Mr.Valentine did not supply any drawings with this request so he is not sure how Mr.Valentine
intends to address that.A discussion followed regarding how the amenities will be maintained,
the fact that there will be a homeowners association for the single family homes and a
management company for the apartments.Mr.Lung commented that the putting green would
work better if it were relocated to its original spot where the tot lot is now,because there are
more apartments on the other side of the road that could easily access the tot lot.A discussion
followed regarding the amenities.Mr.Iseminger commented that it may be better to make it a
tot lot and get rid ofthe putting green and basketball court and have a lot that is easier to
maintain.He said that since Mr.Valentine is not present that Mr.Lung suggest that as an
alternative and see what he says.A discussion followed regarding the amenities and the fact that
Mr.Valentine needs to comply with the things that were expected to be done to this point.Mr.
Lung said that he has met his requirement with the tot lot and the other are amenities that are
supposed to be part of the PUD.Mr.Iseminger stated that it would be his recommendation to
recommend to Mr.Valentine that he just plant grass and landscape it nicely.It was the
.consensus of the Planning Commission that Mr.Lung suggest to Mr.Valentine that he plant the
area in grass and does not have to put anything in there,keep it as common open space and add
another bench.If Mr.Valentine wants to put in a putting green then he needs to come back to
the Planning Commission and tell them what size putting green it will be and some specification,
after he puts the required benches in.
Capital Improvement Program:
Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the program and stated that it has gone before the Board of County
Commissioners on three occasions and referred to the FY 1999.He stated that the Planning
Commission is responsible to approve that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.He
noted that the most critical aspect is that projects are getting larger and the number of projects
being done are fewer.He explained that the budgetary process is taking longer.A discussion
followed regarding some of the projects.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that the projects listed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger stated that Mr.Darby wanted to make a comment.Mr.Darby briefly spoke
regarding enforcing house numbering for both residential and commercial properties.He feels
that the County needs an enforcement policy either through the Permits Department or the Fire
Police.A discussion followed regarding the Ordinance enforcing the house numbers adopted by
the County Commissioners requires that there be house numbers but nothing in terms of a
penalty if they do not and that Mr.Darby has been before the County Commissioners.Mr.
Iseminger asked Mr.Arch to speal(to Mr.Prodonovich of the Permits Department.Mr.Arch
stated that the Permits Department does try to encourage and provide the numbers to do that and
that a lot of people do not want to post their numbers.Mr.Iseminger suggested that Mr.Arch
send a memo to the Fire Coordinator regarding meeting with Mr.Prodonovich to discuss this
issue and whether it is a concern with the fire companies and keep Mr.Darby informed.
Upcoming Meetings:
A discussion followed regarding scheduling a meeting with the County Commissioners.Mr.
Iseminger commented that on April 23rd at Winchester Hall in Frederick the Maryland Citizens
Planners and League of Women Voters are holding a seminar regarding Lessons to be Learned
from PUD and other Jurisdictions.A discussion followed regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
32
33
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETlNG-MAY 4,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 4,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey (on behalf of James R.
Wade).Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;
Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
Absent were:Ex-Officio,James R.Wade and Paula Lampton.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of February 23,1998.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
.So ordered.
Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch requested that the variance request for Pine
Glen,Inc.be removed and that under Other Business that Potomac Manor,Section H,request for
time extension be added for guidance.Mr.Clopper made a motion to remove the variance for
Pine Glen and to add Potomac Manor Section H.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Michael Bavlor:
Mr.Lung stated that this item was tabled from the April meeting in order for the Planning
Commission members to make a site inspection as well as to receive input from the County
Engineer regarding the driveway design.Mr.Lung explained that Mr.Baylor is the owner of Lot
100,Black Rock Estates.He explained that as part of the original subdivision approval,the
Planning Commission wanted to limit the number of accesses onto Mt.Aetna Road and in doing
so granted approval of the original subdivision with the condition that access to Lot 100 share an
access with the parcel to the east.Mr.Baylor is proposing to establish his own access located
further to the west because he feels the current driveway is not safe.Mr.Lung noted that the
proposed location does not meet access spacing criteria and that after inspecting the site,Mr.
McGee,the County Engineer,still stands by his previous recommendation that the access not be
changed.He said that the County Engineerhas concerns regarding the proposed driveway and
observed that sight distance deteriorates as you move further west along Mt.Aetna Road.He
said that Mr.McGee feels that in order to obtain a new access would require a considerable
amount of earthwork and would probably not provide a less steep slope than the existing access.
Mr.McGee also feels that the existing access could be improved with additional grading and
paving and that probably some of the problems that have occurred are due to the fact that the
driveway is not completed since the house is still under construction.In addition,Mr.McGee is
also concerned with the precedent this would create by allowing another entrance onto Mt.Aetna
Road especially since there are other lots that are undeveloped that are also required to use
shared entrances.Mr.Lung stated that he spoke to Manny Shaool (developer of Black Rock
Estates)and was informed that he has sold both of the lots.He noted that there is specific
language in the deeds regarding maintenance for that access and the use of the shared access.A
discussion followed regarding the site distance and the proposed entrance.Mr.Baylor briefly
spoke.He stated that the Planning Commission was not looking at the correct access location in
the field.Mr.Iseminger commented that when both lots were sold the owners were made aware
34
that one of stipulations would be a shared access.He further stated when the Planning
Commission approved the subdivision,and when negotiations took place regarding
improvements to Mt.Aetna Road,the Planning Commission made it clear that they did not want
any access points onto Mt.Aetna Road and as a compromise they allowed several shared
accesses.He said that when they inspected the site,he noticed that the driveway is steep and
even though it is within County standards,he felt it should be graded to lessen the slope.He said
that the County does not want to get into a position to approve a driveway that is less safe than
what is currently in existence and because of those reasons,the fact that there is no demonstrated
hardship and from a safety standpoint it makes no sense to move the driveway anywhere other
than where it is and to have the two properties share that driveway.Regardless of the exact
location of the proposed driveway,the County Engineer has determined that sight distance is not
as good at any location to the west.He suggested that Mr.Baylor and his neighbor negotiate to
improve the existing entrance any way they chose and that the previous owner indicated there is
language in the deeds to address that.A discussion followed regarding the driveway,the fact
that both owners need to get together regarding improving the driveway,the County Engineer's
comments and limiting access onto Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the
variance.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the motion carries
and that the variance is denied based on the fact that there is no demonstrated hardship and that
moving the driveway would result in an unsafe condition.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Gerald and Tina Rhodes:
Mr.Lung stated that there was a policy adopted last year that the Planning Commission would
not approve any variances to create lots without road frontage.He explained that this request is
before them because the Planning Commission granted a variance in November 1996 to create a
lot not for development,without public road frontage.The applicants now want to tum the
simplified lot into a building lot.Mr.Lung stated that the lot is located in a subdivision called
Fort Frederick Mountain View Estates that was approved in 1977 located off of Garrison Hollow
Road.He referred to the exhibit plat and stated that the original lot consisted of 12.45 acres
zoned Conservation and accesses Garrison Hollow Road via a 25 foot wide panhandle.He said
that the simplified subdivision was approved in January of 1997 to create a new 7.45 acre parcel
to the rear with a 20 foot right-of-way across the remaining lands of Lot 21 to Garrison Hollow
Road.He explained that Mr.and Mrs.Rhodes originally owned the entire property and sold off
the front portion with the existing dwelling and retained the simplified lot to the rear.They now
want to return to the area and build a home on the simplified parcel.Mr.Lung stated that this
type of request would normally be denied on staff level so that the applicant could appeal to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.Since this had been before the Planning Commission for the
simplified parcel,staff felt that the Planning Commission should review it.He said that staff has
several concerns.The request does not meet the hardship requirements and staff is concerned
with the precedent this would create if the Planning Commission allowed the simplified lot to be
developed because the same situation exists on four other lots in the subdivision.In addition,
Mr.Lung stated that in doing the staff report for presentation he found that Garrison Hollow
Road appears to be inadequate based on the requirements of the Road Adequacy Policy and the
APFO.He added that even if the Planning Commission approved this variance request,a
building lot could not be improved because the road is inadequate.He referred to Mr.and Mrs.
Rhodes letter and said it was compelling,however,it did not meet the hardship criteria.Mr.and
Mrs.Rhodes briefly spoke.A discussion followed regarding the fact that if the lot was approved
it still may not be developed due to not meeting the APFO requirements.Mr.Iseminger stated
that the applicant has not shown that there is a demonstrated hardship particularly in light of the
fact that they just created this lot in November of 1996 not for development and are now
requesting to develop it.He stated that he agrees with Staffs concerns that if they approve this
request they will set a precedent and that it is not the County's position to approve lots on a
substandard road or to approve lots without public road frontage and that financial and health
problems are not considered a hardship.He said that if the Planning Commission denies this
35
request that Mr.and Mrs.Rhodes next step would be to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.In
light of the fact that it is a substandard road and does not meet the APFO requirements,he did
not believe it would be approved.A discussion followed regarding the fact that if the variance
was approved that the plat would be denied based on the fact that the road is inadequate and the
fact that when this property was previously subdivided that it was done to create a lot for cutting
of firewood with a guarantee from the Rhodes that there would be no further subdivision or
building and the fact that if the request is denied the next step would be to go before the Board of
Zoning Appeals.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the variance.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So
ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that the variance is denied and that if they want to follow through
with the Board of Zoning Appeals they could contact Mr.Lung regarding the procedure.
Subdivisions:
Austin Hills,Preliminary Plan:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for lots 4-17.The property is located on the east side
of Little Antietam Road (MD 62)and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create
14 single family lots ranging from 1 to 10 acres in size on a total of 42 acres with 30 acres
remaining.Mrs.Pietro stated that Lots 1-3 were approved in 1997 and that a preliminary
consultation was presented in the fall.She reviewed the plat and the new public street.All lots
will be served by individual wells and septic systems and will access the new public street.The
.forest conservation requirements will be met by retaining existing forest on site and a portion on
the remaining lands.All agency approvals have been received except for the County Engineer
and State Highway.Mrs.Pietro stated that they approved it in concept but are waiting for the
hydraulic report.Mr.Arch suggested if the Planning Commission grants this,that they give staff
final approval authority.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary approval subject to the
County Engineer's and State Highway approvals and also give staff authority for final plat
approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Site Plans:
AC&T:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for AC&T located on the west side of South Potomac Street
zoned HI-I.She stated that this is currently the American Convenience store,which will be
raised and an AC&T store will go in its place.She stated it is on 1.72 acres and that they
currently have a replat in the office where AC&T is acquiring additional land and conveying land
back to the Outlet Village.It is not yet approved.Mrs.Pietro said that approval of the site plan
would be contingent on that plat.The developer is proposing a convenience store,service
station,bank and car wash.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the size ofthe building (4,500 square feet),the
site will be served by public water and sewer,access to the site will be enter only and exit only
and there will be a combined access to the rear of the site.She proceeded to review the entrance
onto Sharpsburg Pike to the outlet mall (there will be a median strip and State Highway will
allow a U-turn).The hours of operation of the store will be 24 hours a day,7 days a week and
the banks hours will be 9:00 to 7:00 p.m.Monday through Friday,9:00 to 12:00 on Saturday.
The bank will employ 4 persons per day,and there will be 6 store employees.Mrs.Pietro
reviewed the parking,deliveries,signage,landscaping,dumpster location,carwash location and
traffic flow.She stated that stormwater management will be satisfied with an agreement with
Prime Retail allowing them to use their pond.The Planning office is waiting for a legal
document before they can grant final approval.In regards to the car wash,Mrs.Pietro stated that
one of the problems State Highway had was with the stacking and proceeded to review the traffic
flow on the site.All approvals have been received except Soil Conservation,they are waiting for
revisions,the County Engineer has approved with the condition that they receive a legal
agreement between AC&T and Prime Retail regarding stormwater management.A discussion
followed regarding the entrance to the outlet and the possible traffic problems they will have by
allowing the U-Turn and the internal traffic flow.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant site plan
approval contingent on the replat and sto=water management agreement.Seconded by Mr.
36
Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Hagerstown Honda/KIA.Preliminary Plat/Site Plan and Final Replat:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan/preliminary/final plat for Hagerstown Honda/KIA.The
property is located along the east side of Auto Place in the I-70/Hagerstown Auto Park and is
zoned HI -I.The developer is proposing to construct a 3,900 square foot car sales office for KIA
cars.It is located on a 10 acre tract which also includes the Honda dealership.The site will be
served by individual well and septic systems.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the location ofthe
access,number of employees (31),parking,hours of operation,freight and delivery,lighting
(pole mounted and dusk to dawn),dumpster,stormwater management and landscaping.She said
that the developer is going to take the fee in lieu of in order to meet the requirements of forest
conservation.All approvals are in.Mrs.Pietro stated that KIA is currently working out of a
trailer next to the Honda dealership.She said that she received a letter from Jeb Eckstine of the
Funkstown Fire Company stating that their main concern is that all of the sites are served by
wells and there is not an adequate water supply in case of fire.She said that Jeb Eckstine could
not attend the meeting and will send a letter.Mr.Iseminger asked if they are requiring onsite
water storage.Mrs.Pietro said they would like to see tanks but they are not an approving
agency.Mrs.Pietro said they did not receive a response from the Fire Marshal.A discussion
followed regarding the fact that the Fire Marshall is involved during the permits process,the fact
that they could bring in tanker trucks or have storage tanks on the site.Mrs.Pietro stated that
.Jerry Cump is aware of the fire department's concern.A discussion followed with the
consultant.Mr.Cump stated that this building is going to be similar to the one at Hoffman
Chevrolet.He introduced Paul Richie,the Vice President and Wilson Howell,the owner.He
stated that in regard to the fire code,the building department checks that and did not think the
building would be sprinkled due to the size.A discussion followed regarding working with the
owners in the car park to install septic tanks for water storage on the site.A discussion followed
regarding what the plans were regarding water service to the park,the potential build out for the
park,and the fact that Dr.Perryman owns the remainder of the property.Mr.Iseminger stated
that he encourages them to meet with the other property owners and share in the cost of
instituting a tank system out there at the recommendation of the Funkstown Fire Department or
the Fire Marshall may require them to do it separately.Mrs.Pietro stated that all agency
approvals have been received.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger suggested that the
Planning Commission should send a letter to Dr.Perryman suggesting that he round up all the
current owners and future lot owners and suggest that they share in the cost of either extending
the water line across the interstate or provide for storage capacity for fire protection.A
discussion followed regarding the fire department's comments and granting an approval
contingent on Funkstown Fire Department granting approval and that public services were going
to be made available out there.Further discussion followed regarding the letter to Dr.Perryman
to include that future site plan approvals be contingent on adequately addressing the Funkstown
Fire Department's protection needs.Mrs.Pietro stated that Funkstown Fire Company is not an
approving agency.It is only sent items for review and comments.Mr.Ardinger made a motion
to grant site plan,preliminary plat and final replat approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.A vote
was taken.Mr.Ardinger,Mr.Clopper and Mr.Downey voted aye.Mr.Moser voted no.Mr.
Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger instructed staff to send a letter to Dr.Perryman and
the other dealerships passing along Funkstown Fire Department's comment and requesting that
they get together and provide for water storage for fire protection.
Bowman Group LLC,Newgate Lot 3:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Bowman Group Lot 3 in the Newgate Industrial Parle.
The developer is proposing a 585,000 square foot warehouse on Lot 3 of Newgate Industrial Park
located on the west side of Hopewell Road directly across from Phillips Drisco Pipe and is zoned
Industrial General.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission approved a subdivision plat
that created Lot 3 in January.Lot 3 contains just under 66 acres.Mr.Lung stated that the site
plan is proposing a 1,200 foot long 300 foot wide building parallel with Hopewell Road.He
reviewed the location of the entrance,parking,and employees.Mr.Lung stated there is a future
37
rail spur proposed across Hopewell Road going into Newgate with the siding in the front part of
the warehouse building.He reviewed the lighting (building and pole mounted),public water
and sewer,6 new fire hydrants,the storm water management pond and the landscaping.Mr.
Lung stated that staff recommended additional landscaping along the frontage however,were
informed that a future building would be in that area.The developer did indicate that they would
eventually landscape along the front of Hopewell Road.Mr.Lung stated that forest conservation
would be handled by an overall forest conservation plan being developed for Newgate Industrial
Park.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung stated that the Permits Department asked for a few
revisions and that he has forwarded a revised plan to them.Mr.Arch stated that they want a note
on the plan stating that there may be additional plantings to mitigate forest conservation for the
entire park in the flood plain area along with a pedestrian path associated with a linear park.A
discussion followed.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on
Permits Department approval,a definitive forest conservation agreement and with a note on the
plat stating that flood plain area to the rear of the site may be used to mitigate the forest
conservation requirements and a pedestrian path.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.
Development Plans:
Rosewood Estates PUD:
Mr.Lung presented the PUD plan for Rosewood Estates mixed use development on 79 acres
located on the west side of Robinwood Drive.Mr.Lung explained that this is the next step in the
PUD process.The developer is proposing 520 residential dwelling units,2 commercial areas and
the development involves both public and private streets.Mr.Lung stated that the development
involves the construction of the first leg of what will be a new road connecting Robinwood Drive
to Eastern Boulevard.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the plan showing the townhouses,garden
apartments,elderly living,assisted living area,commercial area,and convenience store.Mr.
Lung stated that the eventual connector road to Eastern Boulevard is called Varsity Lane and
there will also be a major street called JFK Drive.He stated that the private road system
primarily serves the townhouses.The streets will have sidewalks and there will be an internal
pedestrian path.Street lighting will be provided in the townhouse areas in the form of gas lights
in the front yards of each unit.Staff has also requested intersection lighting at Varsity Lane and
Robinwood Drive and at JFK Drive and Robinwood Drive.The required forest conservation will
be handled on site and will be incorporated in with the open space area.The storm water
management will be addressed by a pond on the east side of the property,public water and sewer
will be provided.The amenities are clustered around the apartments and include a clubhouse,
swimming pool,basketball court and 2 tennis courts.There are also play lots throughout the
project.Mr.Lung stated that this project will be developed in 3 phases.Phase 1 consists of the
elderly living center with townhouse units to the left and the townhouses on the other side of
Robinwood Drive.Phase 2 consists of the remainder of the apartments and townhouses as well
as townhouses on Capital Lane and along O'Neils Place and the bottom half of the commercial
area.Phase 3 is the final built out with the remaining townhouses along the top of Kennedy
Drive and the remainder of the commercial area.Mr.Lung referred to the breal,down of units in
the drawing package.He stated that the design involves 121 townhouse lots in the northwest side
of the development that front and access a private street system and is similar to the N orthgate
Development.He said that they will front on courts that are one-way streets with parking off of
them.He said that in order to do that,a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance is required to
allow the lots to front on a private street.He said that the Plarming Commission has done that in
the past on other PUDs.He said that he sent the plan to the Funkstown Fire Department for
comments to make sure that this design would be accessible for fire equipment.He said that Jeb
Eckstine of the Funkstown Fire Department met with the consultant and gave him the turning
radius and weight of the fire equipment and indicated that they will need to engineer the street
system to accommodate it.Mr.Lung said they will need an assurance from the developer's
consultant that they have developed the internal street system to adequately address the fire
company's equipment design standards.Mr.Lung said that he had a list of comments on design
that both he and Permits Department needed addressed.He said that he just received the
revisions and has not had a chance to review it yet.He said that the next step would be the final
38
development plan and at that stage they would be reviewing the final homeowners association
documents and suggested that the Planning Commission could either approve the preliminary
plan with the condition that the items be addressed at the final stage,table it,or review them both
when the final plan is submitted.Mr.Arch stated that at the final development plan stage they
would also need to have any APFO issues resolved.A discussion followed regarding the APFO
and the phasing schedule and the variance request.Mr.Schlossberg expressed concern in having
the variance request addressed this evening so they can proceed preparing the plans.A
discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant a variance to allow the townhouses to
front on a private road system designed to the standards set forth by the Funkstown Fire
Department to handle the radiuses and weight of vehicles and any other agencies.Seconded by
Mr.Ernst.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Village at Robinwood:
Mr.Lung stated that the applicant has been before the Board of Appeals for a special exception
and for a height variance for an assisted living facility to be located across from the Robinwood
Medical Center.He said that the only item at this point that needs to be addressed is how forest
conservation will be handled.He commented that a forest stand delineation was done several
years ago for the entire Robinwood site which showed some limited forest on this piece of
'property and that Steve Zoretich will be making a presentation on how that will be addressed.
Mr.Zoretich passed out a copy of the forest conservation plan and reviewed the properties
owned by the Hospital Association.He said that they would like to request that if they need
more forest for the assisted living and the retirement community that they be allowed to put the
forest in the priority areas (along Antietiam Creek and in the flood plain)in an easement.Mr.
Lung stated that he has not yet seen a forest stand delineation on the newly acquired tract ofland
along the creek and said that they would have to review it before they would approve forest
retention in that area.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the request to allow off site retention
to address the forest conservation requirements in the Village at Robinwood.Seconded by Mr.
Ardinger.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the APFO,sewer capacity and the bus
shelter.
Forest Conservation:
Pine Glen,Inc.
Mr.Goodrich provided copies of the forest conservation plan request to be allowed to do off site
forest retention and planting to meet the forest conservation obligation.He stated that the
proposal would be to permit the developer of two residential lots to put an easement on existing
forest that is adjacent to the development site and to plant additional acreage.He noted that
there is no existing forest or priority areas on the proposed lots.There are steep slopes on the
remaining lands.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the request for off site retention and
planting.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Other Business:
Cross Creek Builders,LLC Rezoning Recommendation:
Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing further to add to the staff report.Mr.Iseminger stated
that this is a highway interchange zoned property where they recognized some time ago that there
would be some adjustment to the comprehensive rezoning and this fits into that category.In this
case,the developers would be making a commercial site more suitable because of the alignment
with Battlecreek Boulevard.He stated that the applicant has made a case that there was a
mistake made when the property was originally zoned HI-2 and that their request is logical and
appropriate.A discussion followed regarding whether the zoning was a mistake,the fact that it
may make sense to consider that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood
and the fact that what is being proposed allows for a better design of the property.Mr.Moser
39
made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-98-03 because
the applicant has made a case that there was a mistake in the original comprehensive highway
interchange rezoning and that what is being requested is logical and appropriate and consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.
RZ-98-04 -632 Joint Venture,map amendment recommendation:
Mr.Goodrich stated that he did not have anything else to add to his staff report and that his
intention was to point out that there are many choices and options available to the Planning
Commission.A discussion followed regarding having conditions as part of a recommendation
and whether the COU\1ty Attorney feels that the Planning Commission can take action.Mr.
Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission can take action and explained that the
condemnation and determination of the value of the property is made at the time of the taking
and the zoning at that time.Whatever happens after that point is not part of the consideration in
regards to the value of the property.Further discussion followed regarding whether the Planning
Commission's action would be forwarded to the Court,what the contention of the owner of the
property is with their claim,the condemnation process,what may happen if the property is
rezoned during the condemnation process,recovery,the staff report,and the fact that comments
were submitted in opposition.
Mr.Ardinger commented that they have raised some questions this evening that he felt should be
!lddressed by the County Attorney and is reluctant to make a recommendation to the County
Commissioners at this time and suggested that this item be postponed.Mr.Moser made a
motion to table RZ-98-04 until the June meeting.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.A
discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger instructed staff to prepare a transcript of the questions from
this evening's meeting and requested answers from the County Attorney.The information
should also be provided to Mr.Wantz,the applicant's attorney,and Mr.Horst,opposition
representative.
RZ-98-07 Vincent Smith,Text Amendment Recommendation:
Mr.Arch stated that he did not have anything else to add to the staff report.Mr.Iseminger stated
that the only comment he had was also brought up at the meeting with regards to an acreage
limit and asked if there was any consideration given to the amount.Mr.Arch said they did not
because a plan will come to the Planning Commission for approval and at that time the Plarming
Commission can put an acreage limit on it.A discussion followed regarding protecting adjoining
property owners.Mr.Clopper commented that he sees an inconsistency in developing
agricultural land and preserving agricultural land.A discussion followed regarding mineral
rights.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt
RZ-98-07 because the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.A vote was taken.Mr.Moser,Mr.Ardinger,and Mr.Ernst voted
aye.Mr.Clopper voted nay.Mr.Downey abstained.So ordered.
RZ-98-09,Reality Properties,Inc.:
Mr.Arch stated that he had nothing else to add to the staff report and proceeded to review the
request which is proposing to add a clause to the cluster provision.Mr.Iseminger asked if there
is a provision in the case of a change of management.Mr.Arch stated that within their decision
the Plarming Commission could grant that any change in management would have to be
reviewed and reapproved by this agency.A discussion followed regarding maintenance.Mr.
Ernst made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-98-09 because it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
CP-98-02 Rural Village Text amendment Recommendation:
Mr.Goodrich stated that he had nothing to add.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that they adopt CP-98-02 as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.
Downey abstained.So ordered.
40
Potomac Manor:
Mr.Arch stated that last year the Planning Commission approved an extension to Sections G &
H for preliminary approval.He stated that they are building out Section G and are requesting
that they be allowed to extend Section H for one more year.He added that this is the last section
of Colonial Manor and Potomac Manor.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant approval of a one
year extension for Section H of Potomac Manor.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Moser
opposed.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
41
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING-JUNE 1,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 1,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.Ben
Clopper,Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.
Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior
Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung;Park &Environmental Planner,William
Stachoviak and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of March 2,1998.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.
In regards to the minutes of April 6,1998,Mr.Iseminger stated that under Subdivisions,Michael
Whetzel,that the second paragraph should be under the Gadway/Easterday Variance.Mrs.
Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Iseminger asked staff if they had anything to add or
delete.Mr.Lung stated that the Rosewood development plan should be under Old Business
instead of under development plans and that the variance request for Milton Yeager has been
withdrawn.
OLD BUSINESS:
Rosewood Estates PUD:
Mr.Lung stated that this item was tabled at the May meeting in order to allow agencies time to
review a major revision that was received prior to that meeting.He stated that it is a mixed use
development on 79 acres located on Robinwood Drive between the Junior College and the
Robinwood Medical Center.He explained that the plan calls for 520 residential units spread out
between townshouses,garden apartments,assisted living apartments and elderly apartments.He
stated that there are 2 commercial areas totaling 7.9 acres and the development involves the
construction of both public and private streets and the construction of the first leg a new
connector road between Robinwood Drive and Eastern Boulevard.All of the public streets will
be closed section design with curbs and sidewalks and there will also be an internal pedestrian
path.He reviewed the lighting,stormwater management,public water,amenities and stated that
water and sewer will be available.Mr.Lung stated that the forest conservation requirements will
be handled on site and added that the site will be developed in three phases.He stated that there
are a few issues that needs review:There are modifications to the building setbacks associated
with the play lots and referred to the outline in the agenda packet.Staff does not have any
objections to the proposed modifications.He said that at this point it is difficult to determine the
exact size and the exact location of the play lots due to the scale and detail of the drawing.He
said that the Planning Commission may want to consider approving the location and the size of
the play lots conceptually at this stage and then deal with the exact footage modifications when
they review the site plan.He said they are waiting for approval from the Engineering
Department of the revision and also Permits and Soil Conservation.He said that the letter of
agreement between Mr.Shaool and the County regarding Mr.Shaool's contributions towards the
improvements on Robinwood Drive and the future APFO issues is currently being finalized by
42
the County's legal department.Mr.Lung stated that the forest consevation plan shows how
forest conservation could be met on this site using whips and seedlings however,a note has been
added to the plan stating that the height and size of trees may change based on the Planning
Commission's discretion at the site plan review stage for each phase.He said that another
situation that they have worked out is that in the townhouse lots the parking that is provided
meets the minimum code requirements,however,there was some discussion regarding the need
for additional parking for guests because there is no parking available along the private streets
and the County will not permit parking on the public streets.He said that there may be sufficient
parking in the nearby commercial and recreation areas that could be shared.As they work with
the plan through the site plan stage the developer has indicated that he will try to provide
additional parking above the normal requirements to accommodate guests at the townhouses.A
discussion followed regarding the schools and the fact that tot lots and forest conservation will be
addressed at site plan stage.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plan
contingent on agency approvals, approving the concept of reductions in setbacks for tot lots and
the concept of addressing the tot lots,forest conservation and parking at the site plan stage.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
RZ-98-04 632 Joint Venture:
.Mr.Goodrich stated that this item was tabled from the last meeting because of questions
regarding the relationship of the case and the pending condemnation that were unanswered.He
said that from the discussion at the May meeting,staff extracted questions and forwarded them to
the Assistant County Attorney.Her answers are included in the updated agenda.He noted that
there were many people present in the audience from the surrounding neighborhoods.Mr.
Iseminger commented on Ms.Evans memo and that the Planning Commission needs to base
their decision on planning principles.A discussion followed regarding question 7 in Ms.Evans
memo and access to the site.Mr.Iseminger stated that one of their criteria for rezoning is
adequate access to the site and feels they need to address it tonight and not wait until site plan
approval.Further discussion followed regarding the fact that the owners of this parcel also own
the adjacent property that was recently rezoned,the fact that there will be a change in character
of the neighborhood,the fact that the property does not have access and the fact that it abuts a
residential neighborhood.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the request based on the fact that
the proposed zoning request presented compatibility problems with neighboring properties
particularly since there was a lack of direct access to a public road fr{)m the property.Seconded
by Mr.Clopper.A vote was taken.Mr.Moser,Mr.Clopper and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr.
Ardinger voted nay.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Downey abstained.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Mr.Lung presented the request for Robert Millard.He stated that the applicant is requesting to
reduce the width ofa previously approved right-of-way that was part of a previous variance and
subdivision approval.He stated that all through this process,staff and the Commission has
expressed concern about the overall design including the lot layout and right-of-ways to
previously approved lots,access to remaining lands and prospects for future subdivision.He
noted that as part of the Commission's approval for the variance for the panhandles and the
subdivision of Lots 15 -24,there was a 50 foot wide right-of-way set up on Lot 24 to provide
access to a previously approved immediate family member lot and the remaining lands.He
stated that both staff and the Planning Commission were concerned with the considerable amount
of remaining lands and statements Mr.Millard made regarding future subdivision.He said that
the ideal situation would have been to extend Guard Court.He noted as part of the compromise,
the current design has a 50 foot right-of-way across Lot 24 to provide access to Lot 24,the
remaining lands,the Mark Millard parcel and Lot 23.He stated that Mr.Millard is now
requesting to reduce that right-of-way to 20 feet and to allow Lot 23 to have its own access
across its fee simple panhandle.Mr.Lung stated that staff does not have a problem with the
driveway for Lot 23.In regards to the reduction of the right-of-way,staff stands behind the
43
previously approved right-of-way of 50 feet.If the Commission grants a reduction,staff
suggests that it not be reduced to less than 25 feet along with a stipulation that there be no further
immediate family member subdivision on the east side of the existing farm lane.A discussion
followed regarding the request and the fact that they have granted several variances for this
property.Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,the consultant briefly spoke
regarding the design and Mr.Millard spoke explaining the reason for his request.Mr.Iseminger
stated that what they are asking for tonight is to reduce the right-of-way from 50 feet to 20 feet
and that 25 foot right-of-way should be provided to serve the immediate family member lot and
not to provide access to the other part of the property or another lot and that if the Planning
Commission is inclined to grant the request they would be inclined to deny further subdivision
and access using that 25 foot panhandle.Mr.Frederick stated that was not what they were
asking for at this time.Mr.Iseminger said that is what the Commission is inclined to do because
of the amount of land.He stated that future subdivision will require construction of a public
street or access off of the main road and that the Plarming Commission made it clear when they
granted the variance for the 5 panhandles.A discussion followed with the consultant and Mr.
Millard regarding increasing the size of the right-of-way to 25 feet instead of 20 feet.Mr.
Ardinger made a motion to grant the reduction in the right-of-way to 25 feet across Lot 24.Lot
24 may have its own access and with the condition that no future subdivision or further lots can
be served by the 25 foot right-of-way across Lot 24.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Don and Denise Sigler:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Don and Denise Sigler located on the north
side of Reedy Parkway near Bower Avenue in Halfway.The property is zoned Residential
Urban.The Developer is proposing to create 6 duplex lots with no remaining lands.Mrs.Pietro
stated that the lots will be served by public water and sewer,all lots will access Reedy Parkway
and all agency approvals have been received.She said that in order to meet the Forest
Conservation requirements the developer will pay the fee in lieu of in the amount of $742.44.
Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant the
simplified forest stand approval with the approval of payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mr.
Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Taco Bell:
Mr.Iseminger stated that he understood that there were residents in the audience who have
requested to speak regarding this item.Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat
and site plan for Taco Bell.The site is located on the north side of Maugans A venue east ofI-81
between the Amoco and Texaco service stations.The property is zoned Highway Interchange 1
and the application involves the subdivision of a .73 acre parcel and dedication of 500 feet of a
new public street called Crayton Boulevard.The new lot is located on the corner of Crayton
Boulevard and Maugans Avenue.The proposed lot is to be the site of a new Taco Bell
restaurant.Access to the site is restricted to Crayton Boulevard and the site will be served by
public water and sewer.Mr.Lung stated that stormwater management will be handled off site
via a regional pond.There is no existing forest on the site.There is forest on the remaining
lands.Mr.Lung stated that forest conservation for this lot and the portion of Crayton Boulevard
would amount to .277 acres and staff is recommending that this be handled on the overall forest
conservation plan to be submitted for the entire development prior to the submittal of a plat for
the next lot.Mr.Lung referred to the site plan and stated that the proposed building will be 2550
square feet in size with an indoor dining area and drive thru window.Mr.Lung stated there is a
single access onto Crayton Boulevard and reviewed the traffic flow,parking spacings,dumpster
location,landscaping,signage,lighting and hours of operation.He stated that they have before
them a preliminary/final subdivision plat and site plan and all approvals are in.The staff is
44
waiting for a few technical revisions on the site plan from the consultant.A discussion followed
with the consultant regarding the traffic flow and stacking at the drive thru.
Mr.Al Martin and Mr.Dan Creamer representing citizens from the Orchard Hill subdivision
spoke.They expressed their concern regarding the overall plan for the 1-81 North Business Park.
Mr.Martin stated that they are not opposed to the Taco Bell restaurant.He stated that the
residents want to know what the rest of the plans will be for the development and that they are
concerned with what is going to appear at the north end of the development because there is little
screening and are concerned with how their property will be protected.Mr.Martin stated that
they would like to come to a consensus with the developer on what the master plan is in order to
protect their residential neighborhoods from the adjoining development and are concerned that
what is there will be attractive and that the impact on their neighborhood should be minimized.
He said they are trying to maintain the setting they have now and want to make sure they have
visual buffers.Mr.Iseminger stated that it has been the Plarming Commission's contention in
cases of mixed uses is,where possible,to provide screening and buffering between uses.He said
there will be an overall forest conservation plan for this site and believes that the commission
will require it be done on site.It would be a logical place to maintain the trees along the property
lines to act as a buffer and was not sure of setbacks until they see the development plans.The
developer,Mr.Ghattas,stated that he spoke to Mr.Arch,the Planning Director,and is willing to
double what is required.Mr.Ghattas pointed out that the forested part of his property where the
buffer would be located is currently being used as a dump site by the neighbors.A discussion
.followed regarding the buffering and traffic in the area and the fact that the County
Commissioners need to address the traffic on Maugans Avenue.
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat deferring the forest
conservation requirements to the overall plan for the development.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the
site plan contingent on addressing the Plarming Staff's comments.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.
Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Site Plans:
AC&T:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the modification to AC&T's existing site on Hopewell Road
and Halfway Boulevard.He stated that the plan includes a new truck parking area.The property
contains 13 acres and is zoned HI-I.Mr.Lung referred to the exhibit plat and reviewed the site.
He stated that many of the modifications to this plan are a result of the County's work involving
the upgrade to the intersection of Hopewell Road and HalfWay Boulevard as well as the
extension of Halfway Boulevard.He explained that they have rearranged the entrances into the
site and relocated the truck fueling lanes.He reviewed the additional car parking and truck
parking and the new storm water management pond.Mr.Lung stated that staff recommended
additional landscaping as well as pedestrian facilities on the site and that has been done.All
agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated that the developer has requested approval
to remove all of the existing forest on the site totaling 2.28 acres and are requesting to pay
$17,337.00 for the payment in lieu of.Mr.Lung referred to the letter from the developer's
consultant regarding why they feel the use of the payment in lieu option is appropriate for this
site.The staff does not object.Mr.Lung noted that adjacent to this site is the Staples property
that cleared over 50 acres of existing forest and paid into the fund.He said there are no adjacent
residential properties that need to be buffered.A discussion followed regarding the truck traffic
and access to the site.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approvaL Seconded by
Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the
payment in lieu of request.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
45
Tru-Serve Hunters Green,Lot I:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary final plat and forest conservation plan for Hunters Green Lot
I located west of Hopewell Road off of a newly constructed road called Hunters Green
Boulevard.He stated that the site plan for this site for Tru Serve will be presented separately.
Mr.Lung stated that the property is zoned HI-I.Lot I consists of70.25 acres and there are
114.09 acres of remaining lands owned by Tiger Development.He said that the plat also
involves dedication of approximately 5 acres for the new road on Tiger's property and the
adjacent Wintermoyer property which is also zoned HI-I.Public water from the City of
Hagerstown and public sewer from Washington County will be provided to the site via an
extension from their existing main.There is a 2.79 acre storm water management pond easement
provided on the southwest corner of the lot.Mr.Lung stated that a forest stand delineation plan
has been submitted showing 16.62 acres of forest cover on remaining lands of Tiger
Development and are proposing to set up forest retention easements on the remaining lands.He
said that there is a historic site on the Wintermoyer tract currently under review by the Historic
Trust and there is another historic site on the Tiger tract.He stated that neither one will be
removed,however,as part of the CDBG grant application pending for this project,the Historic
Trust is reviewing the impact the development will have on these historic buildings and that their
review may involve changes to some aspects of the development.Mr.Lung stated that the
consultant has submitted a revision addressing staff s and other agency comments and suggested
if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the plat that it be contingent upon staff s
.review of this revision as well as agency approvals.The consultant,Mr.Frederick briefly spoke.
Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat for Hunters Green Lot I
contingent on staffs review of the revision and agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.
Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the use of off site
mitigation to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Tru-Serve:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Tru-Serve warehouse distribution center.The proposed
building is 800,800 square feet in size along with an office area.He referred to the site plan and
reviewed the number of employees (308),delivery,parking,hours of operation,and landscaping.
Mr.Arch explained that Tru Serve is a hardware distribution center serving the Tru Value,Coast
to Coast and Service Star hardware and will be servicing approximately 1,000 stores in the east
coast from this facility.He stated that it is located in the enterprise zone.Mr.Lung stated that
the plan is currently under review by the agencies.Some approvals have been received.The
Staff is recommending additional landscaping along the side of the building facing 1-70.Mrs.
Lampton made a motion to endorse the Staffs comments to approve the site plan contingent on
agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Daughtridge:
Mr.Lung stated that he did not have anything else to add to the summary and that the main issue
was the County Commissioners decision on the location of the Robinwood Drive relocation.
Option B runs through this property,however,this option has been eliminated.He said that the
developer has not decided how he will address forest conservation at this point and that staff has
encouraged them to retain the existing forest on the site.A discussion followed.It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission to agree with the staffs comments.
46
OTHER BUSINESS:
Land Preservation and Recreation Plan Draft:
Mr.Stachoviak briefly reviewed the changes in the agenda packet.Mr.Moser made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt the Land Preservation and Recreation
Plan as revised.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.
Annexation -Town of Boonsboro:
Mr.Arch reviewed the memo in the agenda packet regarding the fact that the proposed
classification ofEC -Employment Center is consistent with the County's designation of PI -
Planned Industrial.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that
this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.
Downey abstained.So ordered.
Annexation -City of Hagerstown:
Mr.Arch reviewed his comments in the agenda packet.A discussion followed regarding how
.the APFO would be applied,the water and sewer plan and setbacks.Mr.Davis of the City
Planning Department briefly spoke.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that the annexation request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,with the
conditions outlined in staffs memo of June I,1998.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Downey
abstained.So ordered.
A discussion followed regarding Taco Bell site plan and the lack of buffering currently on
Crayton Boulevard.
ADJOURNMENT:
.....
enrand L.Iseminger,Chairman
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
47
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JULY 6,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 6,1998
in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula
Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.
Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy
A.Lung and James Brittain and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was:Vice Chairman,
Bernard Moser.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of May 4,1998.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So
ordered.
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of June 1,1998.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.
Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch stated that subdivision for Reality Properties is
being withdrawn from tonights agenda.He also requested to add the site plan for the Waffle
House since the subdivision is on the agenda (Ghattas Enterprises Lot 2)and they are at a point
where they have enough agency approvals and added that there are some citizens present who
would like to comment.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to amend the agenda as stated.Seconded
by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ardinger abstained.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat and simplified forest stand delineation for
Raymond Divilbiss Lots 6-10.The property is located on the east side of Ashton Road near
Clear Spring and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 5 single family lots
out of a total of 7.65 acres.Lots 4 and 5 were previously approved.The lots will be served by
individual wells and septics and all lots will access Ashton Road.Mrs.Pietro stated that a 50
foot strip will be retained for the remaining lands.She noted that the remaining lands also have
frontage on Rt.68.In order to meet the forest conservation requirements,the developer is
retaining 1.3 acres of existing forest on the remaining lands.She said this was presented to the
Planning Commission several months ago and proceeded to review the plan.All agency
approvals are in.Mr.Ardinger moved to approve the preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Clopper moved to approve the forest conservation plan.Seconded
by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
48
Sharpsburg Pike Inn,Preliminary Plat and Site Plan:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat and site plan for the Sharpsburg Pike Inn.She stated
that the rear portion of this site had recently been rezoned.The subject site is located in the
southwest quadrant of H.K.Douglas Drive and the Sharpsburg Pike.The developer is proposing
to construct a 114 room hotel on 3.88 acres.Access will be only off ofH.K.Douglas Drive and
will be directly across from the access for Wendy's.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the site
plan.There will be 15 employees,115 parking spaces,the site will be served by public water
and sewer and sidewalks will be located around the site.Stormwater management will be an
underground detention area and landscaping will be throughout the parking area.Mrs.Pietro
stated that the forest conservation plan and delineation were submitted in January and were
approved for the entire site.The developer will be paying the fee in lieu of in the amount of
$3,267.00.The remaining lands consists of 1.1 acres and have existing homes which will be torn
down.Mrs.Pietro stated that the developer is requesting that the Planning Commission give
staff the authority for final approval.She noted that the Engineering Department and State,
Highway have denied it because they are looking for some revisions,which are standard.A
discussion followed regarding the access for the front parcel,the fact that the front lot would
have access through the hotel parking lot and potential problems they may have with accessing
through the parking lot.It was also discussed whether the Planning Commission could grant
preliminary plat approval with the condition that any future development ofthe parcels would
have to share the access shown on the plat and the fact that the developer is meeting with State
Highway tomorrow to discuss the access.Further discussion followed with the developer
regarding the fact that if the Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat,that the final
plat and site plan will come back to them showing improved traffic flow.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to grant preliminary plat approval contingent on agency reviews with the stipulation that
final plat approval will address the questions raised here tonight.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that developer will have to come back with the final plat and
site plan.
Ghattas Enterprises,Lot 2,preliminary/final plat:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat,forest conservation plan and site plan for Ghattas
Enterprises.Mr.Lung stated that there are some neighborhood citizens present who wish to
speak on this application.
Mr.Llmg proceeded to review the subdivision plat and forest conservation plan for Lot 2.The
site is located north ofMaugans Avenue and east ofI-81 adjacent to the northbound entrance
ramp from Maugans Avenue to 1-81.The property is zoned HI-1 and the purpose of the plat is to
create a .77 acre building lot for a new Waffle House restaurant.Mr.Lung stated that the plat
also involves some adjustment of property lines,and reconfiguration of the adjacent Texaco lot.
There are 29.3 acres of remaining lands zoned HI-I.Mr.Lung referred to the forest stand
delineation and noted the remaining lands.He said there is a forest conservation plan attached
to the plat to address forest conservation obligations for Lot 2 along with Lot 1 and Crayton
Boulevard.He stated that last month as part of the approval for the Taco Bell lot,the Planning
Commission deferred forest conservation for Taco Bell and Crayton Boulevard until the next lot
came in.He stated that Lot 2 has a panhandle to provide primary access to Crayton Boulevard.
A shared entrance will be utilized to provide access off of Crayton Boulevard to the Waffle
House as well as a future lot.The portion of Lot 2 that has frontage on the 1-81 ramp is denied
access from the State Highway Administration.Mr.Lung stated that the lot is served by public
water and sewer.In regards to forest conservation they received a forest stand delineation for the
entire holdings of Ghattas Enterprises and it is currently being reviewed.Mr.Lung referred to
the plat and pointed out the areas of existing forest.He said that staff has requested some .
revisions to the delineation.In regards to the forest conservation plan,it does not propose any
clearing of existing forest,and the worksheet indicates that based on the 15 percent mitigation
factor .48 acres of forest conservation will be required for the development that has been
approved so far.Mr.Lung stated that the developer will create a forest retention area on his
49
property and that it will be recorded as an easement.All agency approvals have been received
and all planning staff comments have been addressed except for the Connty Engineer.In regards
to the forest conservation plan they are waiting for revisions to the forest stand delineation and
forest conservation plan to address some technical elements.Staff does not object to the
developer's request for the establishment of a .48 acre forest retention area.Staff recommends
that any approval action be conditioned upon the outstanding items being addressed.
Mr.Lnng proceeded to review the site plan for the Waffle House restaurant.He stated it is to be
constructed on Lot 2.He stated that the building is the typical Waffle House structure
approximately 22 x 73 feet in size with 900 square feet of customer floor space.He proceeded to
review the hours of operation (24 hours a day),employees (5 per shift),parking,loading area,
lighting and the landscaping plan.Mr.Lnng stated that there is a note on the site plan stating that
all lighting must be directed downward and onto the site so there is no glare on adjacent
properties.He stated that this site will have primary access to Crayton Boulevard via a shared
access behind the Texaco lot.There is no direct access to Maugans Avenue,however,they are
proposing an internal connection to the Texaco lot,which currently has two entrances onto
Maugans Avenue.Mr.Lnng stated that staff is concerned about the connection because
depending on how the Texaco lot is developed,it could create a cut through access to Maugans
Avenue that may be undesirable.State Highway feels it should be looked into but does not have
jurisdiction.Mr.Lnng stated that the County Engineer does not have an objection to it.Mr.
Lnng referred to the site plan drawing and noted that it looks like there is another intefllal access
_and without an overall plan it is difficult to review and analyze.Staff recommends that the
connection be looked into when the site plan is submitted for the reconfigured Texaco lot.He
stated that stormwater management for the site as well as future development is provided in a
regional pond to be constructed to the west of the site.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer
has commented that Crayton Boulevard was incorrectly constructed and did not provide the
required right turn lane so one will be installed which will require that the existing curb and inlet
be moved and there is a note on the site plan that it will be done.He stated that in regards to the
site plan,all of the planning staff s comments have been addressed except for two minor
technical items.
Mr.Lnng stated that Joe Hoffman of the Waffle House and Assad Ghattas (developer),Bill
Wantz and Tony Taylor from Frederick,Seibert and Associates were present to answer any
questions.Mr.Iseminger asked about the plans for the Texaco site.Mr.Ghattas stated that
Texaco is planning to tear down the existing building and build a new one.He said they are
willing to close the Maugans Avenue entrance and use Crayton Boulevard and that there will be
a right turn lane onto Crayton Boulevard.Mr.Iseminger commented that at the last meeting Mr.
Ghattas had stated that he was willing to provide screening and a buffer and asked for an update.
Mr.Wantz,attorney for Mr.Ghattas,briefly spoke.He stated that he met with some of the
residents regarding the neighbors concerns and that the neighbors are interested in purchasing
some of the property behind their homes and are also interested in Mr.Ghattas's offer to double
the buffer requirement.He said that they took their comments and their analysis of the site and
are working on a proposal to provide a buffer of possibly 35 feet in width which could double as
a forest conservation area.At this point Al Martin,representing the residents in the area,briefly
spoke regarding their concerns with noise,lighting and traffic issues and stated that they are
working with the developer.He added that they are concerned with the lighting from this site
because the lighting for the Burger King site can be seen from their homes.Mr.Iseminger stated
that they could have Mr.Prodonovich from the Permits Department look into it to be sure that
they are conforming to the site plan.
Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat contingent on
agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So
ordered.
In regards to the forest conservation plan,Mr.Iseminger asked that in light of the negotiations,if
staff wanted the Planning Commission to take action tonight or to defer.Mr.Arch suggested
that they defer but added that they need to indicate that the forest retention area adjacent to the
site is still being used as forest at this moment.A discussion followed.Mr.Lung asked if at this
50
time were they allowing the Waffle House subdivision to move forward without recording a
forest conservation easement with that plat?Mr.Arch stated they will record the one in the back
but are not eliminating any forest in the front yet.Further discussion followed regarding the 35
foot strip.Mr.Clopper made a motion approve the forest conservation plan as submitted.
Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on agency approvals,and
contingent on a right turn lane being constructed onto Crayton Boulevard.Seconded by Mr.
Clopper.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Crown America:
Mr.Arch stated that this item is before the Commission for a request to use the simplified plat
process for a non-agricultural lot as well as to approve payment in lieu for forest conservation
and for general information.He stated that there are two items before the Commission to take
action on.The first one is for permission to use the simplified plat process.Mr.Arch explained
that there is property that will be transferred between a couple of different parties.He said since
it is not going to be for agricultural purposes the Planning Commission will need to approve the
use of the simplified plat process for nonagricultural purposes.The second item is to approve the
forest conservation plan and in this case it will be a payment in lieu of.Mr.Arch referred to the
.plat and pointed out that the property in the back is the Garrett and Smith property that was
recently rezoned and that Crown America has been working closely with Garrett and Smith.He
stated that there is a need for Crown America to obtain property from them to make their
development plans work and vice versa.He said that there will be a joint storm water
management facility between the two properties and stated that the expansion of the mall is
substantial.He said there will be a new Hecht Company store 120,000 square feet in size and
that there will be an expansion of the Bon Ton and J.e.Penneys.He explained that there will be
a new aisle that will go past Montgomery Ward through the existing theater and there will be
new small shops along there and a new 16 screen cinema.He said there is also consideration for
various out parcels with their occupants not firmed up yet.He noted that Garrett and Smith are
looking at a complimentary type of development adjacent to the site.He said that traffic is a
major consideration and that the developer is aware and knows they will have to build a section
of Massey Boulevard and will have to relocate Cole Road.He said that the reason why the plan
is not before the Commission now is because they are going through the hearing process for the
vacation of Cole Road with a hearing scheduled for July 28,1998.Mr.Arch stated that the
developer helped acquire funding through the new Transportation Equity Act in the amount of 3
million dollars for use towards mitigation of improvements associated with expansion of the
mall.He stated that money will go into road improvements along Halfway Boulevard and that
2.1 million dollars will go into the railroad bridge west of the interchange and the rest will be in
the intersection of Halfway Boulevard and Massey Road.In essence the Federal money becomes
a substitute for County money associated with these projects and County dollars are then targeted
toward traffic and sewer improvements to Cole and Massey as a result of the expansion.A
discussion followed regarding traffic and forest conservation.Mr.Arch stated that the developer
is requesting to use the payment in lieu of option to meet forest conservation requirements.
Further discussion followed with Kevin Evans and Dick Keller of Crown America regarding the
expansion and traffic improvements.Mr.Evans commented that the mall is currently 600,000
square feet in size and when they are completed the mall will be closer to 900,000 square feet in
size and that they will also have 10 additional out parcels on about 10.5 acres in land which will
be comprised of restaurants,banks,and small retail facilities.He proceeded to describe the
improvements and stated that they will be adding approximately 550 new full and part-time jobs.
He said that they will be looking at new ways to improve the landscaping.A discussion
followed regarding traffic improvements.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the use of
the simplified plat process for nonagriculture subdivision and to grant approval of the payment in
lieu of to meet forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
51
OTHER BUSINESS:
Forest Conservation Summary:
Mr.Goodrich explained that the method most used in meeting the obligation of forest
conservation is the payment of the fee in lieu of.He stated that during the plan review process
the developer has to calculate the amount of planting or retention required on the site.He
explained that the State law and local ordinance requires that the County use that money to plant
new forest or protect existing forest.He explained that the Planning Staff and the Soil
Conservation District have developed a program to use the fee in lieu of money and that this
presentation is a summary of 1998's activities.He referred to the chart in the agenda packet and
noted that they did 3 sites this year for retention and planting and proceeded to review the sites.
He stated that they got 131 acres under permanent easement for payment in lieu of planting 55
acres.A discussion followed regarding obtaining permanent easements,harvesting ofland under
easements,future sites and requesting that staff find out what kind of account the money is kept
in,how interest is handled and the minimum amount of acreage required for easements.
No vote was required.
CP-98-0l Town of Boonsboro amendment to the Comprehensive Plan:
.Mr.Iseminger had a question regarding the last page of the staff report referring to the BMI
study and asked for a clarification.Mr.Brittain stated that the BMI study was for the bypass and
that the proposed amendment is not a bypass but a major collector.He explained that the
previous bypass took off of Alternate 40 before Rt.68,crossed Rt.68 and had an alignment close
to the proposed major collector between Rts.68 and 67,continued on past Rt.67 and connected
to Alternate 40 and created a bypass around the town.What the town is looking at is a map
collector road which works parallel in function to Main Street.Mr.Brittain stated that it only
connects Rt.68 to Rt.67 and this allows the growth in that corridor to get to the north end/south
end of town without using Main Street.Mr.Ernst moved to recommend to the County
Commissioners that they adopt CP-98-0l because it is consistent with the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Downey abstained.So ordered.
Boonsboro Town Growth Boundary Review:
Mr.Brittain referred to the letter in the agenda packet and stated that the Boonsboro Planning
Commission is asking for the Planning Commission's concurrence regarding the Boonsboro
town growth boundary review.He explained the town is working with two developers and stated
that there is no question that one of the sites is in the town growth area (TGA).He stated that the
other property is a portion of the Thomas tract,which had a preliminary consultation with the
County Planning Department,is the subject of the review.At that time,the town of Boonsboro
felt it was outside the growth area.Since that time,the Boonsboro Planning Commission
reviewed the subject parcel and concluded it was within the TGA for reasons set forth in their
letter.Mr.Brittain stated that if the Planning Commission concurs that it is part of the
Boonsboro TGA,neither entity would be required to hold public hearings to revise or amend the
growth boundary.Mrs.Lampton made a motion that this property is considered to be associated
with the Boonsboro town growth area.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
'"/'~\7~~M.~.".,......"nel\tand L.Iseminger,Chairman
~
52
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 3,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 3,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.
Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.
Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior
Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications:
.Mr.Arch referred to the information in the agenda packet and stated that the four applications
have been reviewed and approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board.In regards to the
application from Sara Jane Ridenour,Mr.Clopper wanted to know how close her property is to
the Appalachian TraiL Mr.Arch stated that a portion of her property is being looked at by the
Federal Government for acquisition as a buffer for the Appalachian Trail but she still wants to
proceed with the Ag zone and there is nothing to prohibit that.Mr.Clopper made a motion that
the four properties are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that they recommend that the
County Commissioners accept them as preservation districts.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So
ordered.
Subdivisions:
Todd Easterday,Lots 1-4.PreliminarylFinal Plat:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminarylfinal subdivision plat for Todd Easterday.The property is
located on the corner of San Mar and Greenbriar Roads.The site consists of 17.92 acres and is
zoned Conservation.There is an existing dwelling on the property.Mr.Lung stated that the
applicant has been before the Planning Commission previously for a variance request.He stated
that the first request was denied,the second request was approved in April and this plat reflects
what was approved as part of that variance.The property is being divided into 4 lots.Lot 1 is
3.19 acres,Lot 2 is 3.42 acres,Lot 3 is 8.1 acres and Lot 4 which contains the existing dwelling
is 3.27 acres.Lots 1,2 and 3 will all utilize panhandles,the variance allowed two of the
panhandles to exceed 400 feet and allowed three panhandles to be created side by side.In
addition,the variance was approved with the condition that a shared access onto Greenbriar Road
be used,that the existing entrance onto San Mar Road be removed and stabilized and that there
would be no further subdivision.Mr.Lung stated that this plat meets all those conditions and
there is a note on the plat to that effect.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics.
Mr.Llmg stated that the applicant is using the immediate family member provision for
exemption from the APFO road adequacy and Forest Conservation requirements.He said there
is some existing forest in the back portion of Lot 3 and under the exemption Mr.Easterday will
be permitted to clear up to 40,000 square feet of the forest.Lot 4 would be considered exempt
from forest conservation because of the existing dwelling.All agency approvals are in.Mr.
Lung stated that the plat meets all conditions of the variance.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant
preliminary/final plat approval as presented and with the conditions outlined on the plat.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered.
53
Site Plans:
Wilmer Shank:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Wilmer Shank.The property is located between Beaver
Creek Road and Route 40.The property is zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.The developer
is proposing to construct 6 storage buildings with a total building area of 41 ,000 square feet on
5.8 acres.The site currently has an existing house,warehouse and garage.Mrs.Pietro reviewed
the parking,stated that no water and sewer will be required,access will only be onto Beaver
Creek Road,the hours of operation (5:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.),lights will be building mounted,
there will be a 5 x 8 sign,storm water management pond and landscaping.Mrs.Pietro stated that
the owuer has noted on the plan that a chain link fence will be installed in the future only if
security becomes a problem.All approvals have been received and the site is exempt from
Forest Conservation Ordinance due to it being a lot of record previous to 1993.Mr.Moser made
a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
KKTM Company Inc.Lot 2:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for KKTM Lot 2.The property is located south of Smithsburg
between Smithsburg and Cavetowu along Mapleville Road.The plans are for a new building
,approximately 240 x 150 feet to house a textile product manufacturing facility.The property
consists of 5 acres and is zoned IR -Industrial Restricted.The lot was created on a subdivision
plat that was approved in June of last year.That plat created a lot for the existing KKTM
building and 2 new industrial lots.The facility will operate 24 hours a day with 3 shifts and
there will be 12 employees per shift.Mr.Lung stated that the parking provided is more than
adequate to handle the number of employees anticipated.He reviewed the location of the loading
area,and landscaping.Mr.Lung noted that the landscaping was minimal.Public water and
sewer is available and a regional storm water management facility will be used.Mr.Lung stated
they are waiting for approval from the Water Department and Permits Department for revisions
addressing their comments.Mr.Lung stated that under the Industrial Restricted zoning there is a
50 foot front yard set back,25 foot side yard set back and a 100 foot rear yard setback when the
site is adjacent to a residentially zoned property.He said they have that situation here and that in
the 100 foot setback,there is a 30 foot wide forest retention area set aside which will provide a
good buffer.Mr.Lung pointed out that part of the Forest Conservation Plan called for protective
devices;construction fencing and signage that was supposed to be put in place before any work
was done on the site and that it was not done before they starting grading.He said they did not
disturb any of the forest area.He notified the developer's consultant and was assured that those
things would be done before the end of the week.The site has access to MD 66 and State
Highway is reviewing the plans.They have indicated that they do not object to approval of the
site plan and that their review comments can be available upon receipt of the building permit.
Mr.Lung said that KKTM will utilize the existing entrance onto Mapleville Road.The planning
staff s comments of July 21 st have been addressed and any approval considered tonight should
be conditioned upon receipt of all outstanding approvals.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton
made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on receipt of all agency approvals.Seconded
by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS
Reapproval of Hagerstowu-Washington County Industrial Foundation,Inc.(Xerxes Corp)
Preliminary/Final Plat Lot 3:
Mr.Goodrich stated that the plat was originally approved in 1987 and the normal practice is to
have it recorded in land records before transfer talces place.That did not happen.Without
recordation,the approval is void after two years.Planning Commission policy allows the
Planning Director to reapprove expired plats for one or two lot single family subdivisions.The
subject parcel was for industrial use.He said that staff is requesting that the Planning
54
Commission extend that policy to this plat.Mr.Moser made a motion to allow staff to grant
approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Upcoming Meetings:
Mr.Arch said that they will be having a work session on Monday,August 24th to review Goals
and Objectives for the Comprehensive Plan.After a discussion it was decided to have a lunch
meeting on August 24th at noon.Further discussion followed regarding the Comprehensive
Plan process and the fact that the November rezoning hearing will be postponed until January
due to the upcoming elections.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Be
...
...
55
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING -AUGUST 24,1998
The Washington County Planning Connnission held a workshop meeting on Monday,August 24,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room to discuss the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.
Ben Clopper;Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.
Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior
Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 12:15 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan:
Mr.Arch passed out a copy of a draft outline of the goals and objectives ofthe Comprehensive
Plan and Mission Statement,prepared by stafffor the Planning Commission's review and
connnent.He explained that they had originally planned on hiring a consultant to update the
Comprehensive Plan,but are now looking at doing the update in house since a lot of the
information they will be using has already been generated by staff for the Fiscal Impact Study
currently being done by Tischler and Associates.Mr.Arch stated that the first step would be to
establish goals and objectives.Then they will develop maps using the GIS system to analyze
development trends and potential.Each staff member will have a section or sections to write and
the draft should be ready by the end of the year.
Mr.Arch stated that there are some items that are required to be included in the Comprehensive
Plan.He said they looked at the current goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and felt
they were good but that the format utilized needs to be revised.He stated that the staff felt there
were some items that needed to be added as follows:I)a mission statement which explains the
purpose of the Comprehensive Plan 2)the County Vision,which was adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners several months ago and 3)the State's seven visions,which is a required
item.
Mr.Iseminger asked what kind of time frame are they looking at in getting responses back from
the Commission.A discussion followed regarding the fact that staff would like to have a draft
ready for public hearing by the end of this year and was hoping to get concurrence with regard to
goals and objectives at this meeting.
Mr.Arch stated that it was the consensus of the staff that they liked the format used in the draft
of the goals better than the writeups currently used to identify several major categories of goals.
He added that the concepts and recommendations identified in each of the chapters would be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Further discussion followed
regarding how specific the plan should be.Mr.Ernst stated that he felt they should leave the
Comprehensive Plan broad based to give them room for interruption and have the Zoning
Ordinance implement it.
Mr.Arch stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be the document that indicates the basic
policies in terms of what they want it to do and the Zoning Ordinance would implement it.He
then proceeded to review the four goals.He explained that the objectives are more specific and
are tailored toward what they mayor may not want and proceeded to review them.Mr.
Iseminger commented that they are identifying sites and selecting locations and wanted to know
56
how it will show up in the Plan.Mr.Arch stated that land use recommendations would be
identified on the various maps.A discussion followed regarding the land use maps that will be
generated with the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Iseminger asked if once the Comprehensive Plan is
completed are they going to quickly follow up to make adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision Ordinance,etc.Mr.Arch stated that it would be the Planning Staff s
recommendation that as soon as they have a revised Comprehensive Plan adopted that they move
directly into updating the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.Mr.Moser commented on the
County's current rezoning process.He stated that he is for Comprehensive Zonings by area and
asked if staff has given any thought to that.Mr.Arch stated that with the updated ordinance
there will be a comprehensive rezoning of the County.A discussion followed regarding doing
comprehensive rezonings on a five year basis like Frederick County to get away from piecemeal
zoning,the fact that the Comprehensive Plan has not been updated since 1981,and the
requirement that once the plan is updated state law requires that it be updated every five years.
A discussion followed regarding the updating process,regional rezoning,and the estimated time
frame for completion of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan taking two years.Mr.
Iseminger stated that the Commission should come to a consensus if staff should keep going in
this direction.Mr.Arch explained that the staff will make a series of recommendations to the
Planning Commission and give them the rationale behind them,the Planning Commission can
change any recommendation.Mr.Arch stated that at the end of each chapter they will probably
have a list of recommendations that needs to be done and those items will be implemented
through the Zoning,Subdivision Ordinances,etc.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission for staff to continue along the line they have
been to update the wording.Further discussion followed regarding the Fiscal Impact Study,the
information generated for the study and the maps to be included in the Comprehensive Plan and
the fact that they will show staff s recommendations.He said they are trying to take a more
environmental perspective.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the maps will show the
limitations and will recommend the type and number of developments for each area and the
meetings they have already had around the County for public input.
Mr.Downey referred to the fourth goal (establish parameters for managing growth)and stated
that he thinks that they should say they are trying to encourage development in the urban growth
areas around the municipalities and list how they are going to manage growth towards that.He
feels that they need to list parameters.A discussion followed regarding having disincentives for
growth outside the urban growth area and development of industrial parks.Mr.Downey
requested that Mr.Arch come back with a time schedule for the Commission to review and see
whether or not they agree.After further discussion,it was decided that the time line would be
presented at the regular September meeting as well as review the commission members
comments on the draft of the Goals and Objectives.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
•
57
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 14,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September
14,1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.
Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.Staff:Planning
Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Lisa
Kelly Pietro,and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,Permits
and Inspections Director,Paul Prodonovich.Absent was,Paula Lampton.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of July 6,1998 regular meeting.Seconded by
.Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger commented that under Forest Conservation,the
Commission had requested staff to research as to how the payment in lieu of money is kept and
what kind of interest bearing account and asked that they refer to the minutes and that maybe at
the next meeting they could report back to them.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the
minutes of August 3,1998.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.
Mr.Clopper made a motion approve the minutes of the workshop meeting for August 24,1998.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch asked that under Site Plans that they move the
order around as follows:1.Lakeside Park,2.The Village at Robinwood,3.Crown American
Properties and 4.Crosspoint Retail Center.He stated that the last two plans are somewhat
similar.Mr.Clopper made a motion to amend the order of the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Site Plans:
Lakeside Park.Section 2,Phase 2:
Before proceeding with staffs presentation,Mr.Iseminger stated that staff had received a letter
expressing concern with the current and proposed development.In addition,Mr.Iseminger
stated that there were some residents present who wanted to offer some comments.He noted that
this is a public meeting and not a public hearing and that the Commission is not required to take
testimony,but it is their custom to allow one or two people to speak when they have so many
residents present.
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Lakeside Mobile Home Park,Section 2,Phase 2.The site
is located south of Halfway Boulevard and Stotler Road and along Bentwood Road and is zoned
HI-2.An appeal for expansion of the nonconforming use was granted by the Board of Appeals
in August of 1996 and in February of 1997 they had a preliminary consultation.The total site
contains 49 acres and the developer is proposing 198 units for this new section.The lots will be
leased and not sold.The number of existing lots in the old section is 364 and the average lot area
in the new section will be about 5,600 square feet and projected build out for the site is
approximately 3 years.The area of the open space is 15.8 acres.Mrs.Pietro referred to the site
58
plan and pointed out the flood plain area and noted that the storm water management area will be
a pond.She stated that the parking required is 396 spaces and that is what is going to be
provided in this phase,which amounts to two parking spaces per lot.Public water and sewer is
to be used and the roads will be private and maintained by the developer.Mrs.Pietro stated that
solid waste pick up will be curbside and street lights will be installed by Allegheny Power.She
stated that there will be no fencing but that staff questioned whether fencing should be around the
storm water management pond.She said in speaking to the County Engineer,he felt that the
amounts that would go in there (2 to 4 feet)would drain quickly and would not require fencing.
Mrs.Pietro stated that they have not received homeowners documents,which is listed in the site
plan requirements.She said that so far the site plan is still in the process of being reviewed and is
not complete.There are still outstanding comments from the Planning Staff and the Permits
Department and they are bringing it before the Planning Commission to discuss some of the
issues they are trying to address.One ofthem is sidewalks.There are sidewalks in the old
section,which do not service all of the lots.There are none proposed for the new section.Mrs.
Pietro expressed concern with the school bus waiting areas and felt there needs to be some type
of pedestrian access.She said that in speaking to the school board,since these are private roads,
the school buses will not travel them.She added that she will be meeting with Mr.Chris Carter
of the School Board to discuss where the current stops are and to see where they recommend the
new stops for this site to be located.In regards to landscaping,Mrs.Pietro stated that they are
showing landscaping for the individual lots but none is proposed for the open space,which is
something that was requested by staff.Mrs.Pietro said she has also requested tot lots and
·recreational areas within the open space and so far nothing is planned by the developer.She
referred to a letter from 1980 when an old site plan was reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department dealing with a part ofthis property and that the developer,Mr.Weinman,stated that
tot lots or recreational areas will be addressed in subsequent sections.In regards to the flood
plain on the site,one ofMr.Prodonovich's comments was that the developer,who did an
updated study of the flood plain,has never filed for a map amendment.In regards to forest
conservation,Mrs.Pietro stated that the total reforestation or afforestation requirement is 9 acres.
The conservation plan submitted shows 3.7 acres of forest off site that would be retained.The
developer would pay the fee in lieu of for the balance of the acres.Mrs.Pietro stated that the
delineation was never done for the offsite forest area to be retained.A delineation was done just
for the area that is to be developed.Before staff can determine whether the trees should be
retained or considered a forest,they need a delineation.Mrs.Pietro noted that the area the
developer is proposing to retain is located off site near the 1-70 ramp.The existing forest is
located in five individual clumps and are crisscrossed by sanitary sewer easements and access
easements,so there are 50 foot strips going through the forested areas.She said that she asked
the consultant if that would even be worthwhile to retain because the easement areas would
always have to be cleared so the forest would never have an opportunity to grow together.She
said that one of Paul Prodonovich's comments is that he would like a detail showing the location
of proposed out buildings on the individual lots.She said that so far they have approvals from
the following agencies:Health,County Engineering,County Water and Sewer,City Water,Soil
Conservation,State Highway Administration and the Halfway Fire Company.Outstanding
agencies are Planning and Permits.
Mrs.Pietro said that some residents have called with concerns for the new section as well as the
old section.She stated that the consultant,Davis,Renn and Associates,and the attorney,
Richard Lauricella,are present.A discussion followed regarding which green area would be best
suited for tot lots,the stormwater management area and whether they could put anything in there
since it would not be fenced,and the fact that they need a formal map amendment for the updated
flood plain area.Mr.Iseminger stated that the other item they are reviewing is the forest
conservation easement and does not know without a delineation whether it is a viable area or not.
Mrs.Pietro said that each parcel is large enough and meets the 10,000 square foot requirement
and are 35 feet wide,but noted it is unusual because they normally have a contiguous forested
area.Mr.Iseminger asked if the environmental sensitive feature of this site is the flood plain.
Mrs.Pietro stated that was correct.Mr.Iseminger questioned the developer as to why he is not
planting in the high priority area of the flood plain and instead,is proposing to go off site and
pay the fee in lieu.Mr.Johnson,consultant,of Davis,Renn and Associates,stated that is where
the trees are and added that staff had asked them to come before the Planning Commission to
59
request that they approve the off site retention and to approve it as they have it shown.Mr.
Iseminger stated that they cannot do that until they submit a delineation of the off site forest.He
said they do not know if that even meets the criteria of a forest.Mr.Arch stated that it is staff's
recommendation that they table it.A discussion followed with the Planning Commission
members regarding receiving a copy of the site plan when dealing with a large site,the fact that
all of the agencies have approved the plan but that there are outstanding issues that have not been
resolved,and the fact that due to the way the Ordinance addresses this type of development,
these issues are not necessarily required but are items staff is recommending to the Planning
Commission.
Mr.Iseminger stated that they need to proceed with the items raised by staff this evening.In
regards to forest conservation,they need a delineation according to staff of the 3+acres and need
justification as to why they should allow payment in lieu of versus on site afforestation since
there is a priority area on the site.At this point,Mr.Lauricella,the attorney for the developer
spoke.He passed out copies of correspondence and explained that the information shows the
long standing presence of Lakeside Park in Washington County and the series of events that
occurred over the years.He referred to the documents and stated that they supported their
position that this project has been in the works since the late 70's and that the Planning
Commission is in the position to decide whether or not a project can be grandfathered from the
Forest Conservation Ordinance.He stated that the development should be exempt from the
requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.A discussion followed regarding the fact
.that,at the time when the Commissioners adopted the Forest Conservation Ordinance,a
developer had to have an active plan in the process.A preliminary consultation was not
considered an active plan.Mr.Iseminger stated that the Commission is not in a position this
evening to make a decision on it and if the developer wants to proceed,will forward the request
the County Attorney to analyze it.He added that they have shown the forest conservation on the
plan and wants to know what they are exactly requesting.Mr.Lauricella stated that they do not
believe that the development is subject to the Forest Conservation Ordinance,however,if the
Planning Commission determines that they are,they will accept it.He stated that the developer
is not opposed to putting in some playground areas and tot areas.Mr.Iseminger stated that what
staffis telling them is that this section does fall under the requirements of the Forest
Conservation Ordinance and the consultant needs to show a delineation of the off site area along
with a reason why the developer wants to pay the fee in lieu for the 6+acres instead of
afforestation on the site.He added if the developer wants to pursue the idea that this
development does not need to comply with the Forest Conservation Ordinance,then staff will
have to turn it over to the County Attorney to make a final decision.Mr.Lauricella stated that
they could proceed with the plan but still ask the County Attorney what his opinion is as to
whether or not this plan falls under the requirements.Mr.Ernst commented that he would like
an answer about the priority areas.Mr.Iseminger asked ifit is the Commission's consensus that
it falls under the Forest Conservation Ordinance.He asked whether a delineation for the 3+acres
is being worked on.Mr.Johnson,consultant,stated that it is in the works if the Commission
states that they need to proceed.Mr.Iseminger also wanted the consultant to justify why there
will be no planting in the priority area of the floodplain.
A discussion followed regarding sidewalks and the need for additional parking.Mr.Iseminger
commented that the Planning Commission has broad authority and with densities of this size,he
feels they need additional parking in this section.Mr.Johnson asked since nothing is specified
in the Ordinance,how much parking do they want.Mr.Iseminger said he did not know but felt
they need to provide something.A discussion followed regarding the private roads and the fact
that there is no homeowners association because the lots are leased.Mr.Iseminger asked about
the tot lots and if the developer is willing to put in some amenities.Mr.Lauricella stated yes.
Mr.Iseminger stated that goes back to the issue of sidewalks for access to those areas and they
will have to be able to have public access.He commented on the fact that the fire department
had granted approval and asked about the fire hydrants.Mrs.Pietro stated that in speaking to Joe
Kroboth,Chief of the HalfWay Volunteer Fire Department,they would like to have an additional
entrance because the one entrance is not enough.However,due to the way the land is situated
and landlocked by the railroad presents a problem.A discussion followed regarding the access.
60
Mr.Iseminger referred to the letter from Mary Doran and noted that it addresses some problems
with the existing section and that they will turn it over to Mr.Prodonovich of Permits and
Inspections for comments.At this point the Commission gave the citizens an opportunity to
speak.Mary Doran,commented regarding the problems with RV parking along the street and
the blocking of residents driveways.Mr.Wigan commented on the problems with having only
one way in and out.Mr.Sam Tipton stated that if the developer is going to put that many more
trailers out there they are going to have accidents with only one access and expressed concern
with safety.A discussion followed regarding Stotler Road and whether they could use that for
another access.Lois Smith stated that if the developer cannot provide them with another
entrance,then they should not be allowed to expand.Mr.Iseminger asked if the County
Engineer and the Fire Department have approved this plan with only one entrance.He stated
that between tonight and the next meeting,he would like the County Engineer to look at the
development again and see ifthere is anything the County can do with regard to upgrading
Stotler Road or ifthere is an alternative for another entrance to this site.Mr.Iseminger stated
that in light of the comments this evening,he felt that the Planning Commission should make a
site inspection and meet with the County Engineer and Mr.Prodonovich to look at the entire
development between now and the next meeting.Mr.Dick Renner stated that he was at a
meeting about a month ago at one of the local churches and presented the resident's request for a
second entrance for public safety purposes.He added that Mr.Greg Snook attended this meeting
and discussed the residents concerns with him regarding safety.He said that Lakeside is a nice
place but they do not provide adequate safety.He said that he also spoke to the traffic engineer
.from State Highway regarding the future development of the highways to get in and out.He
feels that State Highway and the County should get together with the residents of Lakeside
regarding the traffic problem.A discussion followed regarding an additional entrance and Stotler
Road.Mr.Iseminger stated that they will make a site inspection with the appropriate people and
will see what they can do to help the situation.Mr.Davis,consultant,stated that a traffic study
was requested by the County and State and that Stotler Road will be widened with a
acceleration/decellane.Also,a median will help to alleviate some of the problems.A
discussion followed regarding the improvements.Mr.Moser made a motion to table the
preliminary site plan until the October meeting.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.
Iseminger stated that between now and the next meeting they will schedule a site visit.A
discussion followed.
The Village at Robinwood:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan and forest conservation plan for the Village of Robinwood.It is
for an assisted living facility and elderly cottages being developed by the Washington County
Health System along with Tressler Lutheran Services.The property is located on the north side
of Medical Campus Road and contains 29.4 acres zoned Residential Suburban.Mr.Lung stated
that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted approval of this use in the RS zoning district as
part of the overall medical campus in 1991,and also approved this past March a variance request
from the 35 foot maximum height restriction to 54 feet for the assisted living facility.Mr.Lung
stated that the recent variance included a requirement of a 100 foot buffer yard with adequate
vegetative screening as a condition of that approval.He said that a preliminary consultation was
held in April and that the Commission reviewed it in May.He said this plan is basically the
same.It involves a 70 unit assisted living facility on the eastern side of the property.The
building contains a dining facility,swimming pool,and commlmity recreational facility.There
will also be 70 cottages (54 will be double and 16 will be single units).There will be two par 3
golf holes and additional recreational facilities.Mr.Lung reviewed the landscaping plan,the
location of the screened planting,parking,and the location of the bus waiting area.He noted that
public water and sewer is provided and that all streets will be private.He stated that the Planning
Commission approved the use of off site forest retention at the consultation phase and that is
what they are proposing to do.Mr.Lung stated that if the Commission is inclined to approve
this plan that it be contingent on approvals from the Water Department and Water Pollution
Control and the verification of the developer's engineer that the design of the private roads will
accommodate the emergency equipment per the Funkstown Fire Department standards.A
discussion followed regarding the APFO.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan
61
contingent on agency approvals and roads meeting the fire department's standards.Seconded by
Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the forest conservation plan.
Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mr.Lung stated that there is a subdivision plat
associated with this site that was just submitted to the office on Friday that creates a lot out of the
remaining holdings ofthe Hospital Association and requests that the Commission grant staff the
authority to approve it.Mr.Ernst made a motion to allow staff to grant approval of the
subdivision plat.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.A discussion followed.
Crown American Properties:
Mr.Arch presented the site plan for Crown American.He explained that they will be asking for
very limited approvals from the Commission because there are some major considerations that
need to be in place before they go further on with other approvals.He stated that they were
before the Commission at last month's meeting showing the concept plan.The developer is
requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval for the mall expansion.Staff feels they are not
in the position to recommend a full site plan approval.Instead they would recommend a
preliminary site plan approval at this time.The site contains 75.1 acres and is zoned PB -
Planned Business.Mr.Arch stated that several months ago the Commission approved the
payment in lieu of for forest conservation and provided for the ability to do a land swap via the
simplified plat process.Mr.Arch stated that due to the court case,which just settled,the land
.swap had not yet occurred.So the ability to get the subdivision completed has not occurred.He
referred to the exhibit plat.The setbacks required are 50 feet from public road right-of-way and
the proposed expansion meets that requirement.He reviewed the location of the out parcels,the
impervious area is 23 percent,building heights (50 feet),dumpster locations,forest conservation
(payment in lieu of),lighting and landscaping.Mr.Arch stated that signs are an issue staff still
has some questions about,the plan indicates monumental signs along with some directional signs
but they are not sure what that means.He said that parking for the new addition is sufficient but
parking for the entire mall is currently deficient and with the expansion they will be moving
toward correcting that deficiency.There is a need for a buffer area along the residential property
adjacent to the new expansion of the parking lot into the property that was owned by the
Stampers.The proposed landscaping does not meet the requirements but will not take much to
upgrade it.Storm water management will be handled with a regional system between Crosspoint
and the Mall and that is being worked out.
Mr.Arch stated that there are several major items that needs to be resolved.A developers
agreement needs to be in place before the County can sign off on final approval.Another major
issue is the vacation of Cole Road and part of the problem is the fact that they need the right-of-
ways dedicated for the relocated section along with a right-of-way plat for this location.This
item was on hold until the public hearing,which has now taken place.A major consideration
with regard to the vacation of the road is the fact that there are several residential property
owners who will need to access their property through the Hagerstown Mini Storage while Cole
Road is closed and relocated.Mr.Arch stated that the entrances shown on the plan needs to be
revised.He added that the County Engineer has been working with the developer and his
transportation engineer and he has reviewed the traffic impact study.The major problem with
Engineering is trying to separate the two developments -Crosspoint and the Mall.There are
concerns with traffic impact on Massey Boulevard and Halfway Boulevard and the County
Engineer has been working with the developer in regards to how to better utilize the cloverleaf
area.Mr.Arch stated that they also believe it would be worthwhile to look at a connector road
between the relocated Cole Road and the ring road at a spot opposite one of the proposed
entrances for the Crosspoint development.A discussion followed regarding the internal traffic
flow.Mr.Arch stated that any action tonight needs to be conditional since there are several
critical pieces that need to be completed as follows:The extension and relocation of Cole Road
and the relocation of the sewer line.He said that funding for the road and sewer projects will be
through County funds transferred from other projects which will now be funded with 3 million
dollars ofTEA-21 money.He said they are not sure who will be constructing Cole Road in its
entirety whether it will be Crown or a combination of Crown and Cross Point and that needs to
be resolved.A discussion followed regarding the funding,who will be paying for the upgrade of
62
the County sewer line,the developers agreement,the proposed extension of Massey Boulevard
and HalfWay Boulevard,and the traffic impact study.Mr.Arch stated that at this point they are
requesting site plan approval.Mr.Davis,consultant,requested preliminary/final approval to
give Hechts some reassurance that they are proceeding.Mr.Arch stated that he felt they could
not go that far unless the Planning Commission makes it specifically contingent upon the
submission of all of the road construction drawings,the submission of the developers agreement,
the resolution of property issues and sign issues as well as resolution of the stormwater
management configuration for the area.He added that another option would be since they have
seen the plan if the Commission grants preliminary approval give staff the authority to grant final
approval once all ofthe documents are in order.A discussion followed regarding the developers
agreement.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval allowing staff to
grant final site plan approval contingent on meeting the requirements of the traffic impact study
and addressing the other outstanding issues.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mr.Arch
requested that the motion be revised to include the Fire Departments requirements.Mr.Ernst
made the motion to amend the original motion to include the requirements of the Halfway Fire
Department.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Crosspoint Retail Center:
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary site plan for the Crosspoint Retail Center.He stated that the
.site is located south of Cole Road and east of 1-81.It is located on property currently owned by
FMW Partnership and others and the contract purchaser/developer is Greencastle Development
Company.He stated that the total site contains 86.84 acres which was subject to two rezonings.
The current zoning on the property is a mixture of HI -1,Business General,and Residential
Multi-Family.Mr.Lung stated that the plan before them involves 49 acres of the site and is
zoned Highway Interchange-1 and BG.The plan also involves some PB zoned property
currently owned by Crown American,which was previously discussed.The plan involves 3
retail strips along with 2 outparcels.The site is adjacent to the Crown American site for the
extension of Valley Mall.He stated that this site plan shares many of the same aspects as the
Valley Mall project.The relocation of Cole Road,the use of a common storm water
management facility and the construction of an extension of Massey Boulevard.There is also
some exchanges of land involved.The Crosspoint retail center will have several access points
onto the newly constructed Cole Road and will also have several access points onto the extension
of Massey Boulevard.He proceeded to review the parking areas,the regional storm water
management facility and the buffering.Variances will be required from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for signs and parking requirements.Mr.Lung stated that the plan also show buffers
yards that were specified as conditions of the approval of the two rezoning cases.The County
Commissioners imposed a 75 foot buffer as part ofRZ-97-07 and in RZ-98-06 the second
rezoning,the Commissioners imposed a condition that,"adequate buffering and screening would
be established by the Planning Commission upon site plan approval."Mr.Lung stated that this
area is behind strip A and B and what they are proposing is a 25 foot wide strip with vegetative
planting which runs along the rear of Hickory Elementary School.Mr.Lung referred to one of
the buffer areas and stated it will probably have to change based on the plan that was submitted
by Crown American which shows the stormwater management facility.Mr.Lung stated that it
would be the staffs recommendation that once the stormwater management area is finally
worked out that they show the final location of the buffer yard.The staff believes that it would
make sense to place the buffer yard adjacent to the RM/BG zoning boundary.To address
sensitive areas,a stream buffer has been provided around the nontidal wetlands.The Soil
Conservation District has approved the buffer.A forest stand delineation has been submitted and
approved for this site which indicated 35.27 acres offorest on the entire property.There are
some priority areas on the property,however,there are no major priority areas on the portion
being proposed for development at this time.As part of the plan,the developer is requesting
approval to clear all the existing 25.9 acres offorest on this site.In lieu of the required 21.4
acres of reforestation,the applicant is requesting to use payment in lieu.Based on the numbers
provided it will be $93,218.40.This could change based on the final site design.The applicant's
justification for use of payment in lieu is outlined in a letter included in the agenda packet and
Staff does not object to the proposal.Mr.Lung stated that there are considerable issues that need
63
to be addressed,primarily on the final site plan.He said that the applicant is requesting
preliminary site plan approval with the final site plan approval considered when all agency
comments have been addressed.The applicant is also requesting that the Planning Commission
approve payment in lieu for reforestation to address forest conservation requirements.A
discussion followed regarding the traffic study,improvements that need to be done,the
developers agreement,the payment in lieu request,the time schedule for the project and the 25
foot buffer.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval.Seconded by
Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the request to allow payment in
lieu of to meet the forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.(Mr.
Ernst left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.)
Forest Conservation:
Forest Conservation Plan for the New County Landfill:
Mr.Goodrich presented the Forest Conservation Plan for the County's new landfill,occasionally
referred to as the Lund tract,located on Independence Road.The parcel is on the west side of the
Conococheague Creek which forms its border on three sides.As an existing lot of record the site
is eligible for an exemption if forest clearing does not exceed 40,000 square feet.The Forest
Stand Delineation has been completed and approved.It identified 226 acres of forest on the site.
All of the forest on the interior of the site,136 acres,will need to be removed to construct and
operate the landfill.The exemption cannot be applied.Eight-eight acres will be retained around
the perimeter,much of it in the floodplain,and an additional 31.6 acres will be planted,also
around the perimeter,in the flood plain and wetlands.A total of approximately 120 acres of
forest will be on the site upon complete implementation of the Forest Conservation Plan.The
new forest includes some forested wetland as mitigation for some minor wetland disturbance and
a landscaped berm on the western edge of the site to shield residential properties.Mr.Moser
made a motion to approve the forest conservation plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Kemps Mill Park -PC-98-03:
Mr.Arch stated that the plan is for the creation of ball fields at the rubble landfill.He stated
there is a well issue at this time that may impact how the ballfields will be laid out.It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission that they concurred with staff s comments in the
summary.
OTHER BUSINESS:
RZ-98-10.Hagerstown-Washington County Industrial Foundation:
Mr.Arch stated that this is the case that only the Planning Commission heard and that the
County Commissioners will not hear it until October 6,1998.He stated that the Commission can
make their recommendation now.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt the applicant made a case of
mistalce and what they are asking for seems to be logical and appropriate.Mr.Clopper made a
motion that the applicant demonstrated that there was a mistake in the original zoning and what
they are proposing is appropriate and logical and recommend that the County Commissioners
that they adopt RZ-98-1O.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Downey abstained.So ordered.
RZ-98-11 -Text Amendment:
Mr.Iseminger stated that in light of comments made at the public hearing to look at what
Frederick County is doing and some ofthe issues raised in the staff report,he believes the
amendment should be rewritten and readvertised for another hearing.A discussion followed.
Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the amendment be
revised and readvertised.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.
64
Resolution 98-2:
Mr.Arch stated that they approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Boonsboro
Bypass and that this is the formal resolution.Mr.Moser made a motion to adopt Resolution 98-
2.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
APFO 6 month reoort:
Mr.Arch reviewed the report.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the
APFO report and recommend to the County Commissioners that the APFO should be retained.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.A vote was taken.Mr.Clopper,Mr.Moser,and Mr.Iseminger voted
aye.Mr.Ardinger voted nay.Mr.Downey abstained.So ordered.
FB-One Limited Partnership:
Mr.Arch stated that the developer has come back with a new concept plan for this site for
manufactured homes.A discussion followed regarding the original concept plan.It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission,since the preliminary plat approval does not expire until
October 23,the Planning Commission would like the developer to come to the October meeting
.with their new plan to justify why the Planning Commission should give them an extension since
the plan is being changed.Mr.Moser made a motion to table the extension request until the
October meeting.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Comprehensive Plan Work Schedule:
Mr.Downey stated that the schedule looked fine to him and felt it was more realistic.Mr.
Iseminger commented that he feels the Mission Statement should be rewritten.
A discussion followed regarding doing a text amendment to address the mobile home issues,and
scheduling a site inspection.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 1.0:15 P.ll!.__...--..
65
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 5,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 5,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.
Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.
Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior
Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro,and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also
present,Terry McGee,Chief Engineer and Elmer Weibley of the Soil Conservation District.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
Before proceeding with Old Business Mr,Arch requested to add under Other Business the
extension of the time limit for the preliminary consultation for Paul Stitzel.He stated that the
.developer is asking for a 6 month extension due to the fact that he had to complete the 3 studies
prior to preliminary plat submittal as well as the perc tests.Mr.Moser made a motion to add the
request for the extension of the time period for the Stitzel consultation under Other Business.
Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Lakeside Park.Site Plan,Section 2,Phase 2:
Mr.Iseminger informed the residents in the audience that the Planning Commission along with
Terry McGee,Chief Engineer and Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections,made
a site inspection last week.He stated that the concerns brought up at the September meeting and
in Ms.Doran's letter regarding the first section will be addressed by Mr.Prodonovich in letter
form after further research.
Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the site plan for Phase 2,Section 2 ofthe Lakeside Mobile
Home Park.The subject site consists of 49 acres,zoned HI-2 and is located south of Stotler
Road and Bentwood Road off of HalfWay Boulevard at the interchange of81 and 70.The
developer is proposing to create 198 lots for the new section which will be leased (the existing
section has 364 lots)and the projected build out is 3 years.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the location of
the open space (15.8 acres),the location of the storm water management pond and the parking
(296 spaces).Public water and sewer will serve the site,the roads will be private and
maintained by the developer,solid waste will be curbside pick up,street lights will be installed
by Allegheny Power,there will be street signs and there will be no fencing.Mrs.Pietro stated
that at last month's meeting several items were discussed and the majority of them have been
addressed.Sidewalks have been added and will access the bus stop waiting area (which has also
been added).A discussion followed regarding having the sidewalks connecting the old section.
Tot lots have been added to both open space areas along with a basketball court and BBQ grills.
Mrs.Pietro said that at the September meeting one of the main discussions was a second
entrance and that at their site inspection,it was recommended that Hawthorne Court be extended
to Bentwood Drive to provide another way to exit in case the other entrance is blocked.She
stated that landscaping will be placed in the open space area and does not have the exact
numbers.Mrs.Pietro stated that the forest stand delineation has been submitted and it looks
good.The total forest area is 4.4 acres to be retained and they will need 9.2 acres.The
developer is requesting to use the fee in lieu of for the remaining 5 acres,which amounts to
approximately $24,000 -$25,000.Mrs.Pietro stated that the area to be retained is considered
66
high priority because of the trees,the lake,Semple Run,flood plain and wetlands on the site.
She noted that sanitary sewer easements bisect the area but each area meets the definition of
forest.She commented that next to the storm water management area there is flood plain and
that staff suggested to the consultant that they plant in that area since it is considered high
priority,but has not received an answer on that.
Mrs.Pietro stated that when they were in the field they looked at additional parking for the
overflow and it was decided that in the old section near the office there is enough parking for
large vehicles,boats etc.The consultant is to get back to her regarding how many spaces that
area holds.The last item discussed was the adequacy of Stotler Road which is the only way out
to Halfway Boulevard and the traffic study that was done in regards to Halfway Boulevard and
Stotler Road.She referred to Mr.McGee's memo.After making a site inspection the
Engineering Department reviewed the traffic study again and found some numbers that were not
quite right and refigured them.Mrs.Pietro stated that the status has changed from not ever
requiring a light to possibly having one,but will not know for sure until the road is fully
upgraded which will not take place for another two to three years.A discussion followed with
the consultant regarding using the revegetation option in order to meet the forest conservation
requirements.This may allow for an easement for additional plantings in the floodplain area.In
regards to overflow parking,Mr.Johnson,consultant,of Davis,Renn and Associates,stated that
the area is approximately 100 square feet in size.At the present time there are 3 cars parking
there and 4 boats and that they believe there is room for 4 more boats.They believe there is
.room for 4 more boats and two RV's if necessary.Mr.Iseminger asked that they put a note on
the plat stating that area will be available to the people in the area.
In regards to his memo,Mr.McGee explained that he went back and looked at the study and
reran the numbers.He feels that the study is not consistent with what they are looking at on
Halfway Boulevard and found that it may warrant a signal at the completion of Phase 2.He said
that until their construction project and the interchange project are completed,and they see how
the traffic with the new lane assignments works itself out,only then will they know for sure.Mr.
McGee stated that State Highway Administration is going to bury some conduits now so they
will not have to tear out work that has been completed should the signal be warranted.A
discussion followed regarding the fact that a signal would cost approximately $100,000,whether
it could be determined now how much the developers contribution would be,the fact that the
developers contribution would be negotiated with the County Commissioners and the time frame
of the project (2-3 years).Further discussion followed regarding keeping the option open until
final build out of the development,the traffic study,the signal,keeping the site plan approval
open ended and the fact that if the State was not doing the improvements,that the developer
would have had to put in a left turn lane.Mr.McGee suggested that they may want to consider
doing a developers agreement and approve the site plan contingent on a developers agreement
with the County Commissioners and the developer.Further discussion followed regarding
having the approval contingent on a developers agreement and that the condition will be open
ended until the time of final buildout.Mr.Iseminger stated that the developer has addressed the
lighting,sidewalks,play areas,the note concerning RV parking,landscaping and forest
conservation.They are also to let staff know about using the revegetation option.Mrs.Pietro
stated that Permits approved the plan with the condition oflandscaping and tot lots.Mr.
Ardinger made a motion to grant site plan approval and approval of the forest stand delineation
and forest conservation plan,with the following conditions:all agency approvals,a developers
agreement with regard to the traffic signal,that a note be added to the plat regarding providing
access to the other parking areas,that the developer look at revegetation in the flood plain and
allow the fee in lieu for the remaining amount.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
FB-One Limited Partnership.Request for Preliminary Plat Extension:
Mr.Arch stated that this item was tabled from the September meeting to give the developer an
opportunity to present his case.Mr.William Walde,the general partner for FB-One was present.
He stated that he was scheduled for settlement six weeks ago,but that the purchaser backed out.
He is now going to develop the site himself and is asking for another year.A discussion
67
followed regarding extensions in the past and why he needs a year.Mr.Walde stated that he
planned on changing the type of houses to have more single family houses,less townhouses and
less density.Mr.Moser stated that he did not have a problem with granting 6 months as long as
the density does not increase and the basic concept does not change.A discussion followed
regarding the length of the extension.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant the preliminary plat
extension for one year.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.A vote was taken.Mr.Ernst,Mr.
Ardinger,Mr.Clopper,Mrs.Lampton and Mr.Downey voted aye.Mr.Moser voted nay.So
ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Aquillas O.Peachey/Tuscarora Hardwood -Request to use simplified plat:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Tuscarora Hardwood.The request is from Section
3.18 of the Subdivision Ordinance which establishes the use of the Simplified Plat for non-
development purposes only.Mr.Lung explained that this piece of property is located about 1200
feet west of Kaetzel Road.The request is to allow the use of the simplified plat to enlarge an
existing undeveloped parcel of record.The simplified parcel would contain the proposed septic
.area and would allow the original lot to be built upon.A septic area is considered development
under the terms of the Subdivision Regulation.Mr.Lung referred to the exhibit plat and
explained that in the deed there is a description for 3 parcels (parcell,parcel2A and parcel 2B).
The applicant wants to take a portion of parcel 2B and add it to parcel I and have the septic
reserve area located on the simplified addition to parcel I.The property is currently undeveloped
and was previously used for logging.Access is across an old county road which is vaguely
described in the County road book and there is a reference in the deed to a 20 foot private right-
of-way to Kaetzel Road.He said that the property is on the side of Elk Ridge Mountain.Mr.
Lung stated that the County vehicle could not get up the road because it was too steep and the
Health Department had a similar problem and had to be taken up in the owner's 4 wheel drive
vehicle.He said it is not an easily accessible property and the existing parcels do not meet the
current development standards,however,since they are parcels of record they can be sold and
built upon if they meet the Health Department's requirements for wells and septics.He added
that staff understands that the lots can be built on as they are.It is the staff s recommendation
that the County should not encourage development on substandard lots by allowing the change.
The consultant,Fred Frederick,of Frederick Seibert and Associates,briefly spoke.He referred
to the exhibit plat and reviewed the 3 parcels and stated that perc tests have been done and that
the site can be accessed via a 4 wheel drive vehicle.He explained that they are requesting to do
a simplified plat to add a small portion of ground to Lot I for the septic system.He said that he
has spoken to Paul Prodonovich in the Permits Department and he does not see a problem with it.
He also spoke to Rod MacRae of the Health Department who told him because it is an old parcel
of record they cannot hold them to the same high standards as new lots.A discussion followed
regarding the fact that the lots can be sold and that what they are proposing to do will have septic
systems complying with State regulations and the fact that the lots are undersized for the zoning
but are grandfathered.Mr.Moser commented that the area is not meant for development due to
the topography.Mr.Lung stated that he spoke to Ed Fogtman of the Health Department and he
indicated that was a very difficult area to perc.The site had wet soil requiring it to be perced
during the restricted season.Mr.Lung said there is no guarantee that parcel I could be
developed as is because he did not have a verification from the Health Department that a perc test
was approved on the original parcel I.There is no guarantee that there can be 3 houses on the 3
parcels as they exist now.He said that by adding the simplified parcel,the Planning
Commission would be guaranteeing that there would be 3 building lots there.Further discussion
followed with the consultant regarding the fact that an experimental system could be put on Lot
I,the topography,what would happen if they turned the variance request down,the fact that ifit
is turned down that the developer can still create the three lots but may have to use an
experimental system on one of the lots,whether an experimental system is better than a
conventional one and when the simplified plats will be submitted.Mr.Arch commented that
68
when the plat is submitted they will need to show the slope for the entire lot,due to the sensitive
area requirements.He said that staff s biggest concern is trying to get three houses off of a road
that they cannot even get up.A discussion followed regarding the Planning Commission's
options and seeing a plat with topography on it because there may be a situation where the lots
may not be buildable due to steep slopes.Mr.Iseminger stated that he is in agreement with Mr.
Ardinger that he does not want to contribute to the situation and does not want to turn a
nonbuildable lot into a buildable one by what they are doing.The developer should come back
with a plat showing the elevations and ifthey can prove that Lot I can be built on according to
the Zoning Ordinance,he does not have a problem.If it is creating enough land to allow them to
be able to build on parcell then he is against it.He feels they need to provide the Commission
with more information and come back.Mr.Ernst made a motion to table the variance request in
order for the applicant to come back with a plat showing topography.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Phoenix Color:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Phoenix Color,Phase I. The site is located on the east side
of 1-81 south of Citi Corp,and north of the airport.The Phase one development is located on an
.existing 78.7 acre tract ofland zoned AP -Airport District.Phase I includes construction of a
35,000 square foot corporate headquarters building for Phoenix Color along with a 150,000
square foot book printing and binding plant.There will be 125 employees in the office building
and 325 plant employees (running two 12 hour shifts).There will be parking to accommodate
270 employees,and there will be landscaping within the parking areas which exceeds the
minimum amount.Storm water management will be handled by a regional pond,public water
and sewer will serve the site,access will be off of Henson Boulevard and Airpark Road and there
will be a private road system.Mr.Lung stated that this phase will be exempt from the Forest
Conservation requirements because it is on an existing lot of record and they will be disturbing
less than 40,000 square feet of forest.He stated that as far as future development plans go,the
plan shows 2 additional book printing and binding plants of 200,000 square feet each,expansion
to the corporate headquarters building,construction of a hanger to house corporate aircraft and
construction of a gate house and human resources building at the entrance of the property.He
said that this plan has been reviewed and that the only outstanding agencies are Engineering and
Soil Conservation.He said that Soil Conservation issued a verbal approval,however,they are
waiting for the Engineering Department's signature before they sign off on the site plan.The
Engineering Department is currently reviewing the traffic study to determine the impact of this
development for the future phases of the existing road system and the stormwater management
system.Mr.Lung explained that the site will have a regional stormwater management facility
and that a developers agreement is currently being negotiated between the County and Phoenix
Color.He said that this site plan includes the design of the sediment trap to handle the
stormwater management on a temporary basis from this site and there is enough land on Phoenix
Color's property to handle storm water management if the regional facility does not come to
fruition.The County Engineer wants to be sure that is taken care of before he signs off on the
site plan.State Highway Administration has also requested to review the traffic impact study to
see how traffic generated from this use would affect state highways even though there is no
direct access from this site onto state highways.They also need to review the regional
stormwater management pond to see what the impact of that facility would be on the drainage for
I-81.He said that if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the plan,he recommends
that it be conditional upon those agency approvals coming in.
Mr.Arch informed the Plauning Commission that there will be two simplified plats associated
with this site for swapping of land for the stormwater management pond.He added that there is
also a large parcel that is still owned by Fairchild,that may be acquired by Phoenix Color at
some time in the future.He referred to a small strip along side of the property owned by Chief
that may be worked into this property.He said that those items should be worked out in 30 -60
days.Mr.Zoretich,consultant,of Frederick Seibert and Associates stated that the hangar site is
69
about 8 or 9 acres and Phoenix Color only needs half of that so they are going to give that to the
airport and negotiate another piece of land.Mr.Arch stated that the plats will most likely be
small enough to be able to do it through the simplified process.A discussion followed regarding
the simplified plats and the land swaps.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval
contingent on agency approvals,storm water management and developers agreement being in
place and final engineering approval of the traffic impact study.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So
ordered.
Roach Oil Company:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Roach Oil to replace an existing Texaco station with a new
gas station and convenience store on 1.34 acres zoned HI-I.The site is located at the intersection
ofI-81 and Maugans Avenue.Mr.Lung stated that this parcel was enlarged as part of the
subdivision plat for the adjacent Waffle House restaurant which is under construction now.He
said that the plat included the swapping of land which resulted in the Roach Oil property being
enlarged in the back.The new building will be set further back on the site,the old fuel island
will be replaced with a new fuel island with 4 dispensers,there will be another fuel island built
on the east side with 3 dispensers.The existing diesel dispensers will remain.Parking will be
provided and meets the minimum requirements,lighting and signs will be reconfigured.The
lights are designed to prevent glare and spillover onto the adjacent properties.There will be a
.new entrance and exit onto Crayton Boulevard.The existing westermnost entrance will stay and
the eastern entrance will be eliminated.The site is served by public water and sewer and
stormwater management will be handled by an existing regional facility.All the reviewing
agencies have approved except the Permits Department,they are reviewing a revision per their
comments.State Highway has a continuing concern regarding the effect that new development
along Maugans Avenue will have on the functioning of the interstate ramp and a possible need
for a traffic study.Mr.Lung stated that he asked Terry McGee,Chief County Engineer,to
review that comment since it is a reoccurring comment and referred to Mr.McGee's letter.In
regards to forest conservation,the existing parcel is exempt because it is an existing lot of
record and the obligation for the parcel that was added onto the back was taken care of when they
set aside the existing forest.A discussion followed regarding access onto Maugans Avenue.Mr.
McGee stated that he feels they do not need a traffic study at this point in time because they
know the condition of Maugans Avenue.The County knows that it needs to be a five lane urban
section with a center turn lane and two through lanes each way.He stated that the improvements
for this area are scheduled to begin fiscal 200 I and they will begin detailed studies within a year
to address this area.They are not in a position right now to put the responsibility on any of the
developers at this time.Once the improvements are designed,turning movements at the existing
Texaco entrance may be limited.A discussion followed regarding improvements and traffic
impact studies.Mr.Iseminger stated that he feels it is a topic that the Plauning Commission
should talce up with the next Board of Commissioners.Further discussion followed regarding the
traffic in the area,the fact that Crayton Boulevard will be a County road and the fiscal impact
study.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on agency approvals.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Forest Conservation Planting Program FY 1999:
Mr.Weibley of the Soil Conservation District passed out information for the 1999 planting
program which utilizes the fee in lieu of paid into the Forest Conservation Fund.The proposed
sites for the '99 program includes 6 acres of the Charles Downs property which is adjacent to the
26 acres planted in 1998.It is a stream buffer and wet soil priority area.The Greg Pennington
site is a 22 acre stream buffer with steep slopes.The Thomas property is a 22 acre stream buffer
with existing forest along the Antietam Creek.Mr.Weibley and Mr.Goodrich suggested that the
Commission approve all three sites.Currently available funds would be used to do the planting
on the Downs and Pennington sites.The Thomas easement could be purchased when the fund
balance is replenished.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend that they go forward with the
two plantings and thenthe Thomas site when the funds become available.Seconded by Mrs.
70
Lampton.So ordered.
Other Business:
Stitzel.request for extension of time of submittal:
Mr.Arch stated that the consultant is requesting an extension of the timeframe between the
Preliminary Consultation and the submittal ofthe Preliminary Plat,so they do not have to come
back for another preliminary consultation.He stated that they will be submitting a plat in the
next three weeks.This is the first time they have requested an extension.Mr.Moser made a
motion to grant a 6 month extension from today for submittal ofthe preliminary plat.Seconded
by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
'-
d 1.Iseminger,Chairman
,
71
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 2,1998
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,November
2,1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R.
Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,R.Lee Downey.
Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior
Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of September 14,1998.Seconded by Mr.
Ernst.So ordered.
In regards to the minutes of October 5,1998,the first paragraph for Lakeside Park,Mr.Iseminger
suggested that "in letter form after further research"be added to the last sentence after Mr.
Prodonovich and that under the Forest Conservation Planting Program to capitalize "Downs".
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So
ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Tiger Development:
Mr.Arch presented the preliminary subdivision plat for Hunter's Green Lot 2 and Parcel A.The
subject property is located west of Hopewell Road.Mr.Arch stated that the purpose of
presenting this plat is to get input from the Planning Commission on a concept discussed with the
County Commissioners and the developer (Tiger Development)regarding the creation of a
greenway in Hopewell Valley.He commented that the plat to be presented this evening was
originally for just the proposed park but noted that the consultant submitted it as a preliminary
subdivision plat showing the proposed park (parcel A)and Lot 2.He referred to the exhibit plat
and pointed out that Lot 2 is adjacent to the Tru-Serv site,consists of 35 acres and is zoned HI-I.
Parcel A consists of 37 acres,which is to be dedicated to Washington County.He said that the
issue they are focusing on is the entire area of Hopewell Valley and the concept of creating a
greenways area using the flood plain area,which includes an intermittent stream and a spring.
The proposed linear park would contain walking trails and picnic tables and would be used by
the employees in the business park.Mr.Arch stated that they have discussed with the developer
the possibility of eventually tying into a trail leading from Williamsport to Hagerstown being
looked at by the Metropolitan Planning Organization.In addition,Mr.Arch stated that there is a
historic stone farm house on the 37 acres that Tiger is proposing to dedicate and that the Historic
Trust would like to see the property rehabilitated. The Board of County Commissioners has
requested input from the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board regarding this
concept.Mr.Arch stated that they are asking for approval of the creation of a lot and to give
staff the authority to grant final approval once agency approvals are received and an endorsement
of the concept for a linear park.In regards to forest conservation,the consultant has been
working with staff regarding using regeneration.Mr.Frederick,the consultant,of Frederick
Seibert and Associates stated that there is a lot of young growth out there that does not meet the
72
forest standards today and that it was agreed to let that area naturally regenerate.A discussion
followed regarding regeneration,the stone house and the linear park.It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission for the developer and staff to proceed with the linear park.Mrs.Lampton
made a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plat,giving staff the authority for final
approval and approval of the use of regeneration to meet the forest conservation requirements.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Continuing Care Concepts:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Continuing Care Concepts.The site is located on the
southwest corner of Sharpsburg Pike and Rench Road.Mrs.Pietro stated that this site was the
subject of two proposed rezonings for the McCubbin and Small property that was turned down.
The site consists of 11.5 acres zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing an assisted living
facility 46,000 square feet in size.Access will be off of Sharpsburg Pike only and the site will be
served by public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro stated that there will be 26 employees per shift,
the facility will be open 24 hours 7 days a week,there will be 71 parking spaces and
approximately 3 deliveries per day.Lighting will be both building mounted and pole mounted
and there will be a sign at the entrance.Sidewalks will be located around the entire site and
landscaping is adequate.The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it is a
lot of record.All agency approvals have been received except for State Highway which is
currently looking at the hydraulic study.Engineering Department has approved it but cannot
give final approval until State Highway gives theirs.The only other item that arose during the
review with Permits is that the parking was agreed upon between the developer and Permits
Department because this use does not fall under the category of either a nursing home or
hospital.In addition,the developer is going to the Board of Appeals to request a reduction of the
setback requirements from 150 feet to 40 feet.Mrs.Pietro asked the Commission for authority to
give final approval upon State Highway and Board of Appeals approvals.A discussion followed
regarding how this site would impact St.James PUD in regards to the traffic light.Mrs.Pietro
stated that neither Engineering nor State Highway commented in regards to a traffic light.Mr.
Townsley,consultant,of Fox and Associates,Inc.stated that with the commercial development
proposed at St.James they are having a warrant analysis done for that development and the State
asked that the entire frontage be widened and curbed.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve
the site plan contingent on State Highway and the County Engineer's approval and approval of
setbacks from the Board of Appeals and to give staff the authority to grant final approval.
Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
Keplinger Auto:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Keplinger's Automotive repair business.The property is
situated on the west side of Route 65 on 1.4 acres zoned HI -1.The developer is proposing to
construct a 72 x 128 foot building.According to the plan,there will be 8 employees,36 parking
spaces (two handicapped).A storm water management pond is proposed for the southwest
corner.The site will be served by public water.Sewage disposal will be handled by an onsite
septic system.Mr.Lung stated that according to the County Water and Sewer Department and
the Health Department,the existing sewer line on Sharpsburg Pike is not close enough to require
a connection to this lot,however,at such time when the sewer is available to the site,they will be
required to hook on.He proceeded to review the landscaping,the lighting will be building
mounted.They will be exempt from forest conservation requirements because it is a lot of record
and there is less than 40,000 square feet of forest being disturbed.All agency approvals have
been received.In response to a question regarding Battle Creek Boulevard,Mr.Lung stated that
to his knowledge a centerline has not been established for the extension of Battlecreek Boulevard
across Route 65 and the County Engineer did not ask for consideration.Mr.Arch said that he
spoke to Mr.McGee and the potential location is not in conflict with this site.A discussion
followed.Mr.Lung stated that he spoke to both the Water and Sewer Department and Health
73
Department regarding sewer hookup.The County Water and Sewer Department indicated it is
not close enough to require them to hook up.Mr.Cump said he spoke to the Water and Sewer
Department twice and the nearest manhole is 800 feet down the road.Further discussion
followed regarding making the approval contingent on having the Water and Sewer and Health
Departments review the availability of service again.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site
plan approval contingent on final Health Department approval with regard to public sewer.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Arch to draft a letter from the Planning Commission to the Board of
County Commissioners in regards to the realignment of Rench Road.
Food Resources.Inc ..Lot 6:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Food Resources Inc.The property is located on the north
side of McRand Court,south ofRt.144 and is zoned IG -Industrial General.The developer is
proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot food distribution center.The site will be served by
public water and sewer,hours of operation are 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Monday through Friday,
signs and lights will be building mounted and the proposed landscaping is adequate.The site is
exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it is a lot of record.Stormwater
management will be handled by the existing pond that was put in to handle the entire site in the
1980's.All approvals have been received except for State Highway.They have requested
'calculations for the storm water management area that was put in the late 1980's,to make sure
there won't be any problems now.A discussion followed regarding State Highway's request.
Mr.Curnp stated that in 1988 the pond was approved for the business park and met all the
criteria.He said this just came up with State Highway.Mr.Curnp said that no one could find
any records of whether State Highway approved it or not and asked the County Engineer.He
said that they are now at a standstill and Mr.McCleary would like to go ahead and get approval.
Mr.McCleary briefly spoke.He said that the pond is built to accommodate 17 acres of
commercial construction and proposing to develop only I acre at this time.Mr.Cump added
that this is the first lot in the industrial park to be developed.Mr.McCleary said he does not
have a problem with giving State Highway the information they need but does have a problem
with holding up one lot after they have previously met all the requirements.He said that Mr.
Curnp is working on the computations as requested.A discussion followed regarding approving
this lot.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval with the condition that future
development of McRand Park be subject to the conditions of the State Highway Administration
with regard to storm water management.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So
ordered.
Vincent P.Smith:
Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Vincent Smith.The site consists of26.8 acres located
west of Greencastle Pike and along Smithfield Farm Lane and is zoned Agriculture.Mrs.Pietro
stated that no construction is proposed at this time.The owner is proposing to extend his mineral
extraction business and is currently removing shale in the lower portion of the site.The total site
area is 106 acres.She reviewed the location of the buildings and the access to the site and noted
that a required 100 foot buffer is located along Highland Manor.All approvals have been
received.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So
ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Washington County SPCA:
74
Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing to add to her snrnmary.A discussion followed regarding
the analysis of the waste stream and the fact that the SPCA is still in negotiations with the Board
of Commissioners regarding housing the animal control.It was the consensus of the Plarming
Commission to accept the staff report.
Marc Silverman:
Mr.Lung stated that this concept plan originally came in as a Plarmed Unit Development (PUD)
and that during the consultation there was discussion as to why a PUD zoning might be
necessary and that the developer could probably proceed with the development as proposed by
filing for a special exception under the existing RS zoning to allow the proposed 100 unit senior
living facility.Since the consultation,Mr.Silverman has gone to the Board of Zoning Appeals
and received approval of the special exception to allow him to build the senior living facility.He
is not intending to pursue the PUD zoning.He can do what he is proposing to do under the
existing RS zoning with the special exception.He said this is similar to what Emeritus did,
which is next door.A discussion followed regarding the internal walking path system.Mr.
Lung stated that the next step will be to submit a site plan for the senior living facility and a
subdivision plat for the individual building lots.Further discussion followed regarding a buffer
around the property.Mr.Wantz,attorney for some of the property owners in Brightwood East
said that an agreement was in place with the present property owner from a previous rezoning
case for a 100 foot buffer and that the concept plan does not show the buffer.A discussion
followed.Mr.Lung stated that the forest stand delineation shows that there is no existing forest
and no priority areas on the site.The developer is requesting to use the payment in lieu option to
meet his 1.75 acre mitigation obligation.He said they are requesting the Plarming Commission's
approval of the payment in lieu.Mr.Iseminger stated that he did not have a problem with that
unless the 100 foot agreement Mr.Wantz mentioned is valid,then the developer may want to use
part of that area to plant trees towards his forest conservation obligation.Mr.Tucker,the
developers consultant,from Associated Engineering Sciences stated that he was not aware of
any agreement regarding the buffer.He added that they chose the payment in lieu of because the
amount that needs to be planted is so small that it would not produce a viable forest,however,
they do intend to plant some trees in the open space.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt the
consultant,the developer and Mr.Wantz should meet to discuss the buffer issue.It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission that it is premature to consider forest conservation
payment in lieu of at this time until the buffer issue is resolved.
John Kelly:
Mr.Lung stated that the only outstanding issue that came up was the stripping of the rural road
and the staffs recommendation for the use of shared entrances.He referred to the concept plan
and stated that the shape of the property dictates the lot layout and that there is no additional land
to be subdivided.The proposal is for one access onto Cave Hill Road and five onto Itnyre Road.
He said that both of these roads are local roads with low traffic volumes.Per the
recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan,the Staff consistently questions the stripping of
rural roads and the use of individual driveways.Mr.Lung stated that it is the consultant's
position that given the low traffic volumes on the road,the small number of lots and the fact that
there is no future subdivision potential that they should be allowed to have individual accesses.
A discussion followed with Mr.Frederick,consultant,regarding the area,problems created with
strip development,allowing 4 single entrances,and future development in the area it was the
consensus of the Planning Commission that they would defer their decision on the driveways
until after they have made a site inspection.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Wintergreen/John Schuster:
Mr.Ltmg stated in December of 1995,the Plarming Commission approved a preliminary plat for
75
the entire Wintergreen subdivision.The developer then submitted final plats for Lots 1-11 and
Lots 12-34,which were approved by the Planning Commission in February of 1996.The final
plat for Lots 1-11 has been recorded.The final plat for Lots 12-34 has not been recorded nor has
the forest conservation payment in lieu of been made.The developer is requesting a one year
extension of the preliminary plat approval and a one year extension for recording of the final plat
for Lots 12-34 (a final plat for the remaining Lots 35-57 has not been submitted).The developer
has already been granted a one year extension and this would be the second.The consultant,Mr.
Frederick,spoke.He said that the developer has not done anything with the lots at this time,due
to the market,and that he is considering making the lots larger.A discussion followed
regarding the fact that this project falls under the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements
and the fact that if the extensions are granted that this will be the last one.Mr.Ernst made a
motion to grant a one year extension of the Preliminary Plat for Wintergreen and to grant a one
year extension of the final plat for Lots 12 -34.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.
RZ-98-12,Triad Properties Map Amendment,Rezoning Recommendation:
Mr.Moser and Mr.Ernst were not present at the September public hearing and will not be able to
vote.Staff had nothing to add to their report.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the
County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-98-12 based on its consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan,the findings offact outlined in the Staff Report,the applicant's
demonstration that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the
'proposed classification is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.A vote was tal,en.
Mrs.Lampton,Mr.Clopper and Mr.Iseminger voted aye.Mr.Downey,Mr.Moser,Mr.Ernst
and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
RZ-98-13 Hickory Corner:
Mr.Iseminger said it was his opinion that the applicant made a case for a change in the character
of the neighborhood,but he was not sure ifthe requested zone is logical and appropriate.Mr.
Ardinger mentioned that during the hearing there was opposition but most of the problems
presented were not going to go away whether or not the property was rezoned.He said they do
tal,e opposition into account but that the problems that exist,exist in the current zoning.He said
that one thing that could be accomplished with the rezoning would be to take care of the parking
and feels that the rezoning solves more problems than it creates.A discussion followed
regarding the fact that the State is doing some work at the intersection that should help the
drainage problem,the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of the nonconforming use,the fact that
the site started out as a fruit stand and is now a restaurant and what would happen if they do not
rezone the property.Mr.Frederick of Frederick Seibert and Associates,Inc.stated that he did a
plan for the owner and that she is in violation right now.He said that the Permits Department
told her if she tried to get the property rezoned they would not shut her down and take her
parking in hopes that she is successful.If she is not successful,they will take even more parking
away from her.A discussion followed regarding the site being a small corner lot and having 2
side yard setbacks.Mr.Iseminger stated that since they have rezoned other sites in the
neighborhood there is somewhat of a change and what they are suggesting is not inconsistent
with the surrounding neighborhood.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the County
Commissioners that they adopt RZ-98-13 based on its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
the findings of fact outlined in the Staff Report,the applicant's demonstration that there was a
change in the character of the neighborhood,that the request is logical and appropriate and based
on the motion of the Board of Zoning Appeals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Downey,Mr.
Moser and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
RZ-98-14 Gerald and Carolyn Cump:
Staff had nothing to add to the report.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the applicant
demonstrated a change in the character of the neighborhood.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-98-14 based on its consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan,the findings offact outlined in the Staff Report,the applicant's
76
demonstration that there was a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the proposed
classification is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Downey,Mr.Moser and
Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
RZ-98-15 Board of Commissioners of Washington County Map and Text Amendments:
Mr.Arch stated that these are the map and text amendments for the Special Economic
Development area.He said that it could qualify as a comprehensive rezoning or as a piecemeal
rezoning.After discussing the choices,it was the consensus of the Plarming Commission to go
with the Comprehensive Rezoning because it is in keeping with creating the special planning
area.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt
RZ-98-15 as a Comprehensive rezoning based on the fact that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and to adopt Resolution 98-3.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Downey,Mr.
Moser and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Keedysville Annexation:
Mr.Arch referred to the memo in the agenda packet from Mr.Kuczynski,the town attorney,in
regards to the armexation.He stated that the Plarming Commission and the County
Commissioners do not approve or disapprove armexations.He explained that the Planning
Commission comments on whether or not they feel the proposed zoning associated with the
armexation is consistent with current zoning and if the Commissioners feel it is not consistent
then there is a time frame that the current zoning must stay in place before the change takes
place.He referred to the map in the packet and reviewed the requested zoning classifications.
The properties are currently zoned Agricultural and the proposal they are asking for is TR -Town
Residential.Mr.Arch stated that there isn't anything in the Keedysville Zoning Ordinance that is
close to the Agricultural classification.They have two residential zoning classifications,TR-
Town Residential and SR -Suburban Residential and Neighborhood Commercial.Mr.Arch
stated it would appear that the classification more closely associated with the Agriculture zoning
would be the SR instead of the TR,due to the fact that it refers to single family residential lots of
18,000 square feet in size which is close to the 20,000 square foot lots with public water allowed
under the Agriculture zoning.Whereas,in the TR zoning they can still go down to 10,000 square
feet.Mr.Arch stated that in regards to the Peeke property,TR is a little more appropriate based
on what was previously approved as well as the fact that part of the property is already inside the
corporate boundary and is zoned TR.He stated that the other item is the 18,000 square foot
minimum for a SR and Mr.Peeke used the cluster provision in which most of those lots are less
than 18,000 square feet.In regards to the Williams and Burtner properties,Mr.Arch felt that
there was no justification for them to be TR because there is no development on the properties,
neither one of them are partially inside the corporate limits and they currently adjoin SR zoning.
A discussion followed regarding the fact that SR is more appropriate for the Williams and
Burtner properties and that TR is appropriate for the Peeke property.Mr.Ernst made a motion to
recommend to the County Commissioners that the Williams and Burtner properties would be
consistent with the SR zoning and that the Peeke property is consistent with the TR zoning given
the fact that part of it is already zoned TR and the size of the lots.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.
Downey abstained.So ordered.
Startzman Annexation:
Mr.Arch stated that the property consists of37.03 acres located between Wesel Boulevard and
the Conrail Rail Road tracks currently zoned IG -Industrial General.The proposed zoning is
C-2.He said that there is an adjacent CSX parcel in the process of being rezoned and a
preliminary okay has been given to it for a C-2 classification.Mr.Arch stated that even though
the City has classifications closer to the IG,staff did not have any objections with the C-2 and
77
feels that it would be consistent and logical and appropriate for that area.Mrs.Lampton made a
motion to recommend to the Commissioners that the proposed zoning is consistent.Seconded by
Mr.Moser.Mr.Downey and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
78
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 7,1998
The Washington County Planning Conunission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 7,
1998 in the Commissioners meeting room.
Members present were:Vice-Chairman,Bernard 1.Moser;R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,
Paula A.Lampton,Robert Ernst,11 and Ex-Officio,Bertrand 1.Iseminger.Staff:Planning
Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,
Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
Before proceeding with the election of officers,Mr.Arch stated that Rosewood Estates PUD was
being withdrawn from the agenda.
REORGANIZATION:
Election of Officers:
Mrs.Lampton made a motion to nominate Bernard 1.Moser for Chairman.Seconded by Mr.
Clopper.Mr.Ernst moved to close the nominations for Chairman.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.
So ordered.
Mr.Clopper made a motion to nominate Paula Lampton as Vice-Chairperson.Seconded by Mr.
Ardinger.Mr.Ernst moved to close the floor to nominations.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So
ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
John and Ann Bachtell Kelly.Preliminary Consultation:
Mr.Lung stated that this item had been tabled from the November meeting in order to give the
Commission time to make a site inspection.He said that there was a question as to limiting the
number of access points.The staff recommended shared entrances.In this case the owner is
proposing 6 lots,with one lot accessing Cave Hill Road and the remaining five lots accessing
Itnyre Road,each having its own driveway.Mr.Lung stated that the consultant mentioned at the
November meeting that the number of lots may be reduced because there may be interest in
larger lots.The owner,Mr.Kelly,questioned the reason for requiring shared entrances and the
Commission's consistency in requiring shared entrances with other subdivisions.A discussion
followed with Mr.Kelly,regarding the potential for similar development of the adjacent parcels,
traffic on Cave Hill Road,and the fact that the Conunission would consider one entrance onto
Cave Hill Road and three entrances onto Itnyre Road.Further discussion followed regarding
shared entrances,the fact that the requirement of shared entrances are a common practice of the
Planning Commission in an effort to discourage strip development,the fact that this property is
adjacent to the Smithsburg growth area and that the potential for further strip development in the
area is great.Mr.Kelly expressed concern with being required to use shared accesses and the
fact that he has been advised by realtors that lots with shared accesses are more difficult to
market and less valuable.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the Planning
Commission would consider granting four accesses and that the Planning Commission's intent is
to limit the number of accesses onto Itnyre Road due to the speed and increased traffic.Mr.
Kelly was reminded that he may appeal the Planning Conunission's decision to the Board of
Zoning Appeals.Mr.Frederick,consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates suggested since
this is a safety issue that the County Engineer give his input regarding the need for shared access
points.
79
Mr.Lung stated that at the field meeting,he was asked to forward a copy of the concept plan to
the town of Smithsburg.He said that the Town wanted the Planning Commission to be aware
that there are some drainage problems at the intersection of Cave Hill and Itnyre Road.The
County Engineer is aware of the situation and has indicated the possible need for storm water
management.The Town also commented that when the com is high,sight distance at the
intersection can be a problem.In addition,the Town also asked for consideration for the
extension of public water to this area.Mr.Lung stated that becomes a Water and Sewer Plan
issue and that this particular subdivision is outside of the growth area.After further discussion it
was the consensus of the Planning Commission to allow three accesses onto Itnyre Road and one
access onto Cave Hill Road regardless of the final number oflots.Mr.Ernst abstained.
Variances:
Sandra Shay:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Sandra Shay.The request is from Section 405.11.G
and 402 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding panhandle lots and access separation.The
property is located on the west side of Chestnut Grove Road and consists of9.84 acres zoned
Conservation.Mr.Lung stated that the subject site is Lot 3 of Woodfield Estates and that it will
be the fifth panhandle lot in this subdivision (only 4 panhandles are permitted).Mr.Lung stated
that the owner is proposing to create a 3 acre lot in the rear of the property and retain 7 acres in
.the front.He said that the panhandle to the new lot needs to be 900 feet long due to an
intermittent stream that runs through the property and that Ms.Shay intends to keep the wetlands
on her parcel in the front.Mr.Lung stated that the second issue is that this is the fifth panhandle
lot out of the original parcel.He added that Lot 4 and the remaining lands have the potential to
be subdivided the same way with panhandles.He stated that another issue is that the access
points along a minor collector highway must be at least 300 feet apart.Ms.Shay is proposing to
shift her existing entrance further south so it would become a shared entrance with the new lot.
Moving the entrance will improve the sight distance.Mr.Lung stated that by doing that,the
new entrance location would be approximately 50 feet from the approved entrance for Lot 4.He
said that the final issue cannot be addressed by the Planning Commission.If this request were
approved,the lot width of the remaining lands of Lot 3 would be reduced to 275 feet.The
minimum lot width in Conservation zoning is 300 feet.Doing this would require approval of a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.A discussion followed regarding the building area
being limited on Lot 3,the potential for further subdivision of panhandle lots in Woodfield
Estates and whether the Plauning Commission could put a condition that there would be no
further panhandles allowed on the remaining lands of the subdivision.Mr.Lung stated that they
could go on record as part of their motion that they will not consider any more variances for
panhandle lots.Mr.Ardinger commented that in cases involving traffic and safety issues,the
County Engineer should submit his comments to the Planning Commission in writing.A
discussion followed regarding Chestnut Grove Road and getting written comments from the
County Engineer on the proposed access.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to table the variance
request until the January meeting in order to receive comments from the County Engineer,Terry
McGee,regarding the proposed access.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
Kenneth Thomas -Request from Panhandle Requirements:
Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Kenneth Thomas.The subject site is located on the
south side of Mt.Aetna Road near its intersection with White Hall Road and is zoned
Agriculture.The applicant is proposing to create a 6 acre lot with a panhandle length of 900 feet.
The proposed access point has been reviewed by the County Engineer's office and has been
approved by them.Mrs.Pietro stated that the applicant originally proposed to use Rock Bottom
Road,an existing private lane,but the County Engineer's office felt that the sight distance was
very poor.The County Engineer's office feels that the proposed access is adequate.Mrs.Pietro
explained that the reason why the proposed panhandle exceeds the 400 foot maximum length is
due to the fact there is an existing home to the front of the property and the topography.A
discussion followed regarding the access and concern was expressed that the proposed 6 acre lot
80
could be subdivided in the future.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the variance request with
the condition that there will be no further subdivision of the 6 acre lot.Seconded by Mrs.
Lampton.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Porterstown Meadows.Lots 1-4 Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat.The property is located on the south side of
Geeting Road near its intersection with Porterstown Road.The site consists of 14 acres and is
zoned Agriculture.There are 95 acres remaining.The developer is proposing to create four
single family lots ranging from two to seven acres in size.Mrs.Pietro stated that all of the lots
will access Geeting Road and that Lot 4 will have a panhandle.The lots will be served by
individual wells and septic systems.All agency approvals have been received.Mrs.Pietro stated
that in order to meet the Forest Conservation requirements,the developer is proposing to put 2.48
acres in easement in the rear of the lots.A discussion followed regarding the adequacy of
Geeting Road,the stripping of lots along Geeting Road and the fact that the 95 acres may be
subdivided in the future.After further discussion is was the consensus of the Plarming
Commission that Mrs.Pietro should notify the consultant that if they come back with a fifth lot,
they will be required to have a preliminary consultation and will need to build a road to serve the
lots.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval and approval of the
'forest conservation plan subject to no further subdivision of Lot 4.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.
So ordered.
PUDs:
South Pointe PUD,Phase 2,Preliminary Plat:
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for South Pointe PUD Phase 2.She stated this plan is
a continuation of the development which the Planning Commission has seen before.The subject
site is located on the north side of East Oak Ridge Drive and is zoned RS PUD.The developer is
proposing 54 townhouse units along Southern Oak Drive and the minimum lot size will be 3,100
square feet on a total of 7.4 acres.The site will be served by public water and sewer and a storm
water management drainage system runs through the properties.All agency approvals have been
received and this site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to grant preliminary plat approval for South Pointe Phase 2,Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.
Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Steve Sagi.PC-98-07:
Mrs.Pietro stated that in July, a site plan was presented and approved by the Plarming
Commission for this site,which is located at the intersection of Sharpsburg Pike and Col.Henry
Douglas Drive.At that time,the plan was for a motel and the Plarming Commission expressed
concern with the parldng and internal traffic. Mrs.Pietro stated that this concept plan is
replacing the previously approved site plan.The proposed concept plan is for a motel,a Waffle
House and a Cracker Barrel Restaurant and they will each be on individual lots.Mrs.Pietro
proceeded to review the plan and noted that there will be 3 access points.She stated that the
motel will have 98 rooms,will be on 2.78 acres and will have 104 parking spaces;the Cracker
Barrel will be on 2.7 acres and will have 147 parking spaces;the Waffle House will be on.4
acres and will have 23 parking spaces.She reviewed the location of the bus parking area and
stated that she discussed this plan with Paul Prodonovich of the Permits Department since he had
previously expressed concern with the parking area during the Preliminary Consultation.Since
that time,the plan has been revised and the traffic flow seems to be better.Mrs.Pietro stated
that the only other item that came up at the consultation was that Mr.Prodonovich stated that the
81
developer would have to go before the Board of Appeals for the height of the signs.Mr.Sagi
stated that they did go to the Board of Appeals and were granted a variance for three signs.Mrs.
Pietro stated that she wanted to bring this to the Planning Conunission tonight because they had
expressed concern with the parking.A discussion followed with Mr.Sagi regarding the lane,the
fact that he has purchased the lane and is relocating it to access onto Col.H.K.Douglas Drive,
and the fact that the adjoining property and lane are scheduled to be heard at the January 11th
joint rezoning hearing.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concurred
with the comments in the surmnary.Mr.Ernst abstained.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
G8~M~c{3 d1c~~
Bernard L.Moser,Chairman