Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 Minutes126 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -January 6,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 6,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch; Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Ms.Lampton welcomed the newest member,James Kercheval who will serve as the Ex-Officio Commissioner. Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton stated that due to a request for a postponement by the Bowman Group the preliminary consultation for the Bowman Group-Showalter Business Park would be omitted from the agenda. MINUTES Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of November 18,2002,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of December 2,2002. Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS: Tammany Heights North-Section 3 -Preliminary Plat Ms.Pietro presented for approval a preliminary plat for Tammany Heights North-Section 3,lots 19 through 44.The single-family and duplex lots in Sections 1 and 2 were previously approved.The subject site is located in the southeast quadrant of 1-81 and 1-70,north of Virginia Avenue.The property is zoned Highway Interchange-II.The developer is proposing 23 single-family lots with the average lot size of .22 acres and 15 townhouse lots ranging in size from 3,800 to 12,000 square feet for a total of 38 residential lots.The total acreage of Section 3 is 13.8 acres and the remaining lands consist of 8.6 acres.Public water and sewer will serve the lots.New public streets and an extension of Donelson Drive will serve the new lots.The developer plans to meet the forest conservation requirements by planting .48 acres of forest on-site and meet the remainder of the obligation by requesting payment in lieu of in the amount of $2,265.12.All agencies have approved the plat. Discussion followed on Mr.Downey's plan for the remaining lands.Mr.Downey stated that the County is in the process of obtaining the front two lots for a park and his plans for the remaining lands depend on whether the County proceeds with the acquisition of additional acreage.If the County does acquire additional property,he anticipates that there would be approximately eight single-family or duplex lots with additional iots if the County does not proceed.Discussion followed on the access points for the development.The consultant,Mr.Cump stated that he is working with the State Highway Administration on the necessary improvements to the intersection at Donelson Drive.Members agreed that Staff would do the routine in-house approval of the Final Plat.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Tammany Heights North-Section 3.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the payment in lieu of request to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved.So ordered. -SITE PLANS: Shentel Shenandoah Site -Ringgold Mr.Lung presented for approval a site plan for Shentel Shenandoah Site -Ringgold.The site plan is for a 199'lattice type,cell phone tower to be located on a leased parcel on property owned by John Martin.The site is located on the west side of Maryland 64,south of Ringgold.The property is zoned Agricultural.The use per the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance requires a special exception and went before the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing on July 17,2002.There was opposition to the proposal,however,the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the special exception without any conditions.Some of the issues .addressed were that the applicant has provided evidence that there are no other sites available in the area for co-location and there is currently a gap in service in this area.A letter of intent is on file from Cellular One to locate on the proposed tower and they also certified that the tower would be available for co-location for additional carriers.The cell tower will be situated in the middle of an orchard area that is a part of an Ag Preservation District easement.A letter from the State of Maryland has granted an exemption for the tower area out of tile easement. The tower is to be of a lattice type construction,painted neutral gray or a non-reflective galvanized finish,and will not be lit.An 8'high chain-link fence with barbwire would enclose a 65'x 65'compound 127 around the equipment shelters at the base of the tower.Shentel will lease a 450'x 450'area around the tower to meet setback requirements.As a part of the permitting review process through the FCC,a Section 106 Review is required.This review looks at possible environmental impacts and impacts on historic structures.The Section 106 Review has been completed and indicated that there are no environmentally sensitive areas impacted.The Maryland Historic Trust also submitted a letter stating that they had no objection to the tower and also commented that the tower should be painted gray or with a non-reflective material.An affidavit is also on file from the tower owner providing for the removal of the tower should it no longer be needed,which will also be noted on the site plan.Mr. Anikis questioned whether the tower would be digital or frequency modulated and also questioned whether the area towers would be modified or removed when all systems become digital.The project consultant,Mr.Koerner stated that the tower is for a Sprint PCS affiliate.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved.So ordered. Mountainside Teleport Mr.Arch stated that a revision to the subdivision plan for Allegheny Energy generated a revision to the site plan for Mountainside Teleport.Mr.Lung further explained that the site plan for Mountainside Teleport was presented and approved at the December 2002 meeting.The plan called for a satellite communication facility consisting of a satellite dish farm on lot 1,and a building housing a data center and backup energy plant on lot 2.The project is located off of the Downsville Pike on property owned by Allegheny Energy,which was recently rezoned to the new zoning classification of Office,Research and Technology "aRT."The property line for lot 1 has been revised to reduce the lot size by 10 acres and reduce the total tract of lot 1 to 30.29 acres due to certain restrictions that were imposed when the property was transferred from the original owner.No changes are proposed for lot 2.The site plan has been revised to reflect the change in the lot size.To meet the forest conservation requirements on the previous plan,a planting area was proposed along the property line of lot 1.Under the revised plan, the subdivision is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it was previously zoned Planned Industrial.There is an existing line of mature trees along a fence row that will now serve as a buffer in place of the previously proposed planting area.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the revised subdivision plat and revised site plan for Mountainside Teleport.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. Unanimously approved.So ordered. -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Howard F.Payne Ms.Pietro stated she had no additional Information to add to the preliminary consultation summary.A consultation was held on November 13,2002 to review a concept plan for Howard F.Payne.The property is located east of Rohrersville Road.The developer is proposing to create 28 single-family lots with minimum lot sizes of three acres.Total site acreage is 137 acres.The property is zoned Conservation.Ms.Pietro stated that the concept plan was submitted prior to the moratorium and the developer is aware that the subdivision cannot be pursued until the moratorium is lifted.She also stated that Associate Planner,Jill Baker recently presented a concept plan for the adjacent Daugherty property.On that concept plan,the Engineering Department proposed that if the Daugherty property was developed,a connection would be needed between the developments with one access point onto Rohrersville Road Mr.Anikis questioned if the traffic would increase through the Bent Willow Estates. Ms.Pietro stated that the Engineering Department beiieved the access through the Daugherty property would provide more relief to Bent Willow Estates.Ms.Pietro stated that due to the Highway Plan there is a restricted access spacing of 500'and if two accesses were requested,a variance would also be reqUired.Ms.Pietro stated that the plan submitted by Howard F.Payne would be Impacted by the restricted soils testing,intermittent streams,and the floodplain area.Mr.Anikis stated that a hydrogeologic study should be required on the proposed subdivision no matter how many lots were submitted and on all proposed developments in rural areas.Ms.Pietro stated that she would advise the consultant that the Planning Commission members agreed that two entrances with a connection through the Daugherty property and a hydrogeologic study would be necessary for the proposed development. -FOREST CONSERVATION: Westone Estates/Elmer Stone,Lots 1-3 Off-Site Forest Retention Ms.Baker explained that the off-site forest retention request is a combination of three different projects owned by Elmer Stone.The first project is for Westone Estates wherein a preliminary consultation was previously held for 13 lots.The second project is for lots 1 and 2 on Nicodemus Mill Road owned by Mr.Stone.A third project was later added for lot 3 on Nicodemus Mill Road.The owner is requesting an off-site retention area for the three projects of 4.27 acres of forest on his property directly across from the proposed Westone Estates development on Maryland Route 67.Ms.Baker stated that there are priority areas on Westone Estates that would be preferred sites for forest conservation.Lots 1-3 on Nicodemus Mill Road have no priority areas.The consultant,Fred Frederick stated that there was a revision to Mr.Stone's request for off-site mitigation for Westone Estates after he had met with Elmer Weibley,District Manager of the Washington County Soil Conservation.Mr.Weibley indicated that he would like to plant the intermittent stream area on Westone Estates and Mr.Stone has agreed to have a 35'area of the intermittent stream planted,which will reduce the amount of off-site retention. A new forest conservation plan will be submitted reflecting the changes.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the off-site retention for lots 1,2 and 3 and to grant partial off-site forest conservation and on-site conservation for Westone Estates with Staff's approval of the new plan.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.Unanimously approved.So ordered. 128 Antietam Estates Keedysville Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a Forest Conservation Plan for the proposed subdivision of Antietam Estates located within the Town of Keedysville.Mr.Arch explained that the Planning Commission manages the administration of the forest conservation plan for most of the municipalities, but it is not under the County's jurisdiction for subdivision review.The proposed subdivision was annexed in 1998 and a Forest Stand Delineation was approved in eariy 2002.The developer for Antietam Estates has requested the removal of all on-site forest,approximately 3.6 acres,and permission to render payment in lieu of in the amount of $38,419.92.Ms.Baker stated that there is a priority forest area on the property,which includes three specimen trees and a fourth tree is located nearby on an adjacent property.Ms.Baker stated that she had visited the site and viewed many massive outcroppings and a non-active sinkhole.She further stated that no information was presented as to why on-site mitigation was not being used and also noted that no one was present to explain and defend the request.Mr.Anikis made a motion to deny the request for the payment in lieu of option. Mr.Clopper seconded the motion.Discussion followed on the narrative of Stand #2 of the Forest Stand Delineation and the State's stance on the payment in lieu of option.Ms.Baker stated that the State believes that any forest planted on-site is considered ecoiogicaliy better than having no forest and any retention on-site maintains the habitat established and provides ecological value.The motion carried with Mr.Anikis,Mr.Ernst,Mr.Clopper,and Mr.Kercheval voting "no"to the request for payment in lieu of.Mr.Ard'lnger voted "aye."So ordered. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Joint Rezoning Hearing Mr.Arch stated that a joint rezoning hearing would be held on Monday,January 13,2003. -Workshop Session Mr.Anikis suggested that a DNR representative be a guest speaker at the next workshop session to discuss the State's philosophy on forest retention.Mr.Arch stated that he would contact the DNR office. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Kercheval,seconded by Mr.Anikis,to adjourn at 7:57 p.m.Unanimously approved.So ordered. r Ovv-l 0~)., Paula A.Lampton U Chairperson 129 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -February 3,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 3,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Vice-Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of January 6,2003,as amended. Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton stated that the preliminary consultation for the Bowman Group- Showalter Business Park would be omitted from the agenda per a request from the Bowman Group.A request to terminate a ten-year immediate family member provision for Charles H.Long would be added to the agenda under Other Business. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS: Bulldog Federal Credit Union Ms.Pietro presented for approval a preliminary plat and site plan for Bulldog Federal Credit Union.The subject site is located in the northeast corner at the intersection of Battle Creek Boulevard and Sharpsburg Pike.The property is zoned HI-i.The developers are proposing to create a two-story bank and office building with a drive-thru totaling 7,600 square feet.Total parcel area is .93 acres and the remaining land totals 2.5 acres.Public water and sewer will serve the site.The business will only access Remington Drive,which is the private drive that currently serves the existing Teamsters building.The bank will employ twenty employees.One to two deliveries and approximately 375 to 400 customers are anticipated each day.Twenty-four parking spaces are required and provided.Pole and building mounted lights will be provided.Solid waste will be disposed of in a screened dumpster.Hours of operation are Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m.,Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.and Saturday from 8:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m.A pole sign and directional traffic signs will be prOVided.The Permits Department approved the plan with the condition that additional landscaping be added around the building.Total planting area to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements is .14 acres.The developer previously retained existing forest along the Antietam Creek for the shopping center and for the residential developments to the east.The developer prefers to pay the fee in lieu of in the amount of $609.34 since the proposed development is on a smatter parcel.The remaining retention area would be kept for mitigation purposes for future development.All agencies have approved the plan.Mr.Ardinger questioned the amount of remaining commercial property.Mr.Wickert stated that most of the remaining lands were being used for the stormwater water management area leaving only a small parcel.Mr.Anikis questioned the status of the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Battle Creek Boulevard and Maryland Route 65 given the increased traffic from the proposed development.Mr.Arch stated that the final draft of the Rench Road realignment plan should be completed within 30 to 60 days and the Engineering Department wouid handle the traffic signal aspects with the State Highway Administration,as part of that plan.Mr.Wickert stated that the developer is in favor of the traffic signal and is willing to share or pay the cost for the signal.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant the preliminary plat and site plan with the approval of the request for payment in lieu of to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Mr.Ernst seconded the motion.Discussion followed.Members agreed to amend the motion and add that the approval is also contingent upon the additional landscaping request by the Permits Department.Vote was unanimous.So ordered. PenMar Development Corporation,Lot 1 &Parcels A & B Mr.Arch presented for conditional approval the preliminary final and forest conservation plan for Pen Mar Development Corporation,Inc.He explained that this plan is unique in that a conditional approval is being sought since technically the County does not have jurisdiction over the property.The intent of the conditional approval is to subdivide the area intended for the initial property transfer.It is anticipated that before the next regular meeting the property will transfer from the Federal Government to the PenMar Development Corporation,which is a separate entity created by State Legislation to function as the redevelopment organization for the former Fort Ritchie base.Mr.Arch stated that the original plan was revised to show an affidavit signatiJre by the PenMar Development Corporation rather than the Federal Government so that it would reflect the correct owner when the transfer takes place.The PenMar Development Corporation will review the plan and sign the document before the transfer occurs.After the property is transferred,a subdivision plat can be recorded.The subdivision consists of five parts:lot 1 of 26.28 acres,parcel A of 2.06,parcel B of 1.29 acres,a road dedication parcel of 1.52 acres,an easement dedication of .98 for a total of 32.13 acres.There 'IS also a natural subdivision of an existing 130 tract across Pen Mar Road of 3.45 acres.The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Special Planning Area and the zoning designation is Special Economic Development District.This area is in the Waynesboro urbanized area the other urbanized area in the County besides the City of Hagerstown.A Forest Stand Deiineation was submitted and approved on May 21,2002.The total amount of forest to be retained is 5.91 acres,which meets the mitigation requirements and .49 acres will be cleared.There is a large forested area on the site that will be retained and should meet the requirements for future development.Forest conservation calculations were based on lot 1 since parcels A &B are not proposed for development at this time.Given the uniqueness associated with Fort Ritchie,there are several variables associated with the Special Economic Development District and the property is viewed as a mixed use since it encompasses two dwellings,a cafeteria,storage building,baseball field and the IMA building.The application of the Zoning Ordinance views lot 1 as a corner lot,therefore,a front setback, two side yards and no rear yard setback is required.There is a 75'buffer required along Camp Louis. One existing dwelling extends into the buffer area,which would become a non-conforming structure.Pen Mar Road is a state road and is classified as a minor collector.A county sewage plant close to the site will serve the facility.Water is provided by the Federai Government's on-base system.The ACOE did not indicate any problems with the water system.Stormwater management will be a part of the lake system.The Engineering Department,County Water &Sewer Department,Washington County Soil Conservation and State Highway Administration have approved the plan.Approval from the Health Department is outstanding.The Permits Department has conditionally approved the plan requiring a note change with regard to additional buffering and the wording of the rear property lines.The Planning Department and Emergency Management Services have denied the plan due to a conflict on an addressing matter regarding the road name of Buena Vista Drive.A review is needed of the entire Fort Ritchie facility regarding the names and address in accordance with the County's addressing policy and the 911 system.Mr.Arch stated that the proposed plan will not impact the historical area at Fort Ritchie, however,the PenMar Development Corporation has jurisdictional review on any activity in the historical area.Mr.Arch stated that he anticipates a meeting later this month with members of the PenMar Board and representatives from the Water &Sewer Department,Public Works,and the Planning Department addressing staff to resolve outstanding issues to expedite the revitalization efforts.Ms.Lampton stated she would be abstaining from the vote since she is a board member of the Pen Mar Development ·Corporation.Mr.Ernst made a motion to conditionally approve the subdivision plat,as presented contingent upon the transfer of the property and correction of the address issue.Seconded by Mr. Ardinger.Ms.Lampton abstained.So ordered.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the forest conservation plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Ms.Lampton abstained.So ordered. -Charles Chu,Lots 5-19 Ms.Baker presented for approval the preliminary plat for Charles Chu,lots 5-19.The subject site is located along the northwest corner of Whitetail Road and Sandstone Drive.In 2001,a preliminary consultation was held and four lots were subdivided from the original parcel.On the concept plan,lots 5 through 8 stripped off the remaining road frontage on Whitetail Road.After the perc test results,only two lots will front on Whitetail Road.The property is approximately 36 acres in size and is zoned Agricultural. The developer is requesting 15 additional lots InclUding the 9 acres of remaining lands.The consuitant, Mr.Holmes stated that the developer has no intention of developing the remaining lands.Mr.Anikis requested that a note be added that no additional subdivision would occur on the remaining lands.The new interior road will serve all iots with the exception of lots 5 and 6.Sandstone and Whitetail Drive are inadequate and will have to be widened to meet the requirements.The lots will be served by on site wells and septic systems.Two stormwater management ponds will control water quality and quantity for the site.Forest conservation requirements will be met onsite by planting 4.7 acres in the intermittent stream priority area.All agencies have approved the plan with the exception of the Washington County Soil Conservation District.Their approval is pending on the Engineering Department's signatures on the stormwater management.Discussion followed on hydrogeologic studies on proposed developments throughout the County.A workshop on hydrogeologic studies will be scheduled in the future.Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the preliminary plat and forest conservation plan,as presented, giving Staff the authority to approve the final plat,contingent upon the approval from the Washington County Soil Conservation District,and that a note would be added to the plat that no additional subdivision would occur on the remaining lands.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved . •SITE PLANS: Dunkin Donuts &Baskin Robbins Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robins.The subject site will be located on an out parcel of the Foxshire Plaza parking area on the west side of Dual Highway, adjacent to Mt.Aetna Road and Howell Road.Zoning is Business General.The developer plans to construct a 2,200 square foot commercial building.The total site area is 3.92 acres.Public water and sewer are onsite and proposed for this use.The main access for the site is the Dual Highway.A screened dumpster will be located to the rear of the building.A drive-thru is proposed with an overflow lane.Signage and lighting will be building mounted.The site is exempt from forest conservation requirements since it is an existing lot of record prior to 1993.The developer is proposing yews to landscape around the site and plans to replaced some of the yews that have died over the years to fill in the spaces.The Foxshire Plaza shopping center was approved in 1990 and the original plan proposed a bank for this site.At that time,the plan required screened dumpsters and iandscaping along Howell Road.A site visit revealed seven dumpsters that will need to be shown on the plan.Ms.Pietro distributed photos of the existing dumpster situation.The developer,Mr.Shaool stated that they have hired a landscaping company that will remove all the old fencing around the dumpsters.In the spring,the old dumpsters will be removed and replaced with three large ones and new vinyl fencing will be installed 131 to screen the dumpsters.Ms.Lampton stated that she received a letter regarding the fencing and trash issues from Mr.Leather,an adjacent property owner.Mr.Leather was present and presented a flyer depicting a solid vinyl privacy fence,which is the preferred style to prevent headlight glare and trash from blowing through the gaps onto neighboring properties.The developer,Mr.Shaool was also present and agreed to install the vinyl fence and also agreed to discuss the solid style fencing with Mr.Leather.Mr. Shaool also stated that the issue of the non-tagged vehicles repossessed by American General and parked on the site was in the process of being resolved.Ms.Pietro stated that the Permits Department submitted some minor revisions to the plan and requested a revised square footage,which may require additional parking spaces than the requirement on the original plan.If the parking cannot be accommodated on the site,the developer would have to present the matter before the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon the parking issue being resolved and addressing the neighbor's concerns as discussed.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered . •FOREST CONSERVATION: Antietam Estates -Keedysville Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a forest conservation plan for the proposed subdivision of Antietam Estates located within the Town of Keedysville.The request for payment in lieu of was presented at the January meeting and denied.The developer submitted a new plan for offsite forest retention to meet the Ordinance requirements.The Town of Keedysville is requiring a dedication of a one- acre parcel from the proposed subdivision for a future water tower.The parcel exists on the highest portion of the property and takes a large portion of the existing forested area,therefore,the developer is requesting to clear most of the forest onsite and provide an offsite forest retention area on lands not owned by the developer.The request wouid be contingent upon the completion of a forest stand delineation for the retention areas to make sure they qualify as a forest.Discussion followed on the proposed site for the water tower.The consultant,Mr.Wickett confirmed that the proposed site for the water tower is the area the Town of Keedysville has requested.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve ·the offsite forest retention area contingent upon the tract qualifying as forest and the proffer by the developer for retention of the forest at a 2:1 ratio and the Planning Commission honoring the proposed proffer as an inducement for the decision to grant offsite mitigation.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The motion carried with Mr.Ardinger,Mr.Ernst,Ms.Lampton,Mr.Clopper,and Mr.Kercheval voting "aye."Mr.Anikis voted "no."So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS College Heights PUD -Revision Mr.Lung presented the request to revise the College Heights PUD plan.This subject site is located along Robinwood Drive and across from Hagerstown Community College.The site was a part of the original Youngstoun Apartments Planned Residential Community that predates the current PUD Ordinance.The property was rezoned in 1985,and there have been several changes since that time to the originally approved plan.A revision was approved in 1989 to include what is now known as College Heights Apartments.In June of 1989,a subdivision plat was approved,which created an 8.8 acre lot for the apartments.In 1990,a site plan was approved for College Heights Apartments consisting of seven buildings housing 84 units.The current owner requests a revision to the PUD Development Plan to allow the construction of a "L'shaped recreational building of 3,204 square feet,a 30'x 50'swimming pool surrounded by a 10'concrete deck,and a 17 space parking lot within the designated open space area. The plan aiso shows some plantings around the proposed buildings.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission,without an additional public hearing,may approve minor changes in concept design and Staff believes the proposed change should be considered minor.If the proposed change were approved, the developer would submit a site plan for review and approval.The provision of active recreational facilities in the designated open space area is considered consistent with the policies of the PUD article in the Zoning Ordinance.Staff has several concerns with the plan and believes the adjacent Kings Crest residential development should also be considered.Mr.Valentine,the adjoining property owner,was notified of the proposed revision.The consultant has indicated that the finished floor elevations of the proposed amenities will be at 585'.The first floor elevation of the two adjacent Kings Crest apartment buildings is approXimately 570'and the second floor elevation is 580'.Staff recommends a fence and vegetative screening,or a combination of both be placed at the top of the slope to give adequate visual screening and provide some noise absorption for the adjacent residential development.The hours of operation should be limited and the lighting should be designed not to spillover or glare onto the adjoining properties. The facility should also be designated and limited for the exclusive use of the residents of College Heights Apartments and their guests.Adequate pedestrian access should also be provided.Mr.Lung stated that the Zoning Administrator,Mr.Prodonovich,requested that the Planning Commission be made aware that the open space area is located on fill.The developer will have to ensure that the fill is adequately compacted to support the building,and provide sufficient engineering information prior to any issuance of permits.The developer's consultant,Mr.Cump stated that core borings would be done on the fill tq determine if it is stable.Discussion followed on the aspects of whether the request warranted a public hearing and it was the general consensus that the proposed change should require a public hearing.Mr.Cump stated that a swimming pool and recreational bUilding was added in another section of the Youngstoun apartment complex after the PUD was approved without the amenities.Mr.Schlossberg,council for the adjoining property owner,Mr.Valentine,spoke on his client's behalf and explained that his client was concerned about the impact on the open space area and he was also concerned that the amenities would be built on fill.He also questioned the buffer yard requirements 132 and suggested that perhaps an area in the adjacent property of Woodbridge could be used for the proposed amenities.Mr.Lung stated that the buffer yard issue was reviewed by Staff and it was determined that the 50 foot buffer,which according to the Ordinance relates to non-residential development,would not apply because the proposed amenities were accessories to the residential development.Mr.Ernst made a motion to deny the request to revise the PUD based on the fact that the proposed amenities are a great opportunity for the community,but were not appropriate for the area due to its location and the concerns regarding the ability of the soil to support the proposed structures,from an engineering standpoint.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Vote was unanimous. Westland Properties/Pemberton Subdivision -Septic Reserve Area Ms.Pietro stated that the property owner,Mr.Dehaeck would like to subdivide one additional lot that required 10,000 square feet for the septic reserve area.In conducting the perc test,the Health Department recommended that there be a 5,000 square foot septic area on the proposed lot and 5,000 square foot septic area offsite.For the record,the consultant,Mr.Frederick entered a letter from Mrs. Townes of the Health Department,which explained that extensive testing was done to create a one lot subdivision for Mr.Dehaeck.Several locations are available for the designation of septic reserve areas and the most feasible areas are located close to the existing barn and on the proposed lot.Mr.Dehaeck would like to maintain at least 25'of fee simple frontage for the balance of the farm along Campbell Circle.A variance is needed so that a portion of the reserved septic area would be on Mr.Dehaeck's remaining lands.The easement would be added to the subdivision plat and recorded on the deed.The easement would not terminate Mr.Dehaeck's access and the property could not be further subdivided. Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant approval of the 5,000 square foot offsite septic reserve area and a 30'access on the described property.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved.So ordered . •Ten Year Immediate Family Member Provision·Charles H.Long Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Long had contacted him by telephone and submitted a formal request to dissolve the ten-year immediate family member statement due to his health problems and current financial situation.The property is located at 11646 Green Spring Furnace Road in Clear Spring.The property .was subdivided from a five-acre parcel created under the name of Joseph C.and Bonnie A.Kelley and Mr.Long is an immediate family member.The ten-year stipulation will end in September 2003.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve Mr.Long's request.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved.So ordered. UPCOMING MEETINGS •Forest Conservation Workshop A Forest Conservation Workshop with Becky Wilson will be held on Monday,February 10,2003 at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Ernst,seconded by Mr.Anikis,to adjourn at 9:07 p.m.Unanimously approved. 7M-A~ Paula A.Lampton IJ Chairperson 133 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 10,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,February 10,2003 at 4:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex conference room. Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,and George Anikis.Staff:Chief Senior Planner,Steve T.Goodrich;Park &Environmental Planner,William Stachoviak and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Robert Ernst II,Jim Kercheval and Robert Arch were absent. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. INTRODUCTION Mr.Goodrich introduced Becky Wilson,Western Region Coordinator for the Urban and Community Forestry Program with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service. Mr.Goodrich explained that the Planning Commission had requested a workshop meeting to discuss the priority sequence and the Forest Conservation Ordinance in general.Currently,Washington County is in the process of several text amendments to the Forest Conservation Ordinance to comply with statutory and regulatory changes in the law,and to address issues that arose during the most recent biannual review of the program. PRESENTATION BY BECKY WILSON Ms.Wilson stated that she coordinates the Forestry Program for the western part of the State from .Frederick County to Garrett County.She further explained that she has been working with Steve Goodrich on forest conservation implementation in Washington County since the inception of the program in 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION ROLES Ms.Wilson distributed a handout outlining the role and actions of the Planning Commission members in the Forest Conservation Ordinance (see attached)."Department"is defined as the Planning Commission, or as its designee.The only place in the Ordinance that the Planning Commission is specifically titled is under Article 15,regarding variance requests.The Planning Staff carries out most of the roles in the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Declaration of Intent (3.3 H-J) Respond if someone either fails to file a declaration or violates a declaration of intent.Ms.Wilson stated that Declaration of Intents are being implemented appropriateiy in Washington County. Forest Stand Delineations (Article 5) An accurate Forest Stand Delineation is necessary to understand the ecological data that must be incorporated when decisions are made on forest conservation plans.Although Staff performs the review,the Forest Stand Delineation information is important to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Forest Conservation Plans (Article 6.1) Review and approve requests by applicants to alter the sequence of retention or onsite planting. Under Section 5-6107,it states that the priority of the Forest Conservation law is to retain forest. Priority Sequence (Article 8) Evaluate the "reasonable efforts"by the applicant,if it is suggested that the sequence be altered.Ms. Wilson explained that her role is overseeing the Planning Commission's implementation of the local Ordinance and to ensure proper attention is being placed on the priority sequence.She further stated that she had reviewed the Annual Reports of 1994 through 1998,and that 80%of onsite forest was retained in Washington County.Ms.Wilson further stated that Washington County is implementing a good forest program,however,she has received some information from the public sector and some consulting firms that perhaps the fee in lieu of option was being too readily accepted in Washington County.If it can reasonably be justified that planting cannot occur on the site,then the offsite option should be considered.However the statue does not define"cannot be reasonably accomplished"or "unwarranted hardship."She also stated that there is the argument that if you accept the fee in lieu of payment it will be utilized in the County program,which is implemented by the Washington County Soil Conservation District,to protect sensitive areas in the County.The Department of Natural Resources recognizes the value of the fee in lieu of program.Mr.Goodrich stated that the County does have the "express procedure"which allows the payment in lieu of automatically,for developments under a certain size and generates most of the funding for the fee in lieu of program. Ms.Wilson stressed that each site should be considered on an individual basis and proper documentation is necessary to justify and support the decision made by the Planning Commission as to why different mitigation techniques were approved. 134 Payment into the Fund (Article 11) Ms.Wilson stated that the payment into the fund follows the discussion on the priority sequence. Payments are accepted and utilized when afforestationlreforestation cannot be reasonably justified. Tree Species (Article 12.1) DNR encourages the Staff to review the planting plan to ensure that species native to the County are being proposed.There have been problems with some invasive and exotic tree species in the State. Surety (Article 13) Staff approves the form,content and amount prior to recordation and evaluates requests for partial or complete release based on the success of afforestation to date.William Stachovlak,Park & Environmental Planner,conducts the inspections for Washington County. Tree Protection (Article 14.2) DNR wants to ensure tree protection is in place and noted on the plans prior to any clearing or construction. Variances (Article 15) Ms.Wiison stated that the Planning Commission is listed specifically by name under the variance provision.When the Planning Commission receives a request for a variance,the applicant has to show that there is an "unwarranted hardship"and that they are not adversely affecting water quality. Washington County has only approved one variance since the inception of the program. Annual Report (Article 17) The State reviews the local program biannually as required under the statue.Ms.Wilson stated that each fiscal year,Mr.Goodrich presents the statistics on how many acres were reviewed,preserved, planted,or the amount collected by fee in lieu of and where the fees collected were spent.The statistics are due to the DNR by March 31"each year.The ten (10)year annual report for the program will be completed in the summer of 2003.A copy of the annual report will be provided to the Planning Commission members.Also,at the request of the Planning Commission members,Ms. Wilson will try to obtain some data for the members to compare other Forest Conservation Ordinances or other jurisdictions In the State of Maryland with the forest program being implemented in Washington County. FOREST CONSERVATION MAINTENANCE Mr.Goodrich explained,as a part of the Staff's review of the proposed plan,the location of the forest and who wilt be responsible for its maintenance is determined.In Washington County there are two maintenance options:(1)the forest easement is split among the private property owners or the developer who owns the parcel,which is the preferred option because Individual owners wilt protect their own land; or (2)the forest easement is maintained by a Homeowner's Association.An inspection is conducted at the inception to ensure the protective measures are in place and periodic inspections of the forest areas are conducted thereafter. STREAM BUFFERING Ms.Wilson stressed the need for stream buffers to improve the water quality.,She explained that,as a part of the Chesapeake Bay program,the streams that contribute to the Bay are monitored for nitrogen and phosphorus inputs.The Upper Potomac Watershed in the Washington County area shows poor water quality on some streams,however,the streams are improving,which could be the result of the efforts to buffer the streams in the County.The Chesapeake Bay program has a statistical model wherein information is used from scientific research studies and monitoring sites in the urban and rural areas on the nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from different iand uses.As a part of the model,the program has research data on the different contributing factors. DISCUSSION Members discussed in general the mitigation process,Smart Growth program,the sequence of retention to provide green space links, and buffering between different land uses. Mr.Ardinger questioned if it would be better to save existing mature forest offslte versus planting new forest onsite.Ms.Wilson stated each request should be considered on an individual basis to determine the best option,and if the priority sequence Is altered,then appropriate documentation Is needed to support the decision.She added that the DNR is not only trying to protect the forest,but also the amount of land to support forest In the State.It is important to protect existing forest,but If forest is removed, mitigation is needed to generate new forest. Mr.Clopper questioned the use oHorest mitigation offsite when the forest would never be in jeopardy of being disturbed.Ms.Wilson stated there is language in the statue that states the forest areas that are already protected or inaccessible should not be accepted for offsite mitigation. Mr.Anikis stated that he looks to the Staff for guidance and their recommendation when the forest conservation plan is presented for a proposed subdivision.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Staff's first priority Is to retain forest onsite per the priority sequence and that the Staff does convey that to the , 135 developer and that any other option would require Planning Commission approval.Staff usually does not defend the developer's mitigation choice and tries not to filter the developer's reasoning for his request. The Staff wants the developer to tell the Planning Commission members directly the reason for the request.Mr.Clopper stated that it is should be the developer's responsibility to submit their mitigation request in writing.Ms.Wilson suggested that the Planning Commission should ask questions of the Staff and the developer on future forest conservation plans. Ms.Lampton questioned the iandscaping provision for mitigation.Ms.Wilson stated that the landscaping option is commonly used on compact sites.However,this option must meet a minimum size and width and have a certain number of species.This option is not frequently used across the State since the area is generally small and difficult to enforce long term.Some jurisdictions allow a portion (10%)of their mitigation to be in landscaping. POWER POINT PRESENTATION Ms.Wilson presented a brief power point presentation summarizing the priority sequence for evaluating the site plan design and the main roles of the Planning Commission. •The Priority Sequence: Retain Forest Supplemental Planting Plant Onsite Plant Offsite Landscaping Fee in Lieu of •Overview of the Main Roles of the Planning Commission: Implement forest conservation locally to meet the spirit and intent of the State statue Provide approval for forest conservation plans Review "reasonable efforts"clause,which allows the Planning Commission to alter the priority sequence for afforestation. Review unwarranted hardship provisions and the water quality impact provisions for variances ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 5:27 p.m. p:!~lfr.tt-I------- Chairperson 136 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -March 3,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 3,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Ciopper, Don Ardinger,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Farmland Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth;Park &Environmental Planner,William Stachoviak and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits &Inspections,was also present. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton stated that the Planning Commission members received a thank you note from the Planning Staff for the recent Christmas luncheon. NEW BUSINESS •AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICATIONS: Mr.Seifarth explained that,as a part of the land preservation program,the County participates in the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program.The first step of the program is a temporary Ag District,which is for the term of five or ten years.The second step is a permanent easement.Under each scenario,the properties cannot be developed for the designated time period and would receive property tax credits for ten-year commitments.It is the duty of the Planning Commission to determine if 'the application is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan,and if it meets the parameters of the program.The property must be at least 50 acres or contiguous to other properties in preservation.The property must also be located outside of the Urban Growth Area and water and sewer service areas,and must also have 50%of qualifying soils.Mr.Seifarth presented four applications for the ten-year district establishment.The first two applications were for properties owned by Robert,Andrew,Boyd,Joseph Michael and Susan Michael-Hoelschen,for AD-01-02G,consisting of 210.92 acres and for AD·01-02H, consisting of 211.88 acres.An Ag District was also presented for Richard and Kathleen Newcomer,AD· 02-008,consisting of 125 acres.The fourth Ag District application was for Robert and Ruth Ziem,AD·02- 009,consisting of 53.34 acres.A cluster of permanent and temporary land preservations surrounds the Ziem's property.The Agriculturai Advisory Board approved the four applications.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend approvai of the four applications to the Board of County Commissions to be included in the Ag Preservation Program based on the fact that the applications are consistent with the goals and objections of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Mr.Kercheval abstained.So ordered . •VARIANCE: Steve Davis Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a variance request for Steve Davis.The subject property consisting of 16.24 acres is zoned Agricultural and has an Agricultural use assessment.The property is located along the north side of Fairview Road,approximately two miles west of Cearfoss. There is an existing dwelling on the property,along with the ruins of a small barn.The remainder of the property appears to be cropland.There is an existing private lane,which serves an existing dwelling and two lots on an adjacent property.In 1980,a variance was granted by the Planning Commission to allow the creation of these two lots without public road frontage and permitted the use of the lane as the access. The applicant,Mr.Davis,wishes to purchase the property and subdivide the land into either three or four lots for immediate family members.The sale of the property is contingent upon the decision of the variance request.Mr.Davis wishes to utilize the provision in the Subdivision Ordinance,which allows the Planning Commission to approve lots without public road frontage for conveyance to immediate family members.The lots would front on an existing private road and the land meets the criteria for agricultural purposes.Mr.Davis also requests a variance from the subdivision regulations,which prohibits the stacking of more than one lot behind another.Mr.Lung explained that the intent of the immediate family member provision.The applicant's hardship for the stacking of the lots is based on the irregular shape of the property and its topographic conditions.Mr.Lung stated that the panhandle length should not be an issue and would be measured from where it meets the existing farm lane.Members discussed the variance request with the applicant who agreed to the reconfiguration of the lots to achieve only three lots,including the lot with the existing dwelling,and to the requirement that no additional subdivision would occur.Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the request with the modification that lot 1,containing the existing dwelling,will be no larger then 1.5 acres,lot 2 no larger then 2.5 acres,and lot 3 would be the total of the remaining acreage with the provision that no further subdivision of any of the lots would occur and approval of the immediate family provision statement for lots 2 and 3.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. Unanimously approved.So ordered. 137 -SITE PLANS: Fountain Head Country Club Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for the expansion of the Fountain Head Country Club.The subject site is located on the southeast side of Club Road.The property consists of 121 acres and is zoned Residential Urban.The members are proposing to remove a portion of the existing building and reconstruct a new structure of approximateiy 10,000 square feet for a new restaurant and pro-shop. Additionai parking and new iandscaping wili also be added.The number of employees will remain at 50 and the hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,Monday through Sunday.Parking spaces provided is 216 spaces,which exceeds the 210 spaces required.Projected daily use is approximately 100 persons.Lighting will be building and pole-mounted.The existing sign will remain.Freight and delivery wili average one trip per day.Public water and sewer will continue to serve the site.Solid waste will continue to be disposed of in the existing dumpsters located in the maintenance building. Landscaping will be added around the new structure and throughout the parking lot consisting of a mixture of maple,locust,crabapple,Yoshino cherry,yews,mugo pine,dogwood and holly.The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it was a lot of record prior to the adoption of the Ordinance.The Water &Sewer Department's approval is pending upon receipt of the fee and all other agencies have approved the plan.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. -Seneca Ridge Apartments Mr.Goodrich presented for review and approval a site plan for Seneca Ridge Apartments.The subject site is located on the north side of Maugans Avenue and the west side of the 1-81 interchange.A Preliminary Plat and site plan were approved last fall for 73 single-family homes and 93 townhouse units at this site.The proposed apartments are located on the remaining lands consisting of 12 acres which is zoned HI-2.The apartment complex will consist of 120 units located in five separate buildings,three stories high,with 24 units in each building.The subdivision wili total 286 units on approximately 50 acres, which is a density of 5 to 6 units per acre for the entire property.The proposed density is approximately 10 apartment units per acre,which is well below the maximum amount permitted of 16 units per acre . .The proposed apartments will require 2 parking spaces per unit for a total of 240 spaces and 246 spaces are provided.In the apartment complex,sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the parking lot to the entrance where a bus waiting area is proposed.A sidewalk is also proposed along Garnette Avenue to Sunrise Drive to provide access for children walking to school.Two recreation areas are proposed.One area will be designated as a tot lot and the other for pre-teens,each with a corresponding adult area.The minimum area required for the recreational areas is 1,500 square feet,approximately 2,700 square feet is provided.The forest conservation plan for the entire development was approved with a combination of retention of existing forest,planting new forest on the site,and payment in lieu of for the remainder of the forest obligation.A total of 2.8 acres of new plantings and forest retention are proposed for the apartment area.Landscaping is planned for the parking islands.Three stormwater management ponds are proposed in the development.One is located on the apartment parcel.The access road to the apartments and parking area will be privately owned and maintained and wili connect to the public road for the development.Public water and sewer wili serve the site.Five new fire hydrants are proposed.All agencies have reviewed the plan.The Water Department approved the plan with some minor revisions. Mr.Goodrich stated he received a letter from the Engineering Department this afternoon regarding some additional traffic concerns and the possibility of contributions by the developer for improvements along Maugans Avenue.The Engineering Department approval is pending resolution of that issue.Discussion followed on the impact of the development on school enrollment and whether a note should be added to the plat for the entire development regarding the noise associated with the airport and interstate traffic. Mr.Ernst stated that the apartment units would be rented and that a note regarding the noise would be more appropriate on the homes that would be purchased in the remainder of the proposed development. Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan,as presented contingent upon the approval from the Engineering Department and the Water Department.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. So ordered. 5t.Lawrence Cement -Tire Handling Facility Mr.Lung presented for approval a site plan for St.Lawrence Cement.The subject site is located east of Eastern Boulevard and Antietam Drive,off of Security Road.The property is zoned Industrial Mineral and encompasses approximately 150 acres.The proposed site plan is for the construction of a facility to feed scrap tires into the existing cement kiln as an alternative fuel source.The plan also includes several tire storage areas.Mr.Lung stated that in the mid-1980's,St.Lawrence Cement obtained permission from the State to use chipped tires as a fuel source.A public hearing was held and the necessary permits were obtained from the State to commence the operation.Since then,the use of chipped tires as a fuel source had ceased.The new proposal is for the use of whole tires for the process.The necessary permits have been renewed with the State.The proposed facility is greater than 1,000 feet from any adjacent property lines.No additional employees are proposed.The kiln operates 24 hours a day,seven days a week and the proposed facility wili operate under the same schedule.St.Lawrence's State permit limits the loads of tires to 48 trailers,which totals 516 tons of tires being stored on the site at any given time.The tires wili be stored in closed trailers at several locations on the site.The facility will use 380 tires,or 3.8 tons of tires per hour.Between 4 to 8 tractor-trailer loads will access the site per day, Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.All agency approvals have been received except from the Permits Department who issued two minor comments on the plan.The applicant indicated that the comments have been resolved.Mr.Anikis questioned if there were any odors associated with the kiln and if the MDE monitors the operation. Victoria Mock,the environmental representative for St.Lawrence Cement,stated that due to the high temperature a complete combustion of the tires occurs,therefore, there are no odors or smoke associated with the operation.She also stated that this type of operation is 138 recognized as a strategy to reduce emissions.There will be MDE monitors on the stacks to test for various conditions.Ms.Mock explained that the previous tire burning operation ceased in 1998,due to the economics factors.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the Permits Department.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved.So ordered. -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Maple Valley Estates.Sections C.0 &E Ms.Pietro stated that a preliminary consultation was held on January 24,2003 for a redesign of Maple Valley Estates,Section C,D &F.This subject site is located along the north side of Longmeadow Road and east of Paradise Church Road.Sections C,D,and E consist of 105 single-family lots on approximately 48 acres.The typical lot size proposed is 10,000 square feet.Zoning is Residential Suburban.A previous consultation was held for this property in May 2001.The agency comments were basically the same on the new proposed concept plan.The Engineering Department's comments included that the new stormwater management regulations must be met,traffic calming measures should be incorporated into the development,and an updated traffic study would be required.The right of way has been acquired for the extension of Corrello Drive to connect with the existing Woodhaven Drive. Public water and sewer will serve the proposed site.The developer,Steve Oder,stated that Section C would be submitted first with the proposed build out anticipated within four years.The school adequacy testing would be reviewed at the Final Plat stage for each section.Mr.Oder confirmed that the preliminary design for the stormwater management areas has been completed and there will be adequate room onsite to meet the forest conservation requirements.Ms.Pietro stated that the proposed development would follow the same design as the previous sections of Maple Valley Estates and the same architectural conveyance would be recorded on the new sections. H.F.Payne Construction,Inc.-Monroe Road Mr.Lung presented for review and comments the concept plan for H.F.Payne Construction,Inc.The subject site is located on the southwest side of Monroe Road,near Boonsboro,adjacent to the Town .boundary.The developer is proposing 42 single-family lots on a total tract of 147 acres.The property is zoned Agricultural.During the consultation,one of the issues discussed was the considerable amount of FEMA floodplain shown on the plan,which appears to inundate several of the lots.The consultant stated that a detailed floodplain study would be done,which he believes,will show the floodplain being much smaller than what is indicated and an application would be made for a FEMA map amendment.The APFO will require improvements by the developer to Monroe Road,particularly the stretch of road that is located in the right of way of the Boonsboro major collector road,formally known as the Boonsboro bypass.The remaining section of Monroe Road would also require APFO improvements.There were also concerns regarding the geology of this area.The Health Department will require a hydrogeologic study and test weils.The Town of Boonsboro submitted their comments after the consultation,which mirrored the Health Department's comments.The Town also stated that there should be extensive geologic studies done on the property to ensure that there are no active sinkholes,given the problems encountered with sinkholes in the neighboring Crestview subdivision.The Town of Boonsboro is also concerned with the use of individual wells and their effect on the Town's water supply and recommended that the proposed subdivision be connected to the Town's water supply.Mr.Lung stated that the Town of Boonsboro has a Growth Area that ends at Monroe Road.If this development moves forward under the current zoning,the Town of Boonsboro stated that Annexation of the property should be pursued to allow the development to be served by public water and sewer.This action would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include this site within the Growth Area.The proposed development is not consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan,and is designated in the Plan as an Environmental Conservation Policy Area,which proposes a residential density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres yielding only seven lots for the 197 acres property.If the development is redesigned to conform to the new recommended zoning,the Town of Boonsboro recommended that the developer design large lots to maintain the rural character at the edge of the Growth Area.Mr.Lung explained that the concept plan cannot be pursued any further due to the moratorium currently in place.Mr.Anikis questioned the power lines situated above lots 13 and 14 and questioned the commitment to preserve the historic structures onsite.Mr.Lung stated that the plan was routed to Allegheny Energy,but they did not submit any comments on the plan.Allegheny Power controls the right of way under the lines and the width of the right of way is based on the size of the line.Mr.Lung stated that the County does not have any additional setbacks beyond the right of way.The consultant,Mr.Holmes,stated that the developer plans to preserve the historic structures.Members agreed with Mr.Arch's suggestion that if a developer proposes a fairly high density development in this area,Annexation with the Town of Boonsboro should be strongly encouraged to provide public water and sewer services. Wood brook Estates Mr.Lung presented for review and comments the concept plan for Woodbrook Estates.He stated that that the developer may no longer be pursuing the proposed development,but the developer has not confirmed his intention.The subject site is located on the western edge of Hagerstown,near the intersection of Cearloss Pike and Garden View Road.The developer is proposing 16 single-family lots on a total tract of 82.49 acres.The property is zoned Agricultural.The proposed concept plan is consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan with the density of one dwelling unit per five acres in the Ag Policy Area,incorporating the cluster concept,and a large remaining parcel containing the existing farm buildings.However,the proposed plan is for more than 5 lots and is affected by the current moratorium. Since the concept plan may be considered consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan,the developer may ask for a waiver from the moratorium.The Heaith Department commented that there is a problem in 139 this area with well contamination from an industrial degreaser,therefore,they would require the proposed development to be served by public water,As the consultation progressed,Ed Fogtman of the Health Department stated that private wells might be an option,if all the wells were drilled and good samples were obtained prior to subdivision approvais,There were some questions as to what the Health Department would ultimately require,Discussion followed on the ability to obtain satisfactory well water that may uitimately be affected by the plumes of industrial degreaser in the future and whether a note could be added to the plan,Mr.Lung stated that acquiring public water would be difficult since the eXisting lines are some distance away and this area is not in an existing water service area or in the Growth Area,The deveioper was not present Bowman Sales &Equipment,Inc, Mr.Goodrich presented for review and comments the concept plan for Bowman Sales &Equipment,Inc, A preliminary consultation was held on February 13,2003,to discuss the expansion of the current use on the property,The property is located on the south side of 1-81,west of Route 63,Route 68 and the Governor Lane Boulevard intersection,The developer is proposing to expand the rental and storage area for trailers and sea containers,The total tract is 63,69 acres and the property is zoned HI-1,Mr. Goodrich provided a brief history of the activities that occurred on the site,In 1996,a site plan was approved by the Planning Commission for Bowman Sales &Equipment to develop a portion of the property with trailer storage,trailer rentals,and a maintenance shop,Over the course of developing the site,the use expanded and changed,The owner was cited for noncompliance on a variety of issues,To correct some of the violations,the developer went before the Board of Zoning Appeals and was granted special exceptions,The final step in resolving the outstanding issues was the submittal of a revised site plan to include those items permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals,which was received in July 2002, for the Planning Commission's approval.At that meeting,the main issue discussed was the proposed plantings of forsythias on top of the berm to screen the storage containers from view as required by the Board of Zoning Appeals,During the discussion,former Ex-Offico Commissioner Iseminger asked Mr, Bowman if he would agree to a follow-up inspection six months after the forsythias were planted, however,that was not an agreeable situation and the planting issue was not resolved,The deveioper has .submitted a new concept plan for more development on the site the subject of the Preliminary Consultation,The outstanding screening issue on the original site pian is being addressed,as a part of the new concept plan.The new proposal would spread out the storage over the entire property so the containers wouid not be doubie-stacked and would also provide additional storage,Trailers stored at other facilities will be relocated to this site,The site will be graded to lower the elevation and a new, higher berm would be constructed around the perimeter of the property to provide better screening, Currently,268 units are shown on the plan in the current storage area,the new concept plan proposes 731 units for a total of 999 units on the property,In addition to spreading out the site and allowing more units,the developer plans to keep the maintenance building and the barn,and expand the stormwater management areas,The developer will be removing the existing historic dwelling,"The Garden of Eden," which currently serves as the office,to allow for the grading to lower the elevation,The entrance will also be reconstructed and will serve this development,as well as a northern parcel.State Highway Administration approved the entrance for the adjacent parcel and commented that they plan to reevaluate the entrance permit since it will be used for the expansion of this site also,The Permits Department commented that the special exceptions granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the original plan would not be extended to the nature of the proposed development Any new development must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the various setbacks and permitted uses,Planning Staff offered some general comments on the concept plan,The forest conservation requirements were met on the previous site plan because the calculations were based on the entire property,There is a note on the plan that the developer did not want marked spaces for parking the trailers,Staff acknowledged the fact that it would be difficult to mark the spaces on gravel,however,they should be parked in an orderly fashion as shown on the plan for safety and security reasons,Mr.Goodrich stated that the developer has been informed that it is time to make a commitment on how he plans to proceed by either bringing the current site plan into compliance or pursuing the new concept plan,A letter has been sent to the developer indicating that the Planning Department would not entertain a new site plan until the previous plan Is resolved,which must be done within the next thirty days,The developer is in jeopardy of a potential citation from the Zoning Administrator,if the current site plan in review is not pursued,Mr.Arch has contacted the developer to schedule a meeting to resolve the outstanding issues, Mr.Goodrich noted there was additional information in the file submitted by residents of the area highlighting their concerns for the effects of the current and additional development This material is available from the file to any interested party as pubilc information,It was not included in the written summary of the preliminary consultation,which is an arrangement between the Planning Commission and review agencies to gather technical information about the development proposal.Planning Commission Members each reviewed the information from concerned residents, Mr.Anikis outlined several concerns raised by adjacent property owners and concerned citizens,as outlined in their correspondence,One of the concerns raised was the placement of a contractor's storage yard in a HI-1 zoning district Mr,Goodrich responded that a contractor storage yard is not proposed in the new development of the site and further stated that trailer storage is allowed in a HI-1 district and falls under the definition of a "truck terminal"as approved by a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners on October 23,2001,He read the definition from the new text The HI-1 zone states that the principal permitted uses in a Business General zone are permitted here and "truck terminals"are a principal permitted use in a Business General zone,Other concerns outlined in the correspondence received included:unsightliness of the berm;impact on the gateway of the C &0 Canal; potential danger from terrorism (less than 2%of the sea containers coming into the country are 140 inspected);safety issues and increased traffic on Spieiman and Lappans Roads;noises associated with the use of the facility after hours;well contamination from run-off on the property;and questions as to why the property was included in the Foreign Trade Zone.One of the main concerns was the proposed demolition of the "Garden of Eden"farmhouse.which is one of the older historic properties In the County. The Historic District Commission and the Superintendent of the C &0 Canal have stated their opposition to the proposal.Mr.Goodrich stated that the applicant has applied for a demolition permit for the farmhouse.which wiil be reviewed by the Historic District Commission later this week.Mr.Anikis stated that in December 2001.the Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that this property should be completely screened and fifteen months later the applicant is stiil not in compliance.Mr.Anikis raised the question that while the new proposal was being drafted why didn't the applicant show a good faith effort and single-stack the trailers and move trailers to the Hopewell Road storage area.He further stated that he believed that the County has been more than fair and patient with the applicant.Mr.Anikis stated that in 1996.Mr.Arch commented during the previous consultation for this site."that the County is interested in preserving the aesthetics of this area because it leads to other rural areas of Washington County."Mr. Anikis further stated that an excellent letter was received from Mr.Werder.who was present at the meeting and confirmed that his concerns had been addressed.Mr.Anikis asked that if the former area proposed for the truck stop was being planned for a storage area as well.Mr.Goodrich confirmed that Information was divulged during the preliminary consultation.A site plan has not been submitted for that property. Mr.Prodonovich.Director of Permits and Inspections.responded to Mr.Anikis'statements and explained that it is difficult to enforce a plan that has not been approved by the Planning Commission.He further stated that once the site plan is approved.only two of the eleven violations remain outstanding.The two violations are screening around the facility and construction of an enlarged stormwater management pond.Mr.Prodonovich stated that if the previous site plan is pursued.now is the appropriate time to address the screening issue since planting season is near.He also stated that the slgnage should not be an issue because a sign has been erected on the site.No action was taken. (BREAK) -FOREST CONSERVATION: Ag Education Center Forest Conservation Plan Mr.Stachoviak presented for review and approval a forest conservation plan for the Ag Education Center located off of Maryland Route 65.Mr.Stachoviak oriented the Planning Commission members on the general layout of the concept plan outlining the existing and proposed structures.The Ag Center Board has received a grant from the State and has raised funds for a second Ag Museum.known as the "Implement Exhibit Building,"The proposed building will be approximately 7.200 square feet.This building is an extension of the current museum.which will accommodate larger farm equipment for display purposes.The building will not have facilities and wiil not be climate controlled.The design has been donated from an engineering company and the removal of the trees wiil be completed at no cost to the County.Mr.Stachoviak explained that the Museum Committee requested the removal for the trees for visibility purposes from the Sharpsburg Pike.which impacts the forest conservation area.The total delineated forest area is 12.2 acres and .98 acre of forest will be removed for the construction of the proposed building.which is the maximum amount of forest allowed without mitigation.Any future impact on the forest area will require some type of mitigation.The County asked permission from the State to revise the forest plan since State funds are involved with the project and the State delegated the approval of the plan to the County.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the revised forest conservation plan for the Ag Education Center.particularly for the second museum building.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. Unanimously approved.So ordered. Porterstown Meadows,Lot 6 -Replacement Mitigation Mr.Goodrich presented for approval a request for replacement mitigation on iot 6 of Porterstown Meadows.owned by Dan Pipher.A subdivision plan for lots 5-11 of Porterstown Meadows was approved in February 2001.which included approximately 13 acres of forest retention on iot 6 along with retention on the adjacent lot 10 to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for the entire subdivision. Mr.Pipher purchased lot 6 and was aware of the retention area.however.he wishes to build a home in the retention area and is requesting to remove approximately one acre of existing forest and pay the fee in lieu of for the forest removed.Staff discussed with Mr.Pipher the priority sequence.as outlined in the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Staff suggested that Mr.Pipher could approach the adjacent property owners who also have forest mitigation areas,and request that additional retention be provided on adjacent lot 10 for the area proposed to be removed.Mr.Pipher did approach other lot owners,however they would not agree to the suggestion.Mr.Clopper questioned if Mr.Pipher had considered planting an acre of forest on his property next to the retention area rather than payment in lieu of.Mr.Pipher stated that he could plant an acre of forest.however.the cost involved for a forest pian prepared by a qualified professional is approximately $1.000.He aiso stated that he intends to improve the quality of the existing forest on his property and retain the substantial trees located around the perimeter of his property.which amounts to ciose to an acre.Th",applicant wiil have to submit a replat of the plan for recordation purposes to avoid any future problems.if the property is sold.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the request to remove approximately one acre of the easement area located on lot 6 in exchange for planting an equal amount contiguous to the current forest easement after a forest pian is prepared and approved. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved.So ordered.Discussion followed on the fees for preparing forest plans.Mr.Kercheval asked Mr.Arch to obtain a better idea of the costs associated with 141 a forest plan and suggested that certain fee guidelines could be established based on the amount of acreage. OTHER BUSINESS St.James Park Concept -Revision Mr.Goodrich presented the request to revise the concept plan for St.James Park.The property is located on the west side of Maryland Route 65 between St.James Village and Maryland Route 68.The property is zoned Agricultural and is located within the Growth Area.The preliminary consultation was held in 1989 for approximately 750 lots.In February 1992,the Planning Commission granted the developer the ability to use the cluster provision for the development,which reduces the individual lot sizes in return for dedicating the leftover space to open space.The open space was designated for a golf course and approval of the clustering was predicated on the golf course being a part of the development. In October 1993,approval was granted to use reduced setbacks in the cluster.In May 1993,the Planning Commission granted the one and only forest conservation variance on the amount of forest conservation that would be required.The owner was allowed to provide 42 acres of forest,as part of the golf course,instead of the required 95 acres.The Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Taxing District for some improvements. The new plan,as presented by Mac Davis and Jed Beall from Davis Renn &Associates and the developer,Mr.DeGorder,is basically the same,but it proposes lesser lots with some of the duplex units being eliminated and replaced with single-family homes for a total of 773 units and the deletion of the golf course.Phase I was previously approved for 73 units with the minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet. Public water and sewer would serve the proposed lots.The new owner has paid $450,000 to the County for the pumping station.Phase I was exempt from forest conservation because it was submitted prior to the adoption of the Ordinance.The new owner is requesting permission to proceed with Phase I concurrently with producing the revised master plan for the entire subdivision.Mr.Arch stated that if .Phase I coincided exactly with the plan previously approved that proceeding with Phase I would not be significant.Mr.Beall said that the water and sewer lines have already been installed according to the grades and depths established by the current Phase I plans and they would not change.The subdivision would be reviewed for school adequacy at the Final Plat stage for the different phases of the project. The developer proposes to elim·lnate the golf course for economic reasons and the community opposition to the use of 250,000 gallons of ground water per day needed to sustain the golf course.Under the new plan,there would be 166 acres of open space and the forest conservation obligations would be a combination of maintaining and creating approximately 90 acres of forest onsite without a need for a variance.The proposed Homeowners Association would maintain the open space areas of the subdivision.The developer wishes to retain Planning Commission's approval to use clustering provisions.Mr.Arch advised the Planning Commission members that if they granted the removal of the golf course and approval of the cluster concept,the next step would be a preliminary consultation to review the revised plan for the entire property.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant the elimination of the golf course as a part of the property,approval to maintain the cluster design,and approval to eliminate the forest conservation variance associated with this property based on the verbal presentation.Mr. Anikis added to the motion that the Planning Commission would withhoid approval to start the construction of Phase I until verification is received from the Planning Staff that the original approval for the construction of the 73 units in Phase I is concomitant with what is presented on the new plan,as a part of the preliminary consultation process.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Vote was unanimous.So ordered. -Paul N.Crampton,Jr.,RZ-02-008 Ms.Pietro stated she had nothing further to add to the Staff report.Ms.Lampton stated that the Planning Commission members reviewed the letters received in opposition to or support of the proposed PUD.The main opposition points were increased traffic,overcrowding of the schools,and the proposed density changing the character of a predominantly single-family neighborhood.Mr.Anikis provided a review of the traffic impact analysis for the proposed PUD and information from a 1999 traffic count conducted on Marsh Pike.Mr.Anikis stated that Article 16 states,"a specific site shall be located adjacent to adequate roadway facilities capable of servicing existing traffic and future traffic generated by the use of said PUD." Mr.Anikis stated that he believes the traffic will only become worse and his main concern was the access to Marsh Pike.Mr.Clopper stated that,though the property is located in the Growth Area,the road conditions and schools would need to be addressed,if the plan is approved.Mr.Ernst stated that though he would be abstaining from the vote,he made a general comment that with the nature of Smart Growth, density of developments are going to becom·e greater and that the idea is to compress the Growth Area in a smaller confine.Mr.Ardinger stated,in reviewing the numbers allowed in an Ag district with public water and sewer,there could be 4.06 units per acre,realizing that there are infrastructure and floodplain issues to address and that even more duplexes units could be added to the underlying zoning than what is proposed.He further stated that he agreed with Mr.Anikis that it is unfair to the developer of the last parcel in an area to have to make the major road improvements,and that someone,if not the applicant, will have to burden the costs.Ms·.Lampton stated that her main concern is the density of the proposed PUD,the number of proposed duplex units,and the commercial area proposed in the middle of the PUD. She stated that she would prefer to see more single-family homes versus the duplexes.Mr.Arch stated that as a part of the PUD process,the Planning Commission reviews the type of units and the density of the PUD and have some leeway to recommend a density which should not fluctuate much during the development plan review process.Mr.Arch stated that there are approximately 4 units per acre proposed for the PUD and if the 126 units in the retirement center are excluded,the number of units are reduced to 142 approximately 3 units per acre,which is approximately the number of units permissibie without going through the rezoning process.Mr.Arch stated that it wouid be possible to recommend a iower density than what is being proposed.However,the County Attorney may take the position that the recommendation of a lower density would require another public hearing.Mr.Anikis made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to deny the map amendment of RZ-02-00B based upon the traffic concerns on Marsh Pike and concerns with the proposed density of the PUD.Seconded by Ms.Lampton.The motion carried with Mr.Clopper,Ms.Lampton,and Mr.Anikis voting "aye."Mr. Ardinger "opposed"the motion and Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Ernst abstained. Forest Conservation Ordinance,FC-03-01 Mr.Goodrich presented the text amendment to the Forest Conservation Ordinance and the Staff's recommendation for additional minor changes to the original proposal.Mr.Anikis made a motion to recommend approval,as presented in the Staff Report and Analysis Foliowing Public Hearing,to the Board of County Commissioners for the Forest Conservation Ordinance text amendment of FC-03-001, as it is logical,appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Joint Rezoning Hearing Mr.Arch stated that ajoint rezoning hearing would be held on Monday,March 10,2003. -Workshop Meeting A workshop meeting will be held on Monday,March 17,2003 at 5:00 p.m.in the Administrative Annex conference room. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. 7~~¥------- Chairperson 143 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -MARCH 17,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,March 17,2003 at 5:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,George Anikis, Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Chairperson,Paula Lampton was absent. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Mr.Ernst stated that he and the Chairperson,Ms.Lampton,had discussed that it has become more prevalent during the last several months that individuals,other than a consultant or developer,want to offer input during the regular Planning Commission meetings.The Planning Commission meetings are to discuss the issues as they relate to the law,Ordinances,and the Comprehensive Plan and not for open discourse.Public involvement is encouraged,but a consistent policy is needed to properly direct the public input in a reasonable fashion.A general consensus is needed from the board members on how to address this matter in a consistent,fair manner without squelching public involvement. •Regular Planning Commission Meetings Mr.Ernst,on behalf of Ms.Lampton and himself,suggested to the board members that if a group or individual indicates to a board member,or Staff their desire to speak at an upcoming regular meeting or provide input on an agenda item,they could be referred to the Chairperson.Members discussed the suggestion and agreed that the Chairperson would become the conduit to handle the public involvement.The input would be directed to the Chairperson in written form and if the group or individual wishes to express their input beyond written form,they would also present that request to the Chairperson.The Chairperson can provide at his/her discretion the information or input to the board members for their consideration prior to the meeting.The Chairperson can aiso determine at his/her discretion whether an individual or group should present their input at the regular Planning Commission meeting with a pre-determined time limit.Mr.Clopper suggested that an announcement could be made at either the beginning or end of the regular meetings that letters were received and reviewed from the following persons.Mr.Kercheval suggested that the agenda could be modified to address the more controversial items earlier during the meeting.The details of addressing public involvement will be refined and notification would be given of the procedure. •Rezoning Public Hearings Mr.Arch stated that the rezoning cases are advertised in the local newspaper,which is a requirement by law.Additional notification,though not required,is provided by posting said property and providing a hearing notice to adjacent property owners.The Planning Commission cannot accept additional public testimony at the regular meeting after the rezoning hearing is held and the ten-day comment period has ended.Mr.Kercheval suggested for clarification purposes, that an explanation should be given at the rezoning hearings to the general public and to the Commission members on the number of units and the uses permitted for the subject property under the current zoning or potential rezoning.Mr.Kercheval also suggested that time be given at the beginning of the rezoning hearing agenda for general comments regarding the Planning Commission and Planning Department in general that would not necessarily apply to the agenda, as a means to improve public input. ADVERTISING ASPECTS Members discussed the need for adequate notification to inform the general pubic of the upcoming Planning Commission agenda by way of print advertising and the County Website.It was discussed that the manpower and the cost involved to post each property and notifying adjacent property owners on the number of projects (250+)processed by the Planning Department each year would be substantial. •Print Currently,The Herald Mail receives a copy of the complete agenda packet for the regular Planning Commission meetings and the Rezoning Public Hearings.The designated reporter typically reviews the agenda for coverage on major issues.Members discussed placing a newspaper ad one-week prior to the meeting and the potential advertising costs.A disclaimer could be added to the ad that the agenda is "tentative"and subject to change.Inquiry will be made with The Herald Mail to publicize the Planning Commission agendas as a public service. •Website The County's IT Department currently posts the agenda on the County's Website (www.washco- md.net)the Friday preceding the Monday meeting.Mr.Arch stated that he hopes within the next six months that the Planning Department will have the ability to post the agenda in-house and add changes and updates when needed.He also stated that in the future,more useful information and 144 maps would be posted on the Website.Staff does retrieve any testimony or public input received via E-maii for placement in the file and the sender is notified accordingly.However,lengthy on-line diaiogues are discouraged where a simple question tends to become a dialogue of additional questions,which takes hours of Staff time to properly respond. APFO DISCUSSION Mr.Arch remarked that schools and roads are two of the main APFO issues that will be discussed and amended in the future. •Schools The school generation rates and the calculation methods are being discussed across the State of Maryland.At the upcoming MACO (Maryland Association of County Planning Officials)meetings, the APFO's will be a main topic of discussion.The MACO Pianner's affiliate anticipates presenting at the MACO convention in August,general recommendations pertaining to APFO's for use as guidelines by the Counties.Currently in Washington County,the school generation rates per home are abstracted from the 1990 Census data.Mr.Arch provided a comparison of the 1990 data with the 2000 Census school data for school generation rates.The current method should be refined to obtain a breakdown that relates to bedrooms,which is a better predictor of students living in different types of housing in the County.Mr.McGee,Facility Administrator for the Board of Education,will be providing a printout of all the students of Washington County and where they live.The Planning GIS Staff will be taking that information and illustrating it on a map to show where the students live on each road in the County.This information will provide data to analyze the trends and the relationships,particuiarly the reiationships between new housing and old housing developments,how many students are being generated in different areas in the County. In conversations with Mr.McGee,he indicated that one of the trends observed by the Board of Education is that there are more students generated from lower priced housing units than from the more expensive housing units.The data collected from the Board of Education and the information obtained from other Counties in Maryland will be utilized to determine more realistic school generation rates for Washington County.This information will also be usefui to a developer in identifying potential issues that will need to be addressed in the subdivision process.Prior to the preiiminary consultation,we are looking at the creation of a new step "APFO Screening"to be included in the review process.This step would allow the developer to indicate the number of units he is considering for a proposed subdivision and the Staff would perform a screening process based on that number to determine the projected impact on the area schools and transportation requirements.Therefore,the developer would have an idea up front of the potentiai issues that may be involved,if he chooses to proceed with the project.Mr.Arch further stated that,as the process of APFO screening is developed,notification to the general public of the proposed project may be impiemented following the preliminary consultation meeting. The current standard for school testing is 105%of the lAC (State formula)and portables to determine what the capacity is.A revised standard would examine the existing student population number within the schooi,the projected student population from a project,approved projects in that area,and include a background student coefficient number that refiects the existing areas of where students are being generated based on trends.Considerations will be necessary for project phases,build-out timeframes,and a variety of other factors.A determination will have to be made on,at what point are there too many students projected for a school,and the means to verify that projection.Members discussed the feasibility of developing a system for school capacity and allocation of students similar to a TOR program,as a means to control the number of students and as a possible revenue source to assist with funding for school capacity. •Roads Mr.Arch stated that an amendment to the APFO relating to roads is moving in the direction of examining the impact of a road from the perspective of developing a per trip contribution to create an equity situation.This topic will be discussed in more detail at a future meeting. FUTURE WORKSHOP MEETING Mr.Arch stated that a workshop would be held next month with the Ag Board to discuss TOR's and related issues. ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. -~~r Paula A.Lam~L_---_­ Chairperson 145 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -April 7,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission heid its regular meeting on Monday,April 7,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Vice-Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K. Pietro;Associate Planners,Jill L.Baker and Misty Wagner and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Ms.Lampton introduced and welcomed Bernard Moser,as the newest member of the Planning Commission board.Mr.Moser previously served on the Planning Commission board. Before proceeding,Mr.Arch stated that there were two amendments to the agenda.The preliminary consultation for Valentia was postponed and the variance request for Lyle &April Firnhaber was withdrawn. MINUTES Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of February 3,2003,as amended.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of February 10,2003,as .presented.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of March 3,2003,as amended.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of March 17,2003,as amended.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. (Mr.Ernst arrived at 7:12 p.m.) OLD BUSINESS RZ-03-001,Sylvia J.and William Martin,Rezoning Recommendation Mr.Lung stated that he did not have any additional information to add to the staff report.Members began their discussion by Mr.Anikis stating that there was really no new information presented from the previous rezoning hearing request.He also commented on the statement that the proposal was good "in-fill",which according to the State publication,Maryland In-Fill and Redevelopment Managing Maryland Growth,"in- fill"refers to new development in a Priority Funding Area and the proposal does not meet that criteria.He further stated that the zoning should remain as Business Generai,which could provide retail service opportunities for residents in this area who most likely travel out of Washington County for retail needs. Mr.Clopper agreed wah Mr.Anikis'comments and stated that he could not support the request either. He also stated that he had visited the site on two separate occasions and witnessed the traffic problems on Keep Tryst Road at US 340.Discussion followed on the existing traffic issues and the comment from the Engineering Department that the traffic issues would be addressed through the APFO.Mr.Arch stated that the State is aware of the situation and that another traffic evaluation is planned for the fall.Mr. Lung stated that the traffic problems in this area are a multi-state issue.Mr.Ardinger stated that he had no arguments with the Board Member's comments on the proposed rezoning.Mr.Ernst stated that he did not disagree with the Board's comments either and believed the overriding issue is the proposed density. Mr.Moser stated he would abstain from the vote since he was not present at the public hearing.Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant's rezoning request from Business General to Residential Rural be denied based upon the "in-fill"of 34 homes is neither appropriate nor logical for this area,which is primarily Conservation.Seconded by Mr.Clopper. Motion carried with Mr.Anikis,Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ernst,Mr.Ardinger and Ms.Lampton voting "aye"and Mr. Kercheval and Mr.Moser abstaining.Mr.Kercheval requested clarification on the general statement from the Engineering Department that "traffic issues will be addressed through the APFO".Ms.Lampton suggested that a workshop be scheduled in the future to discuss additional APFO issues. SO-03-01,Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Rezoning Recommendation Mr.Arch stated that he did not have any additional comments to add to the staff report.He explained that the implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan should include a specific reference between the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.The proposed amendment would require subdivision to be consistent with the policy areas and densities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.To some extent,the zoning districts outside of the Growth Area are established because of the one to one correlation of the anticipated rural zoning classifications and the Comprehensive Plan policy areas.Staff is fine-tuning the properties that are overlapped by different policy areas.The Board of County Commissioners requested that the boundaries of the policy areas follow along property lines.This tends 14 6 to be the case with the exception of floodplain areas.Currently,a moratorium is in place and any residential subdivision of six or more lots on property outside of the Growth Areas is on hold and cannot be pursued any further than the preliminary consultation phase.Several major subdivisions had preliminary consultations prior to the moratorium and if the moratorium ceases,it is assumed that those who had a preliminary consultation could submit a development plat.Mr.Arch also reported that as a part of the moratorium,the Board of County Commissioners included a provision that every property could have five lots subdivided from it whether or not it had a previous subdivision.This has resulted in a number of minor subdivisions being submitted.It is likely that there are probably more subdivisions of five or less lots pending due to the number of calls received from area consultants who indicated they were backlogged,particularly with the smaller subdivisions.The moratorium timeframe is running out and it is unknown,whether the moratorium will remain in effect.Mr.Kercheval requested,on behalf of the County Commissioners,input from the Planning Commission as to whether there would be certain areas to grandfather in,if the proposed amendment is recommended.Members discussed the timeframe of delaying the action proposed by the amendment to July 1,2003 to accommodate the individual property owners and the small subdivisions of five or less lots working through the system.Mr.Arch stated that a cutoff date should be far enough in advance so the consuitants would have an opportunity to process their workload,submit plans to the Planning Department,and provide an opportunity for the consultants to talk intelligently to potential clients as to whether or not it is feasible to proceed.Mr.Arch added that an application would have to be submitted and that a written letter would not be sufficient for consideration within the allotted timeframe.Mr.Ernst questioned if a developer could purposely submit a 500 unit subdivision and have it processed through the system while the density is still favorable to them and then let it sit for five years.Mr.Arch stated that,historically,it would depend upon at what level of approval or authority that the Board of County Commissioners may recognize for a project to continue forward.Mr. Clopper stated that he believed that if the amendment is recommended,it would step around the process for the community to have their say about their properties.He also stated that his interpretation of the amendment is that the public hearings will not be necessary because the County Commissioners would be doing that action with the proposed amendment.Mr.Arch stated that indirectly,that is correct from the standpoint of a piece of property proposed for subdivision having to meet the densities,however,it is not totally correct because the underlying zoning from a use standpoint would still govern.The only change .is the density ratio,which would have to be consistent with the policy area.Mr.Ardinger stated he agreed with Mr.Clopper that the proposed amendment eliminates some due process for the property owners and that the property owner's rights would be infringed upon.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they deny adding the amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance because it is not appropriate or logical at this time.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ardinger, Mr.Ernst voted "aye'and Mr.Anikis and Ms.Lampton voted "nay"and Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Moser abstained. Bowman Sales &Equipment.Inc.-Revised Site Plan Mr.Goodrich presented for review and approval the revised site plan for Bowman Sales &Equipment, Inc.The property is located on the south side of 1-81 at the interchange of 1-81,Route 63 and Route 68. Mr.Goodrich'clarified that the site plan presented is not the preliminary consultation recently discussed at the March 3,2003 meeting where storage containers were proposed for the entire property.The original site plan to establish a storage trailer rental facility with a maintenance shop was approved by the Planning Commission in December 1996.Between 1996 and 2002,additional uses occurred on the site and after an inspection,it was determined that many aspects had not been approved on the original site plan.The owner sought and received approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the additional uses on the site and filed a new site plan to reconcile the activities.A revised site plan was presented to the Planning Commission in July 2002.At that time,the outstanding issue was the screening to be planted on top of a berm,which was constructed to shield the site from view.Even though the berm is there,the Board of Zoning Appeals required that the stored units be shielded completely from view,which led to the planting on top of the berm.During the July 2002 meeting,at the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator,the owner proposed forsythia planted on 10'centers along the top of the berm.A lengthy discussion followed as to whether the proposed plantings would be adequate.The Planning Commission asked the developer if he would be willing to have a "checkup"at the end of six months and the developer was not agreeable to that suggestion.Over the past nine months,the Planning Department expected some revisions to the plan and recently held a meeting with the developer wherein Staff recommended that the developer obtain a proposal from a qualified professional on an appropriate type and spacing of plantings to provide the necessary screen.A proposal from Lovell's Nursery was distributed to the members that recommended the use of forsythia because it is hardy,grows fast and forms a screen, even when not in bloom,and it should provide a complete screen in 3 to 4 growing seasons.Lovell's Nursery recommended 3-gallon size forsythia planted 6 ft.on center. Discussion followed on the possibility of single stacking the containers until the forsythia had grown and whether double-stacking the trailers was permissible.Mr.Arch stated that from the discussion in July 2002,the only issue remaining on the site plan was the type of planting.Ms.Lampton commented that the only reason for the planting is because the trailers can be seen and it would be a moot point if they were single-stacked.She further stated that the owner is not in violation on stacking the trailers because there was no current policy,but a policy would be addressed in the future.Mr.Ardinger stated this is an unusual situation where the Board of Zoning Appeals made a decision independently of the Planning Commission and then came back'to the Planning Commission to enforce their decision.Ms.Lampton agreed with Mr.Ardinger and voiced her concern as to whether 3-gallon size forsythia would be appropriate for the screening.Discussion followed on whether a 3-gallon container was adequate and the typical timeframe to allow piantings to grow.Mr.Goodrich stated that the expectation of a complete screen,at the time of planting,may be an unreasonable.It would be difficult,if not impossible,for plantings,as tall as 8 feet,to be place on top of a narrow berm and expected to survive.Mr.Goodrich reminded the members that approvai is needed for the entire site plan that includes the expanded stormwater management area,and other issues such as use of the existing barn for storage of 147 contractors equipment,use of the existing house as an office,and parking within selected locations shown on the plan in the buffer along the interstate.He also stated that if the site plan is approved,the Permits Department would enforce the plan to make sure the plantings take place as shown on the plan. Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan with the recommendation provided for the screen planting.Mr.Moser seconded the motion.Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Clopper,Mr.Anikis,Mr.Ardinger Mr. Moser and Ms.Lampton voted "aye"and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS •VARIANCES: David Sites Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a variance request for David Sites.The property is located on the east side of Avis Mill Road,south of Dellinger Road.The property is zoned Conservation and is approximately 18.2 acres.Ms.Baker provided a history of the development and explained that a single lot subdivision occurred in 1996 to create lot 2.In 1997,a portion was added to lot 2 for a property enlargement,as a simplified parcel.Earlier this year,a second simplified parcel was also added to create an 18.2 acre parcel.The owner is requesting to create three (3)new panhandle lots,which would require a variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance to address panhandle length and the panhandle stacking.Two of the panhandle lengths are approximately 600'and the third is approximately 900', which exceeds the maximum length of 400'and the three panhandles would also be stacked together, which the Ordinance only allows the stacking of two lots.Ms.Baker explained that if the variance was approved,it would create three new lots with 6 acres of remaining land and would extinguish any future development potential for APFO reasons and the owner would need to submit a replat of lot 2 for forest conservation mitigation purposes.The owner,Mr.Sites explained that he planned to build his own home on the property and did not want to hinder any opportunities to provide his children with a lot in the future. He also stated that it would be too expensive to build a County road to access the lots and that there .would probably only be one gravel drive to access the lots,if the lots were for his children.Ms.Baker explained that the total width of the entrance is 75';25'is required for each lot and that the entire panhandle length does not have to be graveled and most likely there would be three 10'to 12'wide gravel driveways.Members discussed their concerns on the submission and directed the applicant to reconfigure the lots and suggested moving the one panhandle to the northern side of the property to eliminate the panhandle stacking and resubmit the variance request.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the variance request as submitted.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously denied.So ordered. -SUBDIVISIONS: Westone Estates -Preliminary Plat Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a Preliminary Plat for Westone Estates.The property is located on the west side of Maryland Route 67 and to the southwest side of Mt.Carmel Church Road. The property is 34.45 acres and is zoned Agricultural.The developer is proposing 13 single-family lots ranging from 1.92 to 3.81 acres in size.One new road will be constructed and will be known as West Stone Court.A stormwater management pond will be located in front of the development.The lots will be serviced by onsite wells and septic systems.There is an intermittent stream along the northern edge of the property and the appropriate buffers have been shown.Forest conservation was previously approved by the Planning Commission through a combination of offsite retention on the property located across from the property and by planting a buffer along the intermittent stream.A revised copy of the forest conservation plan is forthcoming from the consultant.All agencies have approved the plat with the exception of the Health Department due to some minor revisions and Staff does not anticipate any problems with obtaining their approval.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon Health Department's approval,receipt of an updated forest conservation plan and authorizing approval of the Final Plat by the Planning Staff,if no major changes occur.Mr.Clopper seconded the motion.Unanimously approved. Walnut Point Heights.Section 7 -Final Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the Final Plat for Walnut Point Heights,Section 7.The property is located west of Maryland Route 63 and north of 1-70.The property is zoned Residential Rural. Section 7 is a part of the Walnut Point Heights subdivision,which consists of 133 acres and contains 215 lots.A Preliminary Plat was approved for the entire subdivision in April 1995.The Final Plats for Sections 1-5 have already been approved.Due to a change in the developer's phasing plan,Section 7 is being submitted before Section 6.Section 6 will be the final phase of the subdivision.Section 7 proposes 27 single-family lots on a total of 10.7 acres and also includes the construction of two new streets known as Hosta Drive and Jasmine Court that will be dedicated to the County.The lots range in size from 15,045 square feet to 25,626 square feet.The subdivision is in the Urban Growth Area and is served by public water and sewer.Stormwater management will be handled by a regional pond approved by the Engineering Department ,md Soil Conservation District.No environmentai sensitive areas are located on the site.The entire site is exempt from forest conservation because the Preliminary Plat was approved prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.All agency comments have been addressed and approvals received except from the Permits Department and their approval is pending a revision on the plat.Mr.Lung also stated that no changes were made to the proposed Section 7 since the Preliminary Plat phase.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Walnut Point Heights, Section 7,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. 148 Freedom Hills -Final Plat Mr.Goodrich presented for review and approval the Final Plat for lots 1-25 of the Freedom Hills subdivision.The property is located on the north side of Garden View Road in the Maugansville Area. The Preliminary Plat for the entire development was approved in August 2002.The total property is approximately 63 acres in size and Phase I is approximately 16.5 acres.The average lot sizes in Phase I range from 17,000 to 26,000 square feet for single-family units or two-family units on one lot.The density is 1.5 units per acre.The forest conservation plan was approved at the Preliminary Plat phase and provides a combination of 9.5 acres of on-site planting and payment In lieu of.Public water and sewer will serve the lots.The developer will be contributing to the improvements of the pump station on Maugansville Road,which will also be upgraded for the proposed Seneca Ridge development off of Maugans Avenue.There are no outstanding agency issues.There are some minor notations that will need to be addressed.The Historic District Commission recommended that the entire historic complex be saved on an individual lot.The developer took a portion of the Historic District Commission's recommendation and placed the historic dwelling on a separate lot.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the Final Plat for lots 1-25 of the Freedom Hills subdivision.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS: Paul Crampton -Proposed Warehouse Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for two proposed warehouse buildings for Paul Crampton. The subject site is located at the intersection of Oak Ridge Place and East Oak Ridge Drive.Zoning is HI-1.The developer is proposing to construct two warehouses on 6.2 acres to store construction materials and equipment.There will be one access point onto Oak Ridge Place.The site will be served by on site well and septic.The hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. Parking required is one space per employee and 3 spaces are provided.Solid waste will be disposed of In a screened dumpster to the rear of the warehouse.Freight and delivery will be approximately 7 trucks 'per day.Landscaping will consist of a double row of white pines located along East Oak Ridge Drive and honey locust along the front.The site is exempt from forest conservation because it was a lot of record prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.All signs and lighting will be building mounted.All approvals have been received except from the Permits Department and their approval is pending a revision to the plan.Mr.Anlkls made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr. Moser.Unanimously approved. Peter Anderson -Pet Crematory Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Peter Anderson.The site is located along the west side of Old National Pike,north of Boonsboro.Zoning is Business General.The total parcel area is 12.1 acres.A grocery store,produce stand and an existing dwelling are also located on the site.There is an existing gravel drive.The property owner is proposing to Install a pet crematory inside an existing 30' x 60'block building.All trash will be disposed of inside of the building.There will be no signage and the lights will be building mounted.There will be a weekly UPS delivery.There will be one employee.The hours of operation will be daily and will vary.The animals will be picked up at Dr.Franklin's office and some other veterinarian offices on a contractual basis ..The ashes from the crematory will be disposed of over the ground.A special exception was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for the creation of a crematory on the property.The site Is exempt from forest conservation since it is a single lot of record prior to the Ordinance.All approvals have been received except from the Permits Department who is reviewing the latest revisions.The consultant,Mr.Frederick,expiained that the crematory Is a very small operation and will not be open to the general public.The operator,Peter Anderson,explained that the ashes would be spread over farm fields and pastureland owned by the property owner.The operator also explained that a construction permit was submitted to MDE for their review and during conversations with the MDE office,they had indicated that the ashes were acceptable to spread over the land.He also stated that the crematory equipment would burn smokeless and odorless and is equipped with sensors that will monitor the emissions and will automatically shut down,if the requirements are not met.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan,as presented. Seconded by Mr.Ardlnger. Unanimously approved. (Mr.Ernst left the meeting.) Statue of Robert E.Lee Mr.Goodrich began his presentation by distributing a copy of the Opinion by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the proposed Statue of Robert E.Lee.The Historic District Commission had disapproved the application.The decision was appealed.He explained the proposed location and relative relationship of the statue to the existing Improvements on the site and the general area.The statue consists of a 12' granite base and the statue itseif will be 12'tall and is situated 239'away from the existing house on the same parcel that has been converted to a small museum and bookstore.The normal agency responses do not exist due to the nature of the site plan for this structure with the exception of the Historic District Commission.Since the property is located in the Antietam Overlay Zone,the Historic District Commission has the responsibility"and authority to review the application and site plan and approve or deny the exterior appearance of the statue.The site plan was submitted in October 2002,and reviewed by the Historic District Commission during their meeting on December 4,2002.The Commission disapproved the statue on the basis that it believed the statue bore no relation to the existing farmstead and it would intrude on the historic setting of the farmstead.Mr.Goodrich referred to a copy of the Historic District Commission meeting minutes,which outlined the discussion and to a copy of the letter that summarized the meeting and Informed the property owner,Mr.Chaney,that the Commission had denied the application.That decision was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals,which overturned 149 the Historic District Commission's decision as outlined in the Opinion by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals concluded that a written decision was not provided within the 45 day time period that the Zoning Ordinance provides.Mr.Poole,the attorney for Mr.Chaney,commented from the audience that the Board of Zoning Appeais did not discuss the merits of the decision of the Historic District Commission when it concluded the decision should be overturned due to the time issue. Mr.Anikis stated that he believed the Historic District Commission's decision was made in 43 days because the decision was rendered on December 4,2002.Mr.Goodrich further explained that Mr. Chaney was present at the Historic District Commission's meeting and was aware of the decision on December 4,2002.On December 5,2002,a response was sent to the Permits Department via an interoffice electronic message stating that the Historic District Commission had disapproved the application on December 4'2002.On December 12,2002,a written notification was mailed to Mr. Chaney.The Zoning Ordinance states that the Historic District Commission shall forward a written response to the Department of Permits and Inspections within 45 days.Mr.Goodrich further explained that when the Historic District Commission was created in 1986,the Permits Department was designated as the central agency to receive and distribute site plans and collect agency approvals and at that time the Historic District Commission was an agency that would receive the site plan from the Permits Department and respond back to them,as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.Since then,that process has changed and the Pianning Department is now the central agency where site plans are submitted and agency responses are collected.In addition to that process change,much of the correspondence between review agencies is handled electronically rather than on paper.Therefore,the system that was originally designed is no longer used and so there was no reason for a written response to the Permits Department. Mr.Arch stated that if the Planning Commission would deny the site pian it wouid have to be based on a specific reason.Normally,the Planning Commission decision would be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals,but since they have already heard the case and granted it,the applicant could direct an appeal to the Court.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Moser, Mr.Ardinger,Ms.Lampton,Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Clopper voted "aye"and Mr.Anikis abstained.Ms, .Lampton stated that Mr.Ernst was not feeling well and had left the meeting. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Jim Joy,Lots 6 - 9 Ms.Wagner stated that a preliminary consultation was held on March 18,2003 for lots 6 through 9 for Jim Joy.The property is iocated on the northwest side of Orchard Ridge Road and is zoned Conservation. The total acreage of lots 6 through 9 is 12.77 acres and 102.28 acres of remaining lands.Lots 1 through 5 were previously approved.Individuai wells and septic systems will serve the lots.The developer plans to meet forest conservation requirements by retaining forest onsite.The consultant,Mr.Frederick,stated that the owner plans to preserve the remaining lands.No action required. -FOREST CONSERVATION: Pavestone Company,Inc.-Replacement Mitigation Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a forest conservation plan for Pavestone Company,Inc.In 2000,the original site plan for the paving manufacturing plant was approved and since then,site plans were submitted and approved for a tumbler and stockyard.In 2000,the forest conservation requirements were met by a payment in lieu for 3.13 acres and onsile forest retention of 1.84 acres.Due to their business growth,Pavestone Company plans to expand the stockyard area into the retained forest area and is requesting to pay the fee in lieu of for 3.69 acres,totaling $16,073.64.Members discussed the request and agreed that there is no other option for the mitigation requested and that the request was based on economic reasons.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the replacement mitigation request. Mr.Clopper seconded the motion.Unanimously approved. Hunter's Green Phase II -Lot 1,Parcel A Mr.Arch presented for approval a request for repiacement mitigation for lot 1,Parcel A of Hunter's Green Phase II.The subject site consists of 102 acres located off of Halfway Boulevard.A portion of the 8.79 acres of existing forest will be cleared.The forest conservation mitigation requirement would be 24.22 acres.The deveioper is proposing to retain 26.60 acres in the Hunter's Green Industriai Park area.Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the forest mitigation request.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Shirley Sears-Phillipson Subdivision -Proposed Revision to Lot 4 Ms.Pietro presented the request to revise lot 4 of the Shirley Sears-Phillipson subdivision.Ms.Pietro provided a brief history of the discussions and the past onsite visit that occurred in response to the concerns by the adjacent property owner,Mr.Younker.Initially,the access was proposed through a natural break in the vegetation,however,due to Mr.Younker's concerns that his well may be effected,the access point for lot 3 was moved.The subdivision was recently approved.Ms.Pietro explained the proposed changes outlined in a letter received from Ms.Cosner,the contract purchaser of lot 4.The changes included the relocation of the northeast property line between lots 3 and 4,relocation of the proposed drive for lot 3,and reconfiguring the access point.Ms.Cosner was present and confirmed her request.Mr.Anikis referred to a Remax advertisement and inqUired whether Ms.Cosner was buying or 150 selling the lot.Ms.Cosner confirmed they were under contract to purchase lot 4 and have applied for a building permit to build a home and intend to build a house on the lot upon receipt of the permit,if the lot does not sell.Members discussed the time and efforts that were spent on processing this subd',vision and that the request was not an appropriate way to address this matter.Mr.Anikis made a motion to deny the requested changes to the plat design for lot 3 and lot 4.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Anikis, Mr.Clopper,Mr.Kercheval,Ms.Lampton and Mr.Ardinger voted "aye."Mr.Moser abstained.Ms. Cosner requested a written notification of the Planning Commission's decision. Bowman Sales &EqUipment,Inc.at Hopewell Road -Extension of Temporary Approval Mr.Arch stated that a letter was received from Mr.Bowman requesting a one year extension of a temporary approval granted in July of 2002 for the Bowman Group "Newgate"property on Hopewell Road located in the IG zone.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to extend the temporary approval for one year.Mr. Clopper seconded the motion.Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Workshop Meeting Mr.Arch stated that a workshop meeting is scheduled with the Ag Board on Monday,April 14,2003 at 5:00 p.m.,however,the Ag Board has requested that the meeting be heid at 7:30 p.m.The workshop was tentatively rescheduled to April 21,2003 at 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Ciopper,seconded by Mr.Anikis,to adjourn at 10:12 p.m.Unanimously approved. .i::l/f'~-A -hrv'1>/"\ Paula A.Lampton \J Chairperson 151 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -APRIL 21,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,April 21,2003 at 7:30 p,m,in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room, Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II;R Ben Clopper, George Anikis,Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C,Arch,Eric Seifarth,Farmland Preservation Administrator and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman,Don Ardinger was absent Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board Members in attendance were:Priscilla Harsh; Gerald Ditto,David Herbst,Jim Coffman and John Rinehart Debi Turpin,Executive Vice President of the Washington County Home Builders Association was also present Prior to the scheduled meeting,the County Farmland Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth,had sent to the Planning Commission members and the Ag Board members a handout summarizing TDRs and the TDR programs in Maryland, OPENING REMARKS Mr.Arch stated that this workshop meeting was scheduled to discuss TDRs and the overall philosophy of what can be done to keep agriculture as a viable,economic activity within Washington County,The Agricultural Preservation program has helped,but its funding is limited and has been supplemented by the Rural Legacy Program and other sources,The newly adopted Transfer Tax will generate approximately 2,7 million dollars each year,The first $400,000 will go toward Agricultural Preservation, At the time the bill was written,Delegate Shank broadened the language so that some of the funds could be used for other initiatives in an effort to assist agricultural operations,This assistance may include ,purchasing easements,providing low interest loans,grants,or funding to create opportunities for younger farmers, DISCUSSION -TDR PROGRAM Mr,Herbst,Chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Board,began the discussion by stating that,since the funding mechanisms over the last ten years have not helped the Ag Board reach their goal of preserving 50,000 acres,the idea of a TDR program was discussed as a last resort The Ag Board agreed that they would like to see bigger blocks of lands preserved more quickly,to prevent groups of houses being spread over the county,Mr.Herbst stated that Calvert County is the only County in Maryland that actually down-zoned the Growth Area before starting the TDR program and then the developers purchased back the rights to build at a higher density,Developers contributed 1,5 million dollars to preserve Ag land in Calvert County by raising the recordation tax to fund the TDR program, Their TDR program is tied to the Ag Land Preservation program,When one TDR is sold the entire property is locked in by an easement This is known as the "Purchase and Retire"program,Calvert County no longer participates in the State program and they are currently buying TDRs at approximately $3,100,which sets the minimum price for the TDRs,Mr.Seifarth added that a County employee in his position manages the program in Calvert County and that it generally takes five to ten years to establish a TDR program,Ideally the program would eventually be turned over to the real estate community,Mr.Herbst stated that the Ag Board would like a commitment from the County Commissioners that the TDRs would be worth something,before they would be willing to support a TDR program, Mrs,Harsh stated that In her discussions with the eight counties in Maryland that have a TDR program,each stated that if Washington County is considering a program,they should examine the current Maryland programs to derive a plan that will work,Many of the farmers were excited about the TDR program at its inception,but have since changed their minds about the program mainiy due to changing prices,which occurred as a result of reverse auctions,Mr,Seifarth stated that the County could establish a TDR program where they would determine the price and choose who they want to buy from or setup a bidding process to avoid reserve auctions,Mr,Arch stated that the creation of primary "sending"areas would keep the values up and prevent undercutting and suggested that a "tiered"program be setup to identify the primary areas,secondary areas and so forth throughout the County,Mrs,Harsh stated that the State Farm Bureau supports TDR programs and their representative,Carl DeMatteo,would be willing to speak to the Planning Commission on the different TDR programs in Maryland,Mrs,Harsh will contact Mr.DeMatteo as to his availability to meet with the Planning Commission, Mr.Ditto stated that a TDR program is a mechanism to transfer equity and that zoning preserves the land,Mr.Ditto further stated that the annexation of agricultural land poses a problem because the City of Hagerstown is circumventing zoning around Hagerstown,In his opinion,TDRs should also apply to business and commercial areas,Mr,Arch responded that annexation is up to the individual property owner,per state law and that the Board of County Commissioners might be reluctant to have a TDR program that would include commercial or business,particularly from an economic standpoint Mr, Ditto stated that the Mennonite Community is also a major factor because they own a fair amount of land in the County that could be potentially developed and they do not participate in any state programs and may not participate in a TDR program either,Mr.Ditto also stated that making 152 agricultural viable is beyond the scope of Washington County Government and there are limited things that County government can do to make agricultural viable,but the government can create an atmosphere that agricultural can survive in.He further stated that unless there is 1,000+acres in a block of land without residential houses,there is not a viable agricultural atmosphere due to conditions that exist with farming which include smells,traffic problems and problems with moving farm equipment,etc. Ms.Turpin,representing the Washington County Home Builders Association,stated that the new zoning has prompted discussions about TORs as a means for builders to recoup more of their money.She also stated that their local membership has a number of small builders who build individual lots and they have indicated that they are running out of lots In Washington County. Mr.Arch stated that reducing the density below 3.5 units inside the Urban Growth Area would be inconsistent with the densities needed to qualify an area as a Priority Funding Area under State law.He further stated that in his discussions with some of the area builders,there is an interest in a TOR program. Staff believes there is an opportunity to create a program outside the urbanized area.If a TOR program is developed outside of the Growth Area given the proposed densities of 1:30,1:20 and 1:5,there will be areas where developers will be willing to buy TORs for more units because they,in turn,will make a profit when the lots are sold.Mr.Arch stressed that an important factor of a TOR program would be to create some specific "premium farm areas"that would become the primary "sending"areas.By designating "sending"areas,the farmers who have good,viable property would not be undercut by the property owner that has mountain property where development will never occur.Mr.Arch stated that certain areas identified as "sending areas"would be self-policing to a certain degree by the APFO,which would restrict these areas because of the improvements that would have to be made.Members agreed that the "sending"blocks would need to be identified.Mr.Kercheval stated that zoning provides County residents with the ability to know what could be next door.Unless there are "sending"and "receiving"areas identified in a TOR program,residents will not have the knowledge of what could potentially be beside them.Mr.Ditto questioned if a "receiving"area could be designated within a current development that is already in a Ag zoned area but has not been developed to one acre lots,which would increase the density and be consistent with the existing development.Mr.Ernst stated that zoning makes possible a supply and demand process and restricting the number of units and the number of housing lots available, the price goes up.Mr.Moser stated that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to push residential development inside the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Ernst stated that he believed there are opportunities outside the Urban Growth Area,but he is not sure that the County would want to create an entire market outside that area that would pull growth away from the Growth Area.Mr.Arch stated that,basically there is a defined number and the County would be transferring development from one section to another and not increasing that number.He further stated that there is a large amount of land within the Urban Growth Area that is subject to the Ag Transfer Tax,but as the Growth Area builds out,those candidates become fewer and it would not generate as much money into the fund.Mr.Arch stated that,as a compromise from thirty years ago,the current zoning created large,single-family development in the rural areas.He also stated that with the current moratorium,there has been tremendous activity of five lot subdivisions coming from every direction that have had more of an affect on the farming community.Mr.Arch stated that the County has been averaging 600 units per year for the last 10 years and the last couple of years it has averaged in the 800+range.He explained that there is a misconception with the higher number because the County has had several major,multiple-family unit developments and one permit could have 100 apartment units.Mr.Ernst stated that there are only so many units that will be built in the County each year in the foreseeable future and that the current low interest rates and a fairly strong economy will not last forever and then the County will go back to historic growth patterns.Mr.Ernst suggested,as a part of planning a TOR program,that the Board should consider the types of housing units to be designated inside and outside of the Urban Growth Area. Mr.Seifarth stated that since 1991,the County has contributed to the 40/60 Match Program,and the over the last five years receiving approximately $8 million dollars.The current proposal combines FY'03 and FY'04 funds;however,the State funds are currently frozen.Mr.Seifarth stated that if the County waits until the State unfreezes the funds,then the $400,000 generated from the Transfer Tax could be matched with $600,000 from the State to generate 1 million dollars.He further stated that the County could only receive the matching funds by participating in the state program.Mr.Kercheval questioned if the County does not receive the matching funds,could the County use the $400,000 and buy TORs to obtain a return in the future for more Ag Preservation rather than extinguishing development rights.Mr.Seifarth stated that it would be a tremendous commitment by the County to buy TORs,hoping to sell them later,when it is still a gamble as to whether or not someone is going to buy the TORs at any price.Mr.Arch stated that the TOR value could not be determined until the County would have a TOR program in place.Mr.Clopper stated that the County could always cover itself,because ten years from now it could raise the minimum fee for a TOR.Mr.Ditto stated that Mr.Kercheval's idea would only work if the farmers were willing to sell TORs.Mr.Coffman questioned if the first $400,000 of the Transfer Tax guaranteed for Ag Preservation is achieved,would that be the minimum amount received or was there a chance that a percentage above the fixed amount would also be for Ag Preservation.Mr.Kercheval stated that the funds collected over $400,000 would likely be used for infrastructure needs,schools,etc. Discussion followed on different options to leverage the funds.Mr.Seifarth stated that the Ag Board's goal is to preserve 50,000 acres,which currently would take $80 million dollars to purchase easements to reach that goal.He further stated that the dollar amount is based on the appraisals to date and that no appraisals were performed this year due to the State bUdget,and it is unknown,at this time,what will happen to the appraisal amount,which may increase 25%or more from the quote.Mr.Coffman inquired if a TOR program is initiated next year,and in the meantime zoning is amended to correspond with the 153 Comprehensive Plan,would the TDRs be based on the new zoning or the current zoning.Mr ..Arch stated that it would probably be based on whatever the current zoning is.The market is based on the development right value and the agricultural residual value which provides the total value on a per acre basis.Discussion followed on development rights.Mrs.Lampton stressed that during the Planning Commission's discussions on adopting the new Comprehensive Plan,farming and the equity issue was discussed at each meeting.She further stated that in her many conversations with local farmers,they indicated they want the right to farm,but they do not want their development rights taken away either, because that was their children's college education or their retirement. IDENTIFYING BLOCK AREAS Mr.Anikis questioned the timeframe to identify five 1,000-acre biocks of good farmland as "sending" areas and 5,000 acres of "receiving"areas.Mr.Coffman suggested that perhaps it would be better to identify 500 acres of "receiving"areas using a tiered approach.Mr.Anikis stated that careful consideration should be given to ensure that the "receiving"areas are situated on good roads and on prime land to avoid potential water and sewer problems in the future.Moser stated that he believed the "receiving"areas should be located around the defined Growth Areas where public services are available. Mr.Seifarth stated that the "sending"areas wouid not be hard to identify and that five 1,OOO-acre blocks and the corresponding property owner information could be compiled within a day.He also stated that identifying "receiving"areas outside the designated Growth Area would be more difficult. ADJOURMENT Those in attendance agreed that it is crucial to determine what the County should look iike in the future,to establish the objectives and goals for the County,and then build the policies and processes to accomplish those goals.Ms.Lampton thanked those in attendance for their comments and participation. The workshop meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 3&A A -R ..;~ Paula A.Lamptt:'(f--'------- Chairperson 155 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -May 5,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 5,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Robert Ernst II,Vice-Chairman,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K. Pietro;Associate Planners,Jill L.Baker and Misty Wagner and Office Assoc'late,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton stated that the natural regeneration request submitted by Cannon Ridge,listed under Forest Conservation,would be omitted from the agenda. OLD BUSINESS David Sites Revised Variance Request Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a revised variance request for panhandle length requirements for David Sites.The property is located on the east side of Avis Mill Road,south of Dellinger Road.The original variance,presented at the April meeting,was for the stacking of three panhandles and three panhandle lengths.The revised request ·IS only for panhandle lengths.Two panhandles are situated on one side of the property and the third panhandle was relocated to the other side of the property to eliminate the three panhandle stacking.The approximate panhandle lengths are 1,034'for lot .2A,598"for lot 2B,and 782'for lot 2C.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the variance request as submitted.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS •VARIANCES: Ronald Toothman Ms.Baker presented for review and approval the variance request for Ronald Toothman.The request is for a three-tier lot configuration for the purpose of creating immediate family member lots.The property is located on the south side of Kieffer Funk Road and is zoned Agricultural.The hardship is due to percolation test results.The consultant,Mr.Bush,explained that perc tests were tried on the west side of the existing driveway and other areas on the property,however,there was too much existing shale and rock to obtain an approved perc.The soil along the east side of the site is most suitable and resulted in the three-tier configuration.There are two panhandle lengths to consider since lot 1 fronts on Kieffer Funk Road.Discussion followed on the use of the 22 acres of remaining lands.The consultant stated that the owner has no plans for the remaining lands.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the request with the requirement that a shared access be used for all four lots and any further development on the remaining lands would require a public road and the accompanying improvements to Kieffer Funk Road.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Mr.Clopper,Mr.Kercheval and Ms.Lampton voted "aye"and Mr.Anikis,Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Moser voted "nay."Mr.Ernst abstained.Discussion followed on the basis of the applicant's request being the hardship of existing shale and failed percolation tests.Mr.Anikis changed his vote to "aye"and adding to the motion that the findings of the approval were based on the hardship being the percolation problems.So ordered. •SUBDIVISIONS: South Pointe PUD Phase 4,Block C -Preliminary Plat Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a Preliminary Plat for Phase 4,Block C of South Pointe- PUD.The property is located on the east side of South Pointe Drive,north of East Oak Ridge Drive.The property is zoned RS-PUD.The developer is proposing 40 townhouse lots with a minimum lot size of 3,100 square feet.The total lot area is 5.88 acres and the open space is .73 acres.Public water and sewer will serve the site.Lots will access the new streets of Hunters Woods Drive and Winding Oak Drive.All approvals have been received except from Water Pollution Control.Staff anticipates their approval is forthcoming.The consultant stated that apartments were proposed for the remaining section of 35 acres.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to receipt of all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. •SITE PLANS: Wantz Distributors Mr.Lung presented for approval a site plan for Wantz Distributors.The subject site is located on the east side of Hopewell Road,north of Halfway Boulevard.The total lot area is 2.56 acres.The property is zoned Industrial General.The plan proposes the construction of an office and warehouse building for a 156 beverage distributor.The initial construction will consist of a 130'x 70' office and a 31,000 square foot warehouse to the rear.Three future phases will consist of an additional 35,100 square foot of warehouse space.There will be a total of 77 employees at the final buildout.Hours of operation will be 4:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Two access points are proposed off of Hopewell Road.Parking to accommodate the office staff and the warehouse employees is located in front of the site and loading for the warehouse will be located on the south side of the building.There will be two stormwater management facilities onsite.Forest conservation requirements will be met by retaining 2.84 acres. There will be pole and building mounted lights.Landscaping will be provided in the parking area and shrubs are proposed in front of the building.The site is served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and the County provides the sewer service.All reviewing agencies have either approved the plan or have issued comments.A revision address'lng all agency comments was submitted and no problems are anticipated with the receipt of the necessary approvals.Mr.Lung explained that this lot was originally approved on a simplified subdivision plat.In order for development to occur on the property,it is necessary for the owner to also submit the standard Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat.He requested that,if the site plan is approved,that the Planning Commission provide the Staff with the authority to approve the subdivision plat that corresponds to the site plan.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals and giving the Staff the authority to approve the subdivision plat.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Pashen Estates Ms.Pietro stated that a preliminary consultation was held for Pashen Estates on April 9,2003 to discuss five single-family lots ranging in size from 1.5 to 5.5 acres.The property is located on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike and the south side of Spielman Road.The property is zoned Agricultural.The total acreage is 15.3 acres and the 15.29 of remaining lands will continue as a farmette.Individual wells and septic systems will serve the lots.Lots 3 and 4 were previously approved with combined driveways off of the Sharpsburg Pike with a 50'right of way set aside for future development.Lots 5 and 6 would access .the Sharpsburg Pike using the same access point as previously approved lots 3 and 4 and each lot would have public road frontage.Access is available from the Sharpsburg Pike per the State Highway Administration.Lots 7,8,and 9 would access Spielman Road by individual driveways.Ms.Pietro explained that the biggest obstacle for the proposed development was the inadequate site distance for the individual access points off of Spielman Road.As a result of the consultation,the State Highway Administration will be working with the developer to see if one access point is obtainable off of Spielman Road and whether the lots can be redesigned.Mr.Anikis stated that he lives on the Sharpsburg Pike across from the proposed subdivision and had spoken with the County Attorney to ensure he had no confiict in participating in the discussion.He further stated that he was greatly concerned about an additional access point onto Sharpburg Pike due to safety issues and the number of serious accidents that occurred in this general area.Mr.Anikis stated that he had expressed his concerns to State delegation and the State Highway Administration and subsequent to a review,the speed was reduced to 40 mph and a no passing zone was instituted in this area several years ago.Mr.Anikis also stated that he was concerned that a substantial amount of fill would have to be used to buildup the area to construct an access point.This action would also create a considerable amount of runoff due to an existing natural hallow,an intermittent stream,and large gully on the west side of the road.The consultant,Mr.Cessna, stated that the State Highway Administration is requiring a hydraulic study to address how the water will be handled.Mr.Anikis also stated that he would like to see the existing tree line along the Sharpsburg Pike to provide a noise and privacy buffer.Mr.Moser stated that he was also familiar with the area and he had more concerns with access points onto Spielman Road.Mr.Anikis stated that the State Highway Administration recently permitted an access point onto Spielman Road directly across the proposed subdivision as a part of Tilghmanton Heights subdivision.Sight distance for that access was obtained by reducing the hill on the north side of the road for line of sight.The consultant,Matt Cessna of Frederick, Seibert and Associates,stated that the State Highway Administration suggested clearing the south side of Spielman Road to determine if an access point could be obtained and some clearing has begun.Mr. Anikis also stated that access the proposed subdivision from Spielman Road would be more desirable since traffic traveling on Spielman Road,particUlarly this section of the road,is moving much slower than the traffic traveling on the Sharpsburg Pike.Members also discussed the potential request by the developer to use the payment in lieu of option to meet the forest conservation requirements.Ms.Pietro stated that the owner was advised that he would have to present his request to use the payment in lieu of option to the Planning Commission and explain his reason for not planting onsite.The consultant stated that there is no existing forest on the lots and a forest plan has not been developed.Ms.Pietro stated that the concerns discussed regarding access points onto Sharpsburg Pike and Spielman Road would be forwarded to John Wolford of the State Highway Administration.A revised plan will be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. -FOREST CONSERVATION: Hartwood Acres-Mitigation Request Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a proposed preliminary forest conservation plan for Hartwood Acres.The property is located within the Town of Keedysville.The owner is proposing 13 lots, ranging in size from 0.3 acres to 1.5 acres.The owner is requesting to use the payment in lieu option for a portion of the mitigation.The owner is proposing to clear two tenths of an acre for grading and engineering issues related to the stormwater management area.As a part of the mitigation,the owner plans to retain 1.36 acres of existing forest and plant 0.21 acres of new forest.Ms.Baker referred to a letter submitted by the owner's consultant that outlined the reason for the mitigation request.The request is for the final 0.19 acres of required mitigation needed for the project.The payment would be 157 approximately $827.64.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the replacement mitigation request for payment in lieu of for no more than 0.19 acres.Mr.Clopper and Mr.Anikis seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. Potential Forest Conservation Easement -George Moore Mr.Goodrich presented for approval lands owned by George Moore,as a potential forest conservation easement site for next year's activities.Payment in lieu funds are placed into the Forest Conservation Fund and used towards purchasing easements on private property for the planting of new forests or to protect existing forest.Mr.Weibley,District Manager of the Soil Conservation District,explained that the potential easement is 51 acres of existing forest situated off of Maryland Route 494 on Mann Lane and owned by Mr.Moore.The forest area includes mature timber,young saplings and some stands of Virginia pines.The property is very attractive due to its size and its close proximity to the sensitive areas of Toms Run and the Conococheague Creek.The easement area would also adjoin the existing Mike Sweeney easement..If the easement request is approved,a detailed character study will be done on the wooded area.Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the forest conservation easement request. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. Mr.Goodrich advised the Planning Commission members that another payment from the Forest Conservation Fund of $15,000 was presented to the Antietam Battlefield to continue the planting according to the approved plan from 1995. OTHER BUSINESS Reuben R.Horst Septic Reserve Area Ms.Wagner presented a request for an offsite septic reserve area for lot 3 owned by Reuben Horst.The property is situated on the northside of Garden View Road and is zoned Agricultural.Lot 3 consists of 0.9 acres and has an existing dwelling.The 10,000 square foot septic area would be located on the remaining lands of 66.99 acres also owned by Mr.Horst.The Health Department has approved the proposal.Ms.Wagner referred to a letter submitted by the consultant on behalf of Mr.Horst that explained that the basis of the request was due to the existing intermittent rock which prohibits the septic area from being on the actual lot.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the offsite septic reserve area request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved. Cannon Ridge Administrative Water &Sewer Plan Amendment Mr.Lung stated that a request was received on behalf of the developer for Cannon Ridge,for an Administrative Amendment to the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan due to a discrepancy discovered while working with the Water and Sewer Department on the Cannon Ridge subdivision, formerly known as the Williams property.The current Water and Sewer Plan maps are based on the tax maps for Washington County.The subject property is located at the confluence of four tax maps.Two of the four tax maps are included in the Plan depicting the Keedysville service area.The entire subject property was not shown on the two maps in the Plan.The Town boundary,existing at the time of the 1994 Plan,does not match the current Water and Sewer service area boundary.The current Washington County Sewer Subdistrict boundary does not match the current Water and Sewerage Plan service area boundary.A portion of the Williams property that was not previously within the Town boundary,was annexed on January 2,1999 and given the Town zoning classification of Suburban Residential,which was based on the provision of public water and sewerage facilities.The Town of Keedysville provides the public water service to this area and the Town has granted a preiiminary subdivision approval for the development of this property.The Washington County Water and Sewer Department verified there is adequate capacity to serve the development.Staff believes there is the likelihood that a mapping error occurred when this area was originally mapped and believes this request would qualify as an Administrative Amendment to the Water and Sewer Plan,which would not require a formal public hearing. Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the Administrative Amendment to the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved. Shirley Sears-Phillipson Subdivision -Proposed Revision to Lot 4 Mr.Anikis advised the Board Members that the Planning Commission's decision made during the April regular meeting,to deny the revision to lot 4 of the Shirley Sears-Phillipson subdivision was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals by Ms.Cosner,the contract purchaser.Mr.Anikis requested to be present and testify at the hearing scheduled for May 14,2003.Members agreed that it would be beneficial to have a Planning Commission member present at the hearing,particularly Mr.Anikis who was present at the onsite inspection.Mr.Arch stated that a written response was forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding this matter,which stated that the Planning Commission had identified the location of the driveway through a site inspection. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Workshop Meeting Members discussed and agreed that the next workshop will be held on Wednesday,May 28,2003 at 3:00 p.m.to discuss zoning amendments. 158 -Previous Workshop on TORs Update Ms.Lampton,on behalf of the Board,thanked Mr.Seifarth for providing the information on TDRs and for his recent memorandum.She also stated that Carl DeMatteo of the State Farm Bureau has indicated that he would be willing to speak on TDRs at an upcoming workshop meeting. -Future Workshops Ms.Lampton stated she recently had spoken with Greg Larson of the Hagerstown/Washington County Regional Airport and suggested that a workshop be scheduled with airport personnel for information purposes. -Hearing Decision Request Mr.Ardinger requested that the Planning Commission members be notified via the e-mail system of the Board of County Commissioners'decisions on future rezoning matters. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Moser,seconded by Mr.Ernst,to adjourn at 8:24 p.m.Unanimously approved. (,I {c.\j~"'I-ll ..-f~bh'V Paula A.Lampton <r------ Chairperson 159 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -MAY 28,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,May 28,2003 at 3:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,George Anikis,Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C. Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro; Associate Planners,Jill L.Baker and Misty Wagner;GIS Coordinator,Bud Gudmundson,GIS Analyst, Jennifer Kinzer and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENT PROCESS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Mr.Arch stated that,prior to the adoption of the moratorium,the previous Board of County Commissioners had requested that the Planning Commission first review the rural area to amend the Zoning Ordinance in support of the Comprehensive Plan.As a part of the amendment process,there will also be amendments to the maps within the Comprehensive Plan.There will be changes to the current Land Use Plan to develop consistency between the zoning and the policy areas.There tends to be a 1:1 correspondence with the policy areas and the zoning classifications in the rural area.The consistency is based upon the direction given by the Board of County Commissioners to have the zoning districts be constrained by existing boundary lines,as much as possible.The proposed changes to the zoning map(s),zoning districts and some zoning definitions will be discussed with the Planning Commission to generate a document to present to the Board of County Commissioners.The Euclidean Zones located outside of the Urban Growth Area are Agricultural (A),Environmental Conservation (EC),Preservation (P),and Rural Village (RV).The Preservation (P)and Rural Village (RV)are new zones.The Industrial Mineral Overlay (1M)and the Rural Business Overlay (RB)are proposed as floating zones.Staff will also be addressing several other zones,which include the Historic Preservation Overlay (HP),Antietam Overlay (AO),Special Economic Development District (SEDD),and the Airport Overlay (APO).Inside the Urban Growth Area there will be a variety of zoning classifications associated with each policy area. After a draft document is prepared,4 to 5 public meetings will be scheduled in different sections of the County from approximately 9:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.The public meeting forum will permit the public to attend as their schedule permits.A series of maps will be displayed and Planning Staff members will be on hand to answer questions and obtain public comments.Though not required,the public meetings will be advertised by various means such as back page ads,County website,and on the local public access channels.Another workshop will be scheduled to discuss public comments and make any changes to the draft document for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.A joint public hearing will be tentatively held in late August or early September.After the public hearing and 10-day comment period,a recommendation will be made to the Board of County Commissioners.The goal is to have the amendments adopted by the end of October to coincide with the elimination of the current moratorium. The County Commissioners may decide to have multiple public hearings,which could delay the adoption of the amendments.Assuming the first set of amendments is adopted by the end of October,Staff will continue to work on amendments to the Urbanized Area and the procedural section of the Zoning Ordinance. ZONING MAPS Mr.Arch stated that there would be at least two new maps.One will be the draft Zoning Map,which will become the revised draft of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Area Map and another map will depict the approximate 164 existing rural businesses.The Policy Area map will not reflect the Rural Business zones because it is not a policy area. Mr.Gudmundson proVided an overview of the draft Zoning Map.He began by explaining that the starting point for the map was the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.In the Comprehensive Plan,the Agricultural,Environmental Conservation and Preservation Districts were conceptual areas based on topographic features.The boundary line between Agricultural and Environmental Conservation was defined by using environmental features such as slope,floodplain and wooded areas and not property lines.In this process,Staff reviewed tax maps for the areas where there was an edge and found the closest property line to follow.Staff also examined the parcels located within 40%to 60%of one area, and if it was at least 60%of one area it was automatically assigned to that classification.The Rural Villages,as a part of the Priority Funding Area study,were primarily defined by property boundaries; however,there was property boundaries split.Staff also looked at other factors such as whether or not there were Agricultural Preservation Districts and permanent easements,which helped to define some boundaries.The Preservation District area is mainly defined in the south county area,the Rural Legacy Area and also along the mountaintops of State or Federal government property.The Industrial Mineral areas are the same as defined in the current Zoning Ordinance,which includes the quarry operations that are ongoing.Most of the Rural Bu.siness areas are very small parcels;however,there are some larger ones depicted on the map such as Beaver Creek Goif Course,Yogi Bear Campground,and the Hagerstown Speedway.Mr.Gudmundson further explained the basis for initially determining the Rural Business areas.Staff reviewed the tax assessment database to identify if there was an active commercial use that was taxed commercially,industrially,or exempt commercial.The areas identified were mainly around the Hagerstown area,along the major arteries exiting Hagerstown,and some spotted areas around the County.A detailed list was derived with the property owner's name and the use that the Tax 161 around the County.A detailed list was derived with the property owner's name and the use that the Tax Assessment Office has assigned to it.In a few cases,only a portion of the property is used for commercial purposes,therefore Staff had to define what portion of the property had a commercial use on it by using aerial photographs.Staff is anticipating that when the map is presented to the public,property owners will provide the Staff with additional commercial uses in the rural area.Mr.Gudmundson noted one change to the Town of Boonsboro Growth Area where Staff is proposing to expand the Growth Area to include one parcel which is adjacent to the Town and the Town is willing to annex the property.Mr. Gudmundson explained that the Antietam Overlay,Airport Overlay and Industrial Mineral designations were transferred from the existing zoning map.The Historic Preservation is an overlay of the existing designation from the current Zoning Ordinance. TABLE -LAND USE REGULATIONS Mr.Arch stated that the Land Use Regulations table uses a new horizontal format that divides the zoning districts into six categories.The land uses are sub-headed into alphabetical order per the North American Index Classification System.The land uses are subject to change by the Planning Commission and recommendation from the Board of County Commissioners.Ms.Wagner provided an overview of the different land use categories as listed on the Table of Land Use Regulations.Discussion and questions followed on several of the land use categories including clarification on the housing category.Mr.Arch explained that a two-family dwelling is a side by side duplex or on different floors located on one property and a semi-detached unit is where the property line runs through the middle of the unit.Apartments and townhouses were not listed on the table because multiple family units are not permitted within the districts outside the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Arch also explained that the definition under the Housing category the "home,resident professional or business office"is viewed as an accessory use and describes the type of home business where there are no employees and no traffic.The "home,occupation"refers to where there are a limited number of employees,outside advertisements,and the potential for customers and where the use may have some affects on the neighborhood and would require a request for a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.Kercheval stated that the language under the Other Services category may be too vague for the description of "research laboratories dealing specifically in the field of agriculture"and suggested that the description be refined. ZONING DISTRICTS DEFINITIONS Ms.Baker explained that the Agricultural,Environment Conservation and Preservation districts definitions are basically the same except for the density requirements.She provided the following summaries for each definition as follows: Agricultural (A) The Agricultural District is essentially the same definition as the current Ag District.The new density requirement is one dwelling unit per every five acres of land owned,as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.The minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet and the lot width is 100 feet at the building front setback line to eliminate some odd configurations.The setbacks have also been modified to reflect a 40'front yard,10'side and 10'rear yard.The height was increased to 40'.The non-residential lots (I.e.schools,churches,daycare,etc.),that have their own special minimal lot sizes will remain as listed in the Ordinance.Under Special Provisions,a development adjacent to existing Industrial Mineral shall have a setback of 200'from all shared property lines and development adjacent to existing agricultural preservation easements shall have a setback of 100'from all shared property lines.The setbacks were established in an attempt to eliminate incompatible uses. Environment Conservation (EC) The Environment Conservation District is primarily the same as the Agricultural District with the exception of the density requirements of one dwelling unit per twenty acres of land owned. Preservation (P) Ms.Baker explained that the Preservation District is new and its purpose is to prescribe a zoning category for those areas where,because of natural geographic factors,and existing land uses,it is desirable to conserve open spaces.This District includes the designated Rural Legacy Area,federal lands, state wildlife areas,Edgemont Watershed,C &0 Canal,Potomac River,etc.The density requirements will be one dwelling unit per thirty acres of land owned. Discussion followed on the proposed 100'setback of development adjacent to existing agricultural easements and whether the definition should also include all designated Ag land.Ms.Baker explained that there were two main reasons for the decision to use higher setbacks only on adjacent permanent preservation easements.The first reason is because Ag districts have the option to not stay in the program after ten years,and unprotected easements can subdivide anytime they want,it did not make sense to penalize one property owner with a 100'setback if the possibility could arise that the adjacent property owner could also subdivide and only have a 10'setback.The second reason for not imposing setbacks on all Ag operations is the difficulty in defining what is an Ag operation.It is difficult to identify these areas due to the various uses and property sizes that can be associated with different operations. Mr.Clopper stated that,in the past,the Planning Commission has requested buffers against Ag land that was not in an Ag easement and believes that a 100'setback would provide more protection for the existing farm operations.Mr.Arch stated that Staff would review and may consider adding to the definition a setback of 50'from an active Ag operation. i-62 Industrial Mineral (1M) Mr.Lung explained that there were some changes made to the text of the 1M District to implement the recommendations within the new Comprehensive Plan and to also update the Ordinance and bring it more inline with the State's Planning Act. Mr.Lung summarized the text of the 1M district,which included the following changes,recommended to the definition under Section 15.2 -Establishing a New 1M District: (I)The Applicant shall provide more information on the effect of a mineral extraction operation on the groundwater supply and the determination of a Zone of Dewatering Influence. (J)The Applicant shall provide a contingency plan for well replacement whenever a public water supply,well or spring,or private water supply is within the Zone of Influence (K)The Applicant shall provide reclamation plan at the time of the rezoning application.So the public and elected officials are aware of what the site will look like when the mining is done. Also,changes were recommended to Section 15.4 -Performance Standards for Site Plan Review: (a)A person engaging in mineral extraction activities shall locate and conduct those activities on the site in a way that minimizes visual,auditory and other sensory effects on surrounding property owners. (b)Extraction operations shall be restricted to the hours of operation and also providing a means for modifying those hours of operation when there is a special project that requires continuous operation. (d)A thirty foot setback has been established around the property line where there cannot be any disturbance and only a security fence and any required screen planting can be located within the 30'area. (f)Screen planting shall be required where mineral extraction and related activities are visible from adjacent residential,commercial or industrial structures,or any public road. (h)A fence shall surround mineral extraction areas no less than eight feet in height designed to restrict unauthorized entry into the site. Mr.Lung also noted that it is recommended that an additional setback of 200'be established for new development to existing 1M districts. Mr.Moser questioned item (e)under Section 15.4,which states that an extraction operation shall be confined to areas of a minimum of 100'from all adjoining property lines.Mr.Lung explained that,as a part of the State's guidelines,the County should be trying to protect existing 1M districts from encroachment.Mr.Moser suggested implementing a 200'setback on the mining side from existing development.Mr.Lung stated that the existing quarry operations would have an opportunity to voice their opinion on the revised definition during upcoming meetings and at the public hearing. Rural Village (RV) Mr.Goodrich explained that the Rural Village is a new zone that came into existence because of the Priority Funding Areas.The Rurai Villages were listed in the Comprehensive Plan,and later the boundaries were defined for each village.Staff has created a zoning district to correspond with the boundaries to regulate development.The purpose states that the Rural Village designation is provided to preserve the unique historic or rural character of existing villages by encouraging compatible development within a defined village boundary.It also identifies clusters of existing development that may not have historic character but set the stage if public services are needed in the future.The district allows for in-fill development in the Rural Villages,which will be compatible with the existing development. The uses were defined on the Table of Land Uses,as previously discussed.The non-residential or commercial activities are very limited in a RV district.The dimensional requirements are broken down by residential uses,non-residential uses,and mixed uses as outlined on the proposed definition.Mr. Goodrich explained that there are special amenities in some of the Rural Viilages that are not generally found in the rural area such as sidewalks,streetlights,etc.Under the Special Provisions,it states that if 50%or more of the existing parcels within the boundary of the Rural Village contain special amenities and the amenity exists on anyone adjacent parcei,new development shall provide continuation of the amenity.The final item is Architecturai Review,which is another way to maintain the character of the Rural Village.The Rural Villages are proposed to be have been segmented into three levels of review in an attempt to gain compatibility with physical appearance and density.Some Rural Villages have an inner core that has already been identified in the County's Historic Sites Inventory and new development in this area is subject to review by the Historic District Commission and their adopted guidelines,which will be further amended in the near future.The second area contains the sites within the Rural Village that are not identified in the Historic Site Inventory,which are proposed to be subject to architectural review by the Planning Commission using specified guidelines.The third area is outside of the Rural Village,but within 1,000'of the district boundary,where any new development will be subject to review by the Planning Commission to determine or adjust density and location.The Planning Commission may approve 163 increased or decreased densities to improve compatibility between the true rural area and the Rural Village. Members discussed and expressed reservation about the idea of the Planning Commission determining the compatibility and reviewing the exterior appearance of the specified Rural Village area and the area 1,000'outside the Rural Village district.Mr.Arch stated that the bulk of the reviews would occur in the inner core area by the Historic District Commission and he did not foresee many reviews outside of that area.Mr.Goodrich stated that out of the approximate forty Rural Villages there are only 10 to 12 areas that have historic sites identified.Mr.Goodrich stated that he plans to have a map that will identify the historic areas versus the areas in the village not identified.Mr.Ernst requested that the areas in the inner core of the Rural Village subject to potential development also be identified on the map. -Rural Business (RB)(New) Mr.Arch stated that the Rural Business,as drafted,is an overlay district established as a "floating zone" which may be located on any district outside of the Urban Growth Area.A procedure,similar to the PUD process,will have to occur for any existing business that has a change in its use.Mr.Arch expiained the criteria where a Rural Business District may be established,as outlined in the definition.This zone should not be an area that generates tremendous number of businesses and it should have businesses that support the residential or agricultural community.As a part of the criteria,businesses existing at the time of adoption of the new regulations and are designated as Rural Business Districts on the Zoning Map,need not take any action for continued operation.Mr.Arch stated that Staff would work with any existing business that may have been overlooked,if the owner can provide appropriate documentation. The uses permitted in a Rural Business District are outlined on the Table of Uses,as previously discussed.Mr.Arch reviewed the procedure for the creation of a RB District,which will require the owner to present an application to the Board of Commissioners to designate the property with a RB floating zone designation.Applications will be reviewed at the quarterly rezoning public hearings.Upon conclusion of the public testimony or within a specified time period after the public hearing,the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners,based on the criteria outlined in the definition.The Board of County Commissioners will either approve or deny the request.If approved, minor modifications to an approved use or an accessory use to an approved use may be approved by the Planning Commission without the need for a public hearing.The existing rural businesses designated as such by the County through a Comprehensive Rezoning process shall have all the rights as if approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the process for creation of a RB District;however, changes to an existing use shall require submission of an application for creation of a RB District.There are no special exception uses in a RB District and uses except under Section 5-E are estabiished through the rezoning application process. Discussion followed on potential difficulties with processing RB Districts when tenants frequently change and the quarterly rezoning process may delay business operations.Mr.Ernst stated that 90%of the jobs created in the economy comes from small business operations and the proposed process may be more detrimental to the business community.Mr.Ardinger stated that there may be a potential loss of property owner's value because an owner may be unable to sell a commercial property,even after going through rezoning process several times to change the business use.Members discussed their concerns and suggested that perhaps "minor"and "major"types of business use changes could be defined and suggested that in some cases the request could be handled through the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr. Arch stated that the Rural Business District could be designated as an Euclidean Zone,rather than an Overlay Zone.Other options would be viewing businesses as existing versus a new business,or establishing certain criteria for existing businesses such as trip generation,square footage,etc.to establish whether the applicant would need to go through the rezoning process for a business use change.Currently,there are approximately 164 businesses identified and more will be identified throughout the public meetings and public hearing.Staff stated that new and different business uses might have an impact on the infrastructure,road network and on the neighboring property owners and need to be identified. CLOSING REMARKS Mr.Arch stated that the Staff would review and discuss the thoughts and ideas discussed during the workshop to continue their work on a draft document. FUTURE WORKSHOP MEETING A second workshop with the Planning Commission will be held in June at a date to be determined. ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. pat~~a~t~h Chairperson 164 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -June 2,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 2,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson, Robert Ernst II,Vice-Chairman,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K. Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr.Ernst made a motion to nominate Paula Lampton as Chairperson of the Pianning Commission. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst moved to close the nomination.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to nominate Bob Ernst as Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Clopper moved to close the nomination.Seconded by Mr. Anikis.So ordered. MINUTES Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of April 7,2003,as presented. Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. 'Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of May 5,2003,as presented. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS •SUBDIVISIONS: Hunters Green Business Park II,Lots 1 &2,Parcels A,B &C Mr.Arch presented for review and approval a preliminary/final plat for the Hunters Green Business Park II.The property is located on the north and south side of Halfway Boulevard and is zoned HI-1.The total tract of land is 138.56 acres.The property consists of five parcels with the two lots proposed for industrial development (Lots 1 &2),and three simplified parcels not for development purposes.Lot 1 is 86.21 acres and Lot 2 is 12.09 acres.The lots will access Halfway Boulevard.The proposed plan includes the extension of Halfway Boulevard to the intersection of the proposed Newgate Boulevard and the construction of a portion of Newgate Boulevard by the developer.Tiger Development is the contract purchaser for the proposed subdivision.The Planning Commission previously approved the forest conversation plan for onsite mitigation.The plan has been revised to include the additional mitigation for the added Lot 2.A total of 25.44 acres of onsite forest will be retained.The existing public water lines will serve the proposed lots.The developer will construct the sewer lines to extend public sewer service to the site.The reviewing agencies have either approved the plan or have issued comments.The Engineering Department and the Washington County Water and Sewer Department have requested construction drawings.The Washington County Soil Conservation District has granted a conditional approval and will review the final plan with soil types before granting final approval.The Washington County Address Technician requested the omission of "Extension"from the Halfway Boulevard label and requested that Newgate Boulevard be identified on the plan.The Hagerstown Water Department submitted no comments on the plat,however,their approval is anticipated as the City's Annexation Committee recently reviewed the plan.Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat and the revised forest conservation plan,as presented and contingent upon receipt of all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved . •SITE PLANS: Hagerstown Block Company Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan and forest conservation plan for Hagerstown Block Company.The subject site is located on the west side of Hump Road and is zoned Industrial Mineral. The site is presently used as a mineral base manufacturing business with a ready-mix concrete plant, maintenance garage,and grinder building.The owner proposes the construction of a block manufacturing building.There are 11 empioyees'currently onsite and 11 additional employees are proposed.Hours of operation will be 5:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday and 5:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m.on Saturday. No designated parking areas are proposed and ample parking is provided for the few employees that remain onsite during the day.The existing sanitary subsurface system will be used and no new facilities are proposed.The water system is pumped from the quarry.There is an existing dumpster located adjacent to the maintenance garage.The proposed truck traffic will generate 12 to 14 trips per day. 165 Lights will be building mounted on the new manufacturing building.No new signage is proposed.Forest conservation requirements wiil be met by retaining 3.8 acres of forest ensite. Ail reviewing agencies have either approved the plan or have issued comments and the only Issue remaining is the necessity of water ensite for fire protection purposes.Mr.Cump,the consultant,of Gerald Cump &Associates stated that the owner has met with the Halfway Fire Department and a fire hydrant will be installed to draw water directly from the quarry.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant site plan approval subject to the resolution of the water issue with the Halfway Fire Department,and approval of the forest conservation plan. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. Thomas &Sharon Lacy I Fairview Pet Kennels Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for Fairview Pet Kennels owned by Thomas and Sharon Lacy.The subject site is located on the south side of Fairview Road.The total lot area is 8 acres.The property is zoned Agricultural.Hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m.to 10:30 a.m.and 4:30 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m.to 10:30 a.m.on Saturdays.The kennel employs one fuil-time and two part-time employees and no additional employees are proposed.An existing 30'x 45'structure with kennel runs currently serves the business.The plan proposes the expansion of the kennel area by adding a 42'x 80'building to the rear of the existing building and some additional runs on either side of the building.The site is serviced by onsite weil and septic.An existing ensite dumpster wiil accommodate the solid waste and any animal waste produced on the site.Landscaping will consist of existing and additional Leyland cypress trees planted around the site and deciduous trees planted within the runs to provide shade for the animals.The property is exempt from forest conservation requirements because it was an existing lot of record prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Five parking spaces are provided and no additional spaces are proposed.Due to the increase of the operation,Staff questioned whether the existing parking would be adequate for the expansion.There are no parking guidelines established for this type of operation.The applicant has proposed that any overfiow parking wiil be on the grassy area surrounding the existing macadam.All reviewing agencies have either approved the plan or have issued comments.Mr.Anikis questioned if there were any requirements for the size of a kennel versus the number of animals boarded.Mr.Arch stated that there is an established point when an operation becomes a kennel and the Human Society becomes involved with the operation.Ms.Baker stated that the expansion of the Fairview Pet Kennels would increase the number of animals from 20 to a maximum of 80.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval, contingent upon agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. The Good Shepherd Ministries Mr.Lung presented for approval a site plan for The Good Shepherd Ministries.The pian proposes the construction of a new church on 13 acres.The property is located at the intersection of Long Meadow Road and Leitersburg Pike and is zoned Business Local.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception in September 2002 for the proposed use.The proposed structure will be 100'x 80'and 33'in height.Based upon the proposed sanctuary capacity of 400 people,88 parking spaces are provided, which exceeds the reqUirement of 80 spaces.The proposed entrance will access Long Meadow Road. Accel/decel and bypass lane improvements to Long Meadow Road wiil be required.An extensive on site stormwater management facility will consist of a pond and bio-retention area.Public water from the City of Hagerstown and an onsite septic system will service the site.The hours of operation will be 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.on Sundays,and 6:00 p.m.to 9:30 p.m.on Tuesdays.The pastor's office will be open daily from 9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.All revieWing agencies have either approved the plan or have issued comments.Technical comments submitted by the Planning Department,the Permits &Inspections Department,and State Highway Administration need to be addressed.The Planning Department is also awaiting the overall landscaping plan for the project.The property is exempt from forest conservation requirements because it was an existing lot of record prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Discussion followed on the future improvements to the intersection of Long Meadow Road and Leitersburg Pike.Mr.Holsinger,the consultant,of Civil Pianning &Design explained that the developer has been working with the State Highway Administration on the necessary improvements.He further stated that a 40'right-of-way width was given by the church for the proposed acceildecel and bypass improvements to Long Meadow Road and that the proposed improvements were programmed to provide adequate macadam width for a future right turn lane and traffic signal.Discussion followed on the possibility of headlight glare from the church parking iot onto Long Meadow Road.Mr.Holsinger stated that the property is approximately 4'higher and that the headlights should be over the traffic line on Long Meadow Road,but that concern would be taken into consideration when developing the final iandscaping plan.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon the outstanding agency approvals,including the submission and review of the final landscaping plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser. Unanimously approved. Bethel United Methodist Church Mr.Lung presented for approval a site plan for Bethei United Methodist Church.The subject site is located on the north side of Twin Springs Drive,west of the village of Chewsville.The totai lot area is 1.6 acres.The property is zoned Residential Rural.The plan proposes the construction of a '80'x 100" addition located behind the existing sanctuary.The new addition will serve as a fellowship and recreation hall.Additional parking will be 'provided,although not required per the Zoning Ordinance since the sanctuary capacity is not increasing.The daily hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.The site will be served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and an onsite septic system with sand mound. A stormwater bio-retention pond will accommodate runoff from the site.Additional landscaping is provided between the new parking lot and the adjacent property line.Staff has concerns about the sufficiency of the proposed landscaping to provide an adequate screen from headlight glare onto the adjacent dwelling.The developer plans to provide another styie of light fixture on the back of the addition 166 to provide adequate shielding from glare rather than the standard wall pack light.Planning Commission Members requested that additionai landscaping be added to provide more screening at the property line. Mr.Seville,the consultant,of Antietam Design stated that the church would agree to add additional landscaping.All reviewing agencies have either approved the plan or have issued comments.Revisions to the plan were submitted to address the Permits &Inspections Department's comments.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon additional landscaping being added along the rear property line to provide screening for the adjacent dwelling.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Louise H.Keuper Ms.Pietro stated that a preliminary consultation was held for Louise H.Keuper on April 24,2003 to discuss the creation of 20 single-family lots ranging in size from 1.2 to 11 acres.The property is located on the west side of Chewsville-Leitersburg Road (Maryland Route 62).The total site acreage is 98 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural.Ms.Pietro provided a brief overview of the agency comments submitted on the proposed concept plan.The Engineering Department stated that the development must comply with the County's stormwater management regulations.The proposed street will be classified as a local street.Lot 22 and Lot 2 shall access the proposed street and not Maryland Route 62.The Health Department commented that the onsite testing would follow the Onsite Sewage Disposal Ordinance and that the restricted solis would be tested during the restricted soil season.The State Highway Administration stated that the intersection and the stopping sight distance requirements were not met on Maryland Route 62.During the consultation,it was discussed that the access point could be moved 130' to the left to obtain the necessary sight distance,which may require the owner to approach the neighbors to purchase a right of way or additional land.Accel/decel lanes and a hydraulic review will be required. The owner plans to retain forest onsite to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the new Comprehensive Plan.Ms.Lampton questioned the comment by the Engineering Department regarding the closed contour on lot 20 being a possible sinkhole.Mr.Frederick,the consultant,of Frederick,Seibert &Associates stated that it is unknown if a 'sinkhole exists on the property and that a field verification would be done.No action required. Richard and Elizabeth Bowers Ms.Baker stated that a preliminary consultation was held for Richard and Elizabeth Bowers on May 6, 2003 for lots 10 through 12 located off the south side of Benevola Newcomer Road.The property is zoned Agricultural.The site is exempt from forest conservation mitigation,per the immediate family member provision.The proposed lots are approximately 3 acres in size and are situated to the rear of the property,approximately 1,800'from the road.Since the consultation,the immediate family member issue was resolved and lot 12 will be conveyed to Mr.Bower's wife.Mr.Frederick,the consultant,of Frederick Seibert &Associates stated that Mr.Bowers has a considerable amount of remaining lands and does not want the statement "no future subdivision occur on the property"being placed on the plat,as discussed during the consultation.Ms.Baker stated that it was discussed that with the APFO exemption provided by the immediate family member provision,there are now 12 lots situated off of an inadequate road.Staff would look closely at any further subdivision of the property and would recommend that no future subdivision would occur,unless improvements are made by way of a public street or by widening the road.Mr.Frederick stated that the previous lots were subdivided in 1973 and have remained in the family and that Mr.Bowers understands that APFO requirements could apply,if any additional subdivision occurs.No action required. Westfields (formerly SI.James Park) A preliminary consultation was held for Weslfields,formerly known as St James Park and Rockland,on May 8,2003.The new consultation was a condition of the Planning Commission's approval to remove the golf course and retain the clustering concept for the development that has been under review since 1990.Mr.Goodrich reviewed the history of the project saying that the initial preliminary consultation was held in 1990 when the project was known as Rockland.Phase I was exempted from the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance and the remainder was granted a variance to reduce the mitigation requirements to that which was planned as part of the golf course.The development was permitted to use clustering provisions,which reduced the lot sizes and setbacks and reqUired that the difference be dedicated to open space.Phase I received final approval from the Planning Commission but the plats were not signed due to outstanding issues.Preliminary approval was also given for Phase 2 and Phase 3,which has since expired.During this time,the number of lots has fluctuated from 731 lots in 1992,to 712 lots in 1993,and in 1996 there were 773 lots.The most recent preliminary consultation proposed 773 lots. In March 2003,when the developer requested permission to remove the proposed golf course from the development plan and reconfigure the lots,the Planning Commission approved continued use of the cluster provisions but eliminated the forest conservation variance.The Planning Commission withheld any approvals for Phase I until the results of a latest preliminary consultation was reviewed.The Planning Commission wanted a comparison'between the old and new proposals.The consultant had indicated that the road in Phase I would be exactly the same as originally approved and Mr.Goodrich confirmed that statement.The previous concept plan proposed 74 single-family lots for Phase I,the new plan has 75 lots with a mixture of single-family and semi-detached units.The lot layout is slightly different.Mr. Goodrich presented the new concept draWing with the old road network overlaid shoWing a significant difference in the road layout.A letter from Jedd Beall,the consultant,of Davis,Renn &Associates,was 167 distributed to the Planning Commission members.The letter outlines the issues discussed at the consultation and the developer agreement to address all of the concerns. Mr.Goodrich highlighted the agency comments on the new proposed plan.The Engineering Department offered their typical comments on the road and stormwater standards.Their major concern was the proposed use of a monumental entrance and the fact that the County would not own or maintain a monumental entrance or the proposed sidewalks,which will be the responsibility of the homeowners association.The developer agreed to provide a pedestrian system throughout the development.There will be a minimum of two off street parking spaces for each unit.The Water and Sewer Department cited no major obstacles and confirmed that a pumping station was constructed several years ago to serve the development and some sewer lines have already been constructed through a portion of the development. The comments from the City's Water Department regarding the water line and the City's Annexation Policy have been addressed and the developer has agreed to sign an annexation agreement. Dennis McGee,the Facilities Manager of the Washington County Public Schools presented information about the public schools that serve this area,particularly at Emma K.Doub Elementary and South Hagerstown High.It is projected that in the 2007-2008 school year that both schools would be at or over 100%of their capacity.He also provided data and projections pertaining to school enrollments in the county to support his concern that a development of this size would have some affect on area schools. The fact that the APFO no longer exempts residential development in the Urban Growth Area was reiterated.The developer was asked to donate a site within the development for a school.The consultant acknowledged that the developer was aware of the request,but it was not reflected on the plan because it was already submitted for review.Mr.MacGillivray explained that during a recent meeting to discuss potential school locations,Mr.McGee expressed an interest in a site within the development, which would require the developer to relocate an amenity and reconfigure some lots.The developer has agreed to consider the request.Though it may be more preferential to have the school site along Sharpsburg Pike,there Is a substantial water line and sewage force main that bisects the road frontage that would involve significant costs to relocate the lines.Mr.Arch stated that the request was not a mandate,but more open space is proposed than required,therefore,it was worthwhile to investigate the .possibility that some of the excess open space could be used for a school site. Some concern was expressed for the effect on infrastructure in the development if a school was located there.Mr.Kercheval stated there are other school locations in the county that are accessed by traveling through a developed area such as Hickory and Greenbrier Elementary schools.Mr.Arch added that Washington County Public Schools does not have a problem with a school location being inside the development.Mr.Arch explained that if the acreage is donated,there is no immediate plan to build a school,but given the development activity in this general area,this site is a strong candidate for a school. The County could work out an agreement with the developer to preserve the land and if it were not utilized within an established timeframe,it would be returned to the developer.The developer stated that he has had experience with schools being located inside developments and the schools become community centers and that elementary schools co-habitat well with developments.He also stated that having a school in the development would incur some traffic into the community,but the access road is designed as a major collector road and he did not see the extra school traffic as an issue.Members discussed the other potential developments proposed in this general area and the need to have the developers contribute fairly and that more discussion is needed on the school capacity issue.There will be separate meetings and discussions on the school issue with the developer,the Board of Education, and representatives of the Planning Department. The State Highway Administration provided technical information,as outlined in the summary.A new traffic study was completed early this year and the improvements will be made to accommodate the results of the traffic study.The study will be applicable for up to five years or 500 lots.During each phase of the development,a signal warrant analysis will be completed to determine when the proposed traffic signal would be installed at the main monumental entrance.Ms.Lampton questioned if a third entrance to the development was a possibility.Mr.Goodrich stated that in the history of the proposed development,an entrance was proposed off of Maryland Route 68,but as the plan progressed,the location was not ideal to serve a large development.The developer will provide an updated Forest Stand Delineation and mitigate for the entire acreage.Staff commented and the Planning Commission agreed that additional recreation areas were needed on the fringes of the development.Mr.MacGillivray provided a phasing schedule for the proposed amenities,which ties the construction of amenities to a certain unit count in the community.He further stated that they would add two more ball fields to the list of amenities. The building setbacks were discussed and the consultant provided a analysis of the proposed setbacks to show that,even though the developer is requesting setbacks that are less than those in the Residential Suburban District,the analysis is to show the amount of open space between the buildings using the setbacks that they are requesting.The plan proposes 663 single-family units and 110 semi-detached units.The 110 semi-detached single-family units will be on 40'wide lots.There will be 327 -80'wide lots for single-family units,172 -65'wide lots for single-family units,101 -100'wide lots for single family units, and 63 -55'wide lots for single-family units aimed at active adults.The housing mix will provide diversity of families in the community and will range in price from $170,000 or less for the duplex units and up to $350,000 for the other units.Mr.MacGillivray stated that the duplex units will be approximately 1,400 square feet and the single-family units will vary given the different lot widths.Mr.Moser asked about the special taxing district and Mr.Arch said that it had expired.Mr.Arch asked the developer to give some consideration for screening along Maryland Route 65.The developer agreed and stated that they do plan to provide a screen along the road. 168 The Historic District Commission (HOC)reviewed the preliminary consultation and recommended that the remaining buildings be preserved.Mr.Goodrich provided photographs of the existing farm structures that are identified in the Historic Sites Inventory for the Planning Commission to review.There are other old buildings on the property that are not listed in the historic inventory.Members questioned the recommendation to retain the existing structures given the conditions portrayed in the photos.Mr. Goodrich stated that the HOC recommended that the structures be retained,rehabbed and reused is a common recommendation.Agricultural buildings are characteristic of Washington County's rural landscape and architectural heritage.The Historic District Commission often recommends retention to preserve the rural character even in new development.There is also an old cemetery located on the property that will be fenced and provided with a plaque listing the names of those buried within.The homeowners association would maintain the area.Mr.Anikis also recommended that the cupolas on the barn be saved.Mr.MacGillivray stated that they had planned to keep the cupolas and incorporate them into the design of the new clubhouse or consider donating the cupolas to the Ag Museum as an alternative. Mr.Goodrich stated that without further comments or adjustment from the Planning Commission,the proposed setbacks shown on the concept plan would be considered as approved.No other action was required. -FOREST CONSERVATION: Cannon Ridge -Natural Regeneration Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a revised conservation plan for Cannon Ridge.The property is located within the Town of Keedysville.The Planning Commission previously reviewed the forest conservation plan on two different occasions and approved offsite retention,which consisted of four different areas located on the same parcel,with the caveat that a Forest Stand Delineation be completed with an approved forest conservation plan.The total mitigation needed for the project was originally 8.82 acres;however,the developer proffered and the Planning Commission accepted offsite mitigation at a 2:1 ratio,bringing the total required mitigation to 17.64 acres.The area was delineated and 16.53 acres met ·the definition of a forest per the Ordinance.The developer is requesting that the remaining 1.06 acres be mitigated by natural mitigation on an area not adjacent to the onsite retention areas,but on the same parcel.The natural regeneration option is low on the priority sequence list.The proposed natural regeneration location was field verified by Bill Stachoviak,Park and Environmental Planner for the County,as being the best site for natural regeneration mitigation and with a few years of good growth the proposed location will eventually meet the definition of a forest.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the revised conservation plan for Cannon Ridge.Mr.Ernst seconded the motion.Unanimously approved. Kelly Family Trust -Onsite Retention Mr.Lung presented for review and approval an offsite forest retention request to meet the forest conservation requirements for a proposed four lot residential subdivision.The site is located along west side of Mt.Briar Road,approximately 1,000'south of Dogstreet Road.The Kelly Family Trust has submitted the preliminary/final plat for a four-lot subdivision on 14.33 acres.The property is zoned Conservation.A Forest Stand Delineation showed neither existing forest nor environmentally sensitive areas on the site;however,there were some areas of existing tree cover,but they do not qualify as forest. The amount of forest conservation required for the subdivision is 2.67 acres.The applicant has submitted a request to the Planning Commission to retain existing forest offsite to meet the mitigation obligation. The area proposed for retention is located on a nearby parcel to the south.The Forest Stand Delineation confirmed there was 13.5 acres of existing forest and the applicant is proposing to place an easement on 2.67 acres of forest on the parcel.The priority of the Forest Conservation Ordinance is to retain forest on site or by planting onsite and it is the applicant's responsibility to state why they cannot provide onsite mitigation.The letter submitted by the consultant,Fox &Associates,Inc.did not state the reason for the request,but stated,"In my opinion,the retention of existing healthy forest be a priority over the required planting of 2.67 acres.The area of subdivision has no priority areas on site and would impede the flow of the subdivision.There is no obvious area to do onsite planting without disturbing the lots.The area of proposed retention has some steep slopes and a stream runs through the area.Retaining the stream buffer and steep slopes makes this a high priority area."Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider,in revieWing this request,that onsite planting does have a higher priority than offsite and that the applicant must prove why forest conservation cannot be done onsite.Allhough there are no environmentally sensitive areas on the site,there are several tree lines that could by supplemented by plantings to meet the qualification of a forest and a 35'minimum width is needed to qualify.Also,while there may be a priority area on the site to the south,it is unlikely that the site would be cleared because of the steep slopes and stream buffer requirements.As mentioned on the previous application,the developer had proffered replacement mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for offsite retention.Mr.Townsiey,the consultant,Fox &Associates,Inc.explained there is a stream located on the property owned by the Kelly's across Mt.Brair Road and there is an intermittent stream shown on the tax map in the proposed retention area.He also explained that both properties are a part of the same tax parcel owned by the Kelly's and in his opinion should be considered as onsite.He further explained that the reasons for the request were the difficulties experienced in obtaining percs on the lots and that there were no priority areas on the lots.The tree lines are not well defined and supplementai plantings would impact the amount of buildable area on the lots.Mr.Townsley stated that the Kelly's would not object to increase the forest retention at a 2:1 ratio,which would increase the offsite retention area to 5.34 acres.Dave Wilkerson,representing the Kelly's,confirmed they would agree to mitigate at the 2:1 ratio and that their intent is to preserve the wooded area.Mr.Townsley added that with the new Comprehensive Plan,he does not foresee the property being deveioped where the offsite easement would be.Mr.Clopper made a 169 motion to approve the offsite retention request for the Kelly Family Trust accepting the proffer for 2:1 mitigation and that the additional mitigation would be guided by Staff's approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ernst,Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Ardinger and Ms.Lampton voted "aye"and Mr.Moser and Mr. Anikis voted "nay."Discussion followed and a request was made that the owner would maintain the existing tree lines on the four-lot subdivision.Mr.Clopper amended the motion to add,as a request to the developer,to maintain the tree lines on the sides of the proposed four-lot subdivision and that a note be placed on the plat.Mr.Townsley and Mr.Wilkerson agreed to add a note to the plat to maintain the tree line as a buffer on the two sides;however,not along Mt.Briar Road.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS South Pointe PUD -Setback Modification Mr.Arch presented a request for setback modification for South Point PUD,as presented in a letter from Paul N.Crampton,Jr.Mr.Crampton was in attendance and further explained the request.In the past,if there was an irregular lot shape or open space area that needed a right of way onto a lot and the PUD setback requirements could not be met as defined in the Ordinance,the matter went before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance request.Per his conversation with Randy Dick,Deputy Director of the Permits Office,the Board of Zoning Appeals does not rule on such requests since the South Pointe development is a PUD.Over the last ten years,the Board of Zoning Appeals has ruled on approximately 14 cases for South Pointe,although setback changes should go before the Planning Commission.Mr. Crampton further explained that there is a large swail on the property,which encompasses a 60'to 80' right of way through the South Pointe PUD development that transverses the water from the south and west end of Hagerstown to the Antietam Creek.In the right of way area,the rear yards were keep to a minimum of 40'and is where most of the requests for a rear yard reduction occurs,because of the size of the open space is in this particular area.The request presented is to reduce the rear yard setback from 40'to 26'in the single-family units and 20'to 13'for the townhouses in the right of way area.The rear yard setback will always abut open space and the reduction would only be applicable to a small number of units.Mr.Crampton stated that,upon his initial review,he would only permit this request to occur,if the easement area is located on the main artery of the drainage system in the open space environment or .if there is an irregular shaped lot.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the setback modification request.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Shirley Sears-Phillipson Subdivision Proposed Revision to Lot 4 Mr.Anikis advised the Board Members that the Cosner's withdrew their appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Retirement -Paul Prodonovich,Permits Director Mr.Arch informed the Planning Commission that the Permits Director,Mr.Prodonovich,would be retiring at the end of June after 30+years of service. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Workshop Meeting Members discussed and agreed that the next workshop will be held on June 9 at 3:00 p.m.to continue the discussions on the proposed zoning amendments.There will be no quarterly rezoning hearing in June.Members discussed and agreed that the another workshop will be held on June 16 at 3:00 p.m. with Carl Dematto of the State Farm Bureau to discuss TORs.The Ag Board will also be invited to attend. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Ardinger,seconded by Mr.Ernst, to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.Unanimously approved. p£~~a~--------- Chairperson 170 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JUNE 9,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,June 9,2003 at 3:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,George Anikis,Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C. Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Pianners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro; Associate Planners,Jili L.Baker and Misty Wagner;GIS Coordinator,Bud Gudmundson,Eric Seifarth, Farmland Preservation Administrator and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CONTINUATION OF THE AMENDMENT PROCESS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Mr.Arch stated that the Staff had followed up on the discussion and recommendations provided by the Planning Commission from the previous workshop and had made the following changes: -ZONING MAP Mr.Arch stated that the Staff continues to refine the Rural Business Map and is in the process of reviewing the speciai exception and non-conforming use information.The map will be a work in progress untii the final adoption. -ZONING DISTRICTS DEFINITIONS •Rural Village (RVl Mr.Goodrich provided a copy of the revised proposed text of the district.Changes as a result of review ·during the May workshop were highlighted as follows: -Non-Residential Uses Under the front setback,required parking may be permitted in the front setback,however parking may not consume more than 60%of the front yard area. -Architectural Review The Historic District Commission will perform the architectural review in Rural Villages that have already been surveyed and listed in the Historic Sites Inventory using the same guidelines used now for review in Historic Preservation zones.Building permits for additions to existing buildings or new construction will prompt the review.Buildings of 100 square feet or less are exempted.As other Rural Villages are surveyed to identify historic structures,these sites will also be subject to Historic District Commission architectural review,but only after a public hearing during which the affected property owners have had the opportunity for public comment. -Cluster Provision New development utilizing cluster design guidelines located outside of the Rural Village but within 1,000 feet of the district boundary shall be subject to Planning Commission review and may require placement of clustered lots adjacent to the boundary of the Rural Village district.Staff anticipates this review will occur at the preliminary consultation stage. Discussion followed on the changes to the Rural Village District.Mr.Anikis questioned if the public will be made aware that there are already certain villages identified,so those residents will understand this is their opportunity to provide public comment.Mr.Goodrich stated that the public would be notified by some method,however,the individual villages will not be listed in the Ordinance because the areas will change over time.Mr.Anikis also discussed his concerns on the wording of the Rural Village Purpose referring to permitted development to be generally of a similar density,scale and use type and mixture as that which exists in the village.He explained his concern with the wording and how it would apply where there are two separate densities,particularly in the Tilghmanton area.Mr.Ardinger suggested that Mr. Anikis draft the wording to address his concerns that could be written as a guideline for the members to discuss further at the next meeting.Mr.Goodrich stated that decisions made by the Historic District Commission could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals.He further stated that in the near future the HOC would have new design guidelines that will be developed specifically for Washington County. •Agricultural IAl The Planning Commission had discussed at length the proposed setbacks in the Ag District,particularly when new development is adjacent to agricultural property.Mr.Clopper had suggested that the setback be increased to 50'to provide additional protection for the active farm. -Residential Lot Size and Bulk Dimensions As a standard,the Ag side yard setback was increased to 15',which is equivalent to the agricultural setback now for side yards. -Special Provisions 1)New development adjacent to an existing permanent agricultural preservation easement shall have a setback of 100'from all shared property lines. 2)New development adjacent to existing 10-year agricultural districts shall have a setback of 50' from all shared property lines. 171 Discussion followed on how to define agricultural land while taking into consideration the situation of "today the farmer,tomorrow the developer"and not penalizing the farmer when he switches hats.Mr. Arch stated that during the processing of a building permit,additional time would be spent to come to a conclusion of what the setback would be and that action would add to the length of time for the applicant to obtain a permit.Mr.Clopper suggested a minimum setback of 50'for the entire rural area.Ms. Lampton agreed with Mr.Clopper and said she understood the debate of who was there first.Mr.Moser suggested that the "Right to Farm"legislation may be a better way to approach the issue given all the different scenarios with Ag land and that the farm community would also want to keep their options open. Mr.Arch explained that the "Right to Farm"would handle some of the potential nuisance complaints against the farm community and theoretically provide another method for that mitigation.Mr.Clopper stated that the "Right to Farm"legislation has been stalled for some time and has not been acted upon. Mr.Seifarth stated that the State regulation allows a one acre parcel for the farmer's heir in the agriculturai permanent preservation easements and that an exemption would be required if an across the board setback of 50'is established.Members discussed and Mr.Lung confirmed that the setback buffer imposed for the proposed townhouse units abutting Ag land in the Black Rock PUD was 50'.Following the discussion,it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to take the setback issue under additional consideration until the next workshop meeting. •Industrial Mineral (1M) Mr.Lung explained that there was only one change from the previous draft made to the text of the 1M District,per Mr.Moser's recommendation to increase the extraction limit.Staff proposed that when a new residential structure is buill adjacent to an existing 1M District,the minimum building setback would be 200'.In the 1M District,the extraction limit would be 100'from all adjoining property lines and 100'feet from an existing principal building on an adjoining property.Mr.Moser recommended that the extraction limit be greater since the setback was being imposed on the other side as well.The text was modified to read that the extraction limit would be 200'from any existing principal building on an adjoining property instead of 100'to make the setback equitable.If there is no existing structure on the adjacent property, mining couid occur within 100'of the property line,but if there were an existing structure on the adjacent .property,a setback of 200'would be imposed.Discussion followed on the reclamation plan aspect of mining operations. •Rural Business (RB) Mr.Arch stated that the previous workshop discussion focused on the creation of the RB District.Staff had looked at four different options.The first option would be a Floating Zone to establish new businesses.The second option was an Euclidean Zone where all current uses would be allowed and special exceptions could be created through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)for additional uses.It would be difficult to create new zones because the applicant would have to prove change in the character of the neighborhood or a mistake in zoning.The third option would be a combination of Euclidean and Floating Zones,which would allow the creation of new zones,but any revision or change of use would require approval by the BZA.The fourth option would be an Overlay Zone based on a tier system for a change in use and using the Floating Zone process for new districts.The proposed criteria for consideration of a change in the business would be the use,expansion/bulk size,parking,employment, and hours of operation.The criteria would be used to create tiers and would be reviewed as to whether the proposed revised use would require the owner to go back through the zoning process for consistency purposes.The goal is to have quantifying criteria with the least amount of gray areas as possible and provide the applicant up front with the knowledge of the criteria that will be reviewed.Staff would review the criteria for a determination on the proposed use.The applicant would have the right to appeal the decision to the BZA.Members agreed that determining the "use"criteria is the key factor.Mr.Arch stated that uses would be reviewed and classified by the intensity.The criteria would be subject to change throughout the amendment process.Mr.Ernst stressed the need to find a balance when developing the criteria to be less restrictive and more definitive.Members agreed with recommendation to create a tier method for the review of revisions or changes in a business use.Staff will compose the criteria for the tier method to review at the next workshop meeting. IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER PROVISION Mr.Arch stated that the original concept of the immediate family member provision was created to address the needs of the agricultural community and not zoning.The concept provided the farmer with the ability to subdivide a lot for an immediate family member (i.e.son,brother,etc.)to keep that family member on the farm and also waived certain criteria.The provision provided a waiver from forest conservation,APFO requirements,and subdivision frontage waiver.Staff had discussed and suggested that,if the general definition of a farm was met by having an Ag assessment and thirty acres,the owner could be granted two lots for immediate family members above what the zoning would allow and the waivers would be eliminated.The new Comprehensive Plan stated that,if consideration was given to the immediate family member provision,it should be given to the agricultural community. Discussion followed on the enormous abuse that has occurred over the years with the current provision and the difficulties to regulate the provision.It was also discussed that the concept was biased and was used as a method to step around the required provisio'ns.The majority of the members agreed to eliminate the immediate family members provision. 172 ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS Mr.Arch stated that the proposed draft to Zoning Ordinance Definitions wouid be mailed to the Planning Commission Members for their review. FUTURE WORKSHOP MEETING A workshop meeting has been scheduled for Monday,June 16,2003 at 3:00 p.m.with Carl Dematto of the State Farm Bureau to discuss TORs.The Ag Board has been Invited to attend.Discussion will also continue on the proposed zoning amendment changes. ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. ~MJv~1- Paula A.Lampton 0 Chairperson 173 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JUNE 16,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,June 16,2003 at 3:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II;R.Ben Clopper, George Anikis,Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C. Arch,Eric Seifarth,Farmland Preservation Administrator,Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich; Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung;Associate Planners,Jill'L.Baker and Misty Wagner;and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Also in attendance were members of the Board of County Commissioners, President,Gregory Snook,Bill Wivell and Dori Nipps.Carl DeMatteo Director of Local Affairs,Maryland Farm Bureau,Inc.was the guest speaker. DISCUSSION ON TDR PROGRAMS: •Opening Remarks Carl DeMatteo,Director of Local Affairs for the Maryland Farm Bureau,began the discussion by stating that TOR (transfer development right)is the "buzz"word across the northeast,as counties try to find ways to preserve Ag land and the rural way of life.The agriculturai community views the equity in farmland similar to how 401 K or retirement plans are viewed for future expenses,such as college tuition, retirement,nursing home expenses,securing loans,expansion and improvements.According to Mr. DeMatteo,maintaining the equity in farmland will maintain the sense of security that the agricultural community has in a TOR program.Mr.DeMatteo stated that,while not advocating a certain point of view or position,he would share information on the more successful programs in Maryland,particularly the .TOR program in Calvert County. •TOR Program -Calvert County Calvert County's TOR program began in the 1970's.Calvert County went through a down-zoning process and offered TORs based on the current zoning.Calvert County also created Ag Preservation Districts, which is separate from the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP).In order to qualify for Calvert County's TOR program and be eligible to transfer TORs in Ag Preservation Districts,the applicant gives up the right to develop for the minimum of five (5)years.This action limited the number of TORs available in Calvert County,because not every farmer was willing to enroll in the program. Minimizing the number of TORs in sending areas created a better ratio of sending to receiving areas. Calvert County also permitted the transfer of Ag land to Ag land TORs to keep the market flowing.When one TOR is sold,the land is automatically committed to permanent preservation.Calvert County also offers several other programs.One program permits the applicant to receive three minor subdivision rights,not restricted to family members,when they enter into an Ag Preservation District (APD).Another program is the "Purchase and Retire,"program where the county will buy the development rights. Another option is the Leveraging Program,which can be utilized to obtain farmland that is contiguous to another desirable tract by using U.S.Treasury Bonds to buy the TORs.In the Leveraging Program,the farmer receives the current interest rate on the bonds as a tax-free annual disbursement and the full principai amount is paid at the end of a 15 to 20 year contract.To stabilize the TOR market,Calvert County bases the average cost of a TOR on the market price then that amount is adopted as the purchase price for the entire year.Calvert County also passed a recordation tax which raises 1.5 to 2 million dollars each year to fund the TOR program,which also secures the County's bond rating.The TOR purchase price for 2003 was set at approximately $3,000.Calvert County has sold over 14,000 TORs since the inception of its program.Mr.Arch added that Calvert County also has a program for the Growth Areas,where the first two TORs are free but the third is purchased as a part of a graduated system. Calvert County is currently in the process of making some major revisions to their TOR program while also going through a Comprehensive Plan review.More information on the TOR Program in Calvert County may be obtained by contacting Greg Bowen,Ag Preservation Administrator for Calvert County or by accessing the Calvert County Web site at www.co.cal.md.us. •Other TOR Programs in Maryland Mr.DeMatteo stated that Montgomery County's TOR program offered TORs based on current zoning, before a down-zoning process occurred.In Talbert County,the TOR program allows transfers by election districts and a shared sewer system also allowed transfers to occur in the Ag areas.Talbert County is also looking at a separate TOR program geared more towards Smart Growth initiatives,to send TORs from a targeted area to the county's Growth Area,which provides more potential for preserving the land the county wants to preserve. OTHER AG SERVICES OFFERED: •Economic Development Services Mr.DeMatteo stated that while preserving the farm is important,it is also important to preserve the farmer.The more farms that stay in business and are profitable,the less the county will have to worry ,174 about TDRs programs and Ag Preservation.There are nine counties in Maryland that provide economic development services designed specificaily for agriculturaL •Right to Farm Legislation Mr.DeMatteo stated that the Right to Farm legislation is also another tool to help preserve farms.He has met with the Assistant County Attorney,John Martirano,to discuss the pending Right to Farm legislation being developed for the County. •Other Provisions Mr.DeMatteo suggested that the County may want to consider a program to utilize Ag land that has been set aside and revert the land back to farming by developing a lease program for young farmers, particularly if the farmland has prime soils. •Estate Planning Mr.DeMatteo stated that estate planning is very costly for farmers.Often the farm is sold or a portion thereof to pay state taxes.In Calvert County,TDRs are being used as a tool in estate planning,by permitting the farmer to give development rights or potions thereof to their children. •Questions and Answers Q Mr.Seifarth:What advantage is there to create a parallel bureaucracy in Calvert County with a County Ag District rather than piggybacking on what is already there? A Mr.DeMatteo:Calvert County created their Ag districts and more information on that process can be obtained from Greg Bowen.He also stated that he did not think it would matter how it was referenced,but that the commitment is there.The County could use legislation,or the reference through the APD for MALPP purposes since it is just referencing a geographic area. Q Mr.Seifarth:I have heard two different reports on whether or not we need enabling legislation to do leveraging via bonds or borrowing money since a County Commission governs the county. If so,would that occur each time you borrow money or would there be a blanket cover? A Mr.DeMatteo:Calvert County is a County Commission county and they had to obtain authorization from the state legislature with a specified time limit. Q Mr.Anikis:Would the county sign a contract with the farmer to guarantee the first of so many TDRs per year?What does the county do with the TDRs? A Mr.DeMatteo:Yes,there is a contract.The County does not reseil the TDRs,but the development rights are extinguished. Q Mr.Snook:Do most of the counties designate receiving areas? A Mr.DeMatteo:The receiving areas are designated in legislation and he has seen the receiving areas written into the Zoning Ordinance.This aspect should be investigated further and reviewed by the county attorney. Q A Mr.Snook: farmers? Mr.DeMatteo: Mr.Seifarth: Does Talbert County or St.Mary's County buy permanent easements from No,Talbert County does not. St.Mary's and Calvert Counties do buy permanent easements. Q Mr.Snook:Washington County receives matching funds from the state for the permanent easements.Could that match money also be used to buy TDRs? A Mr.DeMatteo:Matching funds from the state cannot be used to purchase TDRs. Q Mr.Wivel/:How did they initiaily determine the value of the TDR since initiaily there is no market?Was it by the county or privately? A Mr.DeMatteo:It was a function of the free market,not sure if it was county or private. Mr.Seifarth:Some counties try to set the initial rate based upon the easement values from preservation programs,and then eventuaily turn it over to the free market.Montgomery County was heavily involved with the pricing for a number of years and then turned it over to the free market.However,that is one of the complaints with Montgomery County's program because the TDR prices have now dropped due to the competition. Mr.DeMatteo:In his travels across the country,he has not found a successful county banking program.Montgomery County was considering allowing Increases in commercial square footage, parking spaces,and other incentives in commercial development as a trade off to buy TDRs from Ag land. Q Mr.Ardinger:He is concerned that if the County would established a TDR program,and then began to tweak or make significant changes to the program that could increase or decrease the fairness issue to ail those who did or did not participate. A Mr.DeMatteo:The more tweaking that can be done to increase the value the better off the TDR program will be.The more creative ways that you can find to create value from the sending areas is helpfuL 175 Q Mr.Wivell:How intricate is the municipal cooperation in the different counties in Maryland with a TDR program?He sees the situation where the Urban Growth Area or Town Growth Area are the receiving areas,but someone could negate the TDR program simply through annexation. A Mr.DeMatteo:That could be a potential issue and the cooperation with municipalities would be key factor if you were trying to send development rights into an infill development community. There may also be challenges from those who live in those communities about allowing infill development. Mr.Mackintosh of Macro Real Estate Services:He has found that the reason Montgomery and Howard County has so much success is because they have very few municipalities,where Washington County has a fair number of municipalities.He believes that a county that is successful is the county that promotes a healthy amount of growth.Trying to slow down or control growth to a point where there is very little growth,a TDR program will iikely not work and it would have to be subsidized.A TDR program needs to be simple and there has to be a very healthy,viable market,where growth is allowed to occur,but is being channeled in certain directions. Q Mr.Wivell:Is there a percentage of growth that is considered healthy growth? A Mr.Mackintosh of Macro Real Estate Services:It is a matter of supply and demand. Q Mr.Clopper:In talking with farmers that have sold easements,one of their big concerns is about the taxes they would have to pay.When TDRs are sold,how are they taxed? A Mr.DeMatteo:I imagined it would be a capital gain tax.There maya difference between the TDR and the value of the development right that is transferred.If the TDR is less it is possible to take the difference between the TDR and the easement value as a charitable donation through federal tax policies. Mr.Seifarth:Washington County voted not to allow discounting.In the County's Ag Preservation Program,the full amount has been paid and that is the thinking of the farm community with a TDR program.To pay over time and spread the tax over years could be done by an easement or TDR through a Leveraging Program. Q Ms.Lampton:Do TDRs enhance the opportunities from a borrowing aspect for the farmer, depending on the success of the TDR program? A Mr.Ernst:He did not see it as being detrimental and it provides a different option to look at, as to the value of the farm. Q Mr.Anikis:How did Caivert County limit the number of development rights bought to increase the density on a property at a 1:8 ratio,if the property owner had 100 acres? A Mr.DeMatteo:Five development rights would have to be bought to get one unit.It would be 40 TDRs to get 5 lots in a 1:8 zoning. Q Mr.Moser:He questioned the rationale in Calvert County when they allowed TDRs to be transferred within the Ag district and questioned the density allowed. A Mr.DeMatteo:Clavert County allows TDRs to be transferred from prime soils to less productive soils in Ag districts and there is no differential in the density. Q Mr.Ardinger:Is there difficulty in establishing receiving areas with the mentality of the "NIMBY" theory? A Mr.DeMatteo:Establishing sending and receiving areas comes down to local politics.There is more acceptance of infill development when developers solicit input from the citizens and they become a part of the process.It basically comes down to the design of the proposed development. Mr.Arch:Washington County does not have enough market to be able to generate a market for sending from the rural areas to receiving in the urban areas.He also stated that the annexation point made by Mr.Wivell is major concern and would be a major factor in a TDR program. CLOSING REMARKS: In closing,Mr.DeMatteo encouraged the county to review other TDR programs in Maryland and various options in developing a TDR program.He also emphasized that providing flexibility is the key in a TDR program,and stressed the need to find as many ways possible to become an Ag friendly county.Mr. DeMatteo will be meeting with the Washington County Farm Bureau to discuss their interests in a TDR program. Ms.Lampton thanked Mr.DeMatteo for his presentation and the TDR information. ***BREAK*** 176 DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II;R.Ben Clopper, George Anikis,Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C. Arch,Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Pianner,Timothy A.Lung;Associate Planner, Jill L.Baker;and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. ZONING MAPS: •Rural Villages Mr.Arch explained that the different portions of Rural Viii ages would be portrayed on the Rural Viliage maps.Maps of the Fairplay/Tilghmanton and Rohrersvilie areas were presented for review by the Planning Commission.Out of the 43 Rural Viii ages in the County,the Historic District Commission's review applies to only 12 areas where there are historic inventory sites.Mr.Arch stated that the boundary only reflects the historical areas and not consideration for infill development in the future.Staff determined that the minimum density for the Rural Village areas without public water and sewer,should be 40,000 square feet.The Rural Villages were created as a part of Smart Growth legislation to allow for state funding,as a Smart Growth Priority Funding Area.Mr.Arch stated that the Rural Village definition was not designed to focus on the historical aspect and was realiy for utility purposes.The members discussed different aspects of the Rurai Viii age maps.Mr.Anikis stated that,if infill would be considered at a lower density and more houses were added into an area where a water or sewer problem is anticipated,the problem would occur more quickly and presents an inconsistency in trying to protect Rural Villages.He stated that this land would become very attractive to the developer at the 1:1 density and he believes that the Rural Viii age boundary should be reduced.Mr.Kercheval stated that,in order to have funding for public water and sewer,there would have to be residents there to pay for It and if it is limited,it would be harder to receive federal and state funding,because the development would be too spread out.Mr.Arch stated that the Staff could review the parcels in the Rural Viliage areas by size and the Pianning Commission may want to consider removing some parcels from the Rural Village as a part 'of the adoption process.Ms.Baker added that,as a part of the Comprehensive Plan,Bud Gudmunson, GIS Coordinator,had reviewed the parcels in the Rural Viliages and there was only 3 to 4 Rural Viliages that had vacant parcels above 40 acres.The Rural Village of Tilghmanton has the most vacant area. •Rural Business Mr.Arch stated that the Staff has reviewed the site plans from the Permits Department and the Planning Department,as weli as,the non-conforming uses and the special exceptions granted for depicting the existing Rural Businesses.The filtering effort wili continue to determine the number of existing business in the rural area. -ZONING DISTRICTS DEFINITIONS: •Agricultural (A) Staff had proposed that,if new development is adjacent to an existing permanent agricultural preservation easement,it shall have a setback of 100'from ali shared property lines.Mr.Clopper had suggested a minimum setback of 50'from any type of agricultural operation across the board to simplify the process.Staff had not proposed an additional setback due to the fact that the land could be agricultural today and change tomorrow.Staff had looked at the setbacks to increase the building envelope and decrease the number of variance cases heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr. Kercheval suggested that a designation could be placed on an active farm based on certain criteria.Mr. Clopper stated that an active farm designation would take considerable administration.Mr.Moser stated that the,"Right to Farm"legislation should address the setback issue.Mr.Anikis suggested that the Board of County Commissioners be encouraged to make the "Right to Farm"legislation a priority.Mr. Clopper suggested that if the cluster design was used,then a built in variance could apply.Mr.Arch stated that there could be two tiers:a 50'setback or a reduction when clustering was used.He further stated that some restrictions on the Zoning Ordinance for variance provisions may be considered in the second phase of the zoning amendments.Ms.Baker stated that per the State reguiations,a permanent preservation easement provides a provision for a one acre lot for the farmer's son/daughter and that the 50'setback may eliminate the ability to have a buildable lot.Mr.Ernst stated that the permanent easements couid be viewed as a special exception. •Rural Business (RB) Foliowing up on the discussion from the previous workshop,Staff drafted the criteria to use as a guideline to determine whether an existing business would need to go through the public hearing process.A determination would be made as to whether or not an existing business would have to go through the overlay process,by reviewing certain applicable criteria based upon the intensity of the land use,as outlined below: (Exempt -Under 2 acres) (Exempt -5,000 sq.ft.) (Exempt -10 Spaces or less) 50%Expansion 50%Expansion 50%Expansion );.Proposed criteria for"Rural Business Overlay (for existing businesses) Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Parking: Hours of Operation: Traffic Volume: Non-Retail Retail 50%Expansion -177 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.-Weekdays 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.-7 Days a Week (Exempt -Less than 25 Peak Hour Trips) •All new rural businesses will have to go through the overlay process. >-Business Ranking Existing rural businesses were ranked as a high,moderate or low intensity use on the Table of Land Use Regulations.Staff created a matrix to determine whether a business would have to go back through the process.Staff also determined that,if the proposed business use had three applicable criteria,it would have to go through the overlay hearing process.The proposed following chart will be used to determine the land use intensity: Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Land Use Intensity Intensity Intensity Low Moderate Hiah Proposed land Use Intensity 3 2 1Low Proposed Land Use Intensity 4 3 2Moderate Proposed Land Use Intensity 5 4 3Hinh Mr.Arch stated that,if a business was designated as a non-conforming use,the expansion would follow the current guidelines of 30%,or along those lines.A non-conforming use in the Rural Business area would need to go through the hearing process to have that use added to the Table of Land Use Regulations.The Board of County Commissioners would ultimately make the decision to add the amendment to the Ordinance,based upon the criteria within the RB District,which should be reviewed as the basis for approving the overlay.If a current non-conforming use is designated that status now,a change of non-conforming status would go through the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Kercheval suggested that the land use of a "tavern"and a "bowling alley"should be listed as high Intensity uses on the Table of Land Use Regulations.Member discussed the proposed Rural Business criteria and corresponding chart.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to proceed with the proposed Rurai Business criteria process. ADJOURMENT: Mr.Arch stated that the Staff would move forward with the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,in support of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.Public workshops will be scheduled later in July.The workshop meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. pJ:~mp<t ~-,-f.--.----,--_ Chairperson 178 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -July 7,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 7,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Robert Ernst II,Vice-Chairman,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K. Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of April 21,2003,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of June 2,2003,as amended. Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of May 28,2003,as amended. Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval reminded Staff of his recommendation to refine the language on research laboratories on the Land Use Regulations Table. Mr.Anlkis made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of June 9,2003,as amended . .Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES: Joseph Daniels Subdivision Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a request by Mr.Daniels for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance,Section 405.11.G.5,which restricts a panhandle length to 400'.The Daniels'land Is located along the east side of Wolfsville Road at the Frederick/Washington County line.The property is zoned Conservation.An 18-acre lot was previously approved In 1999.Mr.Daniels is proposing to divide the remaining 65.5 acres into four lots.The panhandle length for lot 3 would be 870'and 1,040'for lot 4, which exceeds the permitted length of 400'.The design of the proposed lots would eliminate the possibility of any future subdivision.The owner contends that the Irregular shape of the property dictates the length of the panhandles.The ability to access the lots for fire protection purposes was confirmed by the Chief of the Smithsburg Fire Department.The subject property is located in the Environmental Conservation area,per the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan,which recommends one dwelling unit per twenty acres.The proposed lots are slightly over the recommended density.The entire property is recorded in Washington County and Is subject to review and approval by the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance standards,even though a portion of the property is located in Frederick County. The plat will be forwarded to Frederick County for their concurrence.The proposed lots are located over 500'away from the Appalachian Trail buffer area.Wolfsville Road is a minor collector with an access separation restriction of 100'.The county's sight distance requirements will have to be met for the driveway locations.The existing dwelling on lot 1 has its own driveway,lot 2 will also have its own drive located 100'from the existing driveway of lot 1,and lots 3 and 4 will use a shared common driveway. Discussion followed on the size of the lots,the two panhandles exceeding the 400'requirement,and the appearance of tiering and stacking of the proposed lots.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the variance request contingent upon no further development occurring on lots 3 and 4.Seconded by Mr. Kercheval.Mr.Clopper,Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Ernst voted "aye"and Mr.Ardlnger,Mr.Anlkis,Mr.Moser voted "nay."Ms.Lampton stated that she had some real concerns with the request and the issues discussed on the tiering and the panhandle lengths,and also voted "nay."Motion was denied. -SUBDIVISIONS: Walnut Point Heights.Section 6 -Final Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a revised preliminary plat and a final plat for Section 6 of Walnut Point Heights.The property is located west of Maryland Route 63,north of 1-70.The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and Is zoned Residential Rural.The lots are accessed via Business Parkway through the Huyetts B.usiness Park.A preliminary plat was approved in 1995 for 215 lots.The final plats for Sections 1 through 5 and Section 7 were previously approved.Section 6 is the last section of the subdivision.The previously approved preliminary plat proposed semi-detached dwellings in Section 6.The plan was revised to provide for single-family dwellings.Consequently,the number of lots in Section 6 were reduced from 38 to 19 lots.The final plan also shows the completion of White Pine 179 Drive.Section 6 will utilize the existing stormwater management facility.Public water and sewer serves the subdivision.The State Highway Administration has been monitoring the development occurring in this area,and had put the developer on notice that eventually some additional improvements would be needed to the intersection of Maryland Route 63 and Business Parkway.The improvements are needed at this time,which include the construction of a bypass lane,and is the only outstanding comment that the developer will need to address.Correspondence from the developer indicates that he is willing to make the necessary improvements to the intersection.All other agencies have approved the plat.The subdivision is exempt from forest conservation requirements because the original preliminary plat was approved prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the final plat and the revised preliminary plat,as presented contingent upon receipt of all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimousiyapproved. Huyett Business Park.Lot 15 Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary plaUsite plan and a final subdivision plat for lot 15 of the Huyett Business Park for the location of the Cosmic Pet Warehouse.Lot 15 is situated on 3.88 acres and is the final lot of the Huyett Business Park.There will be 7 acres of remaining lands used primarily for a regional stormwater management facility.The property is zoned HI-1 and abuts the adjacent Walnut Point Heights subdivision.In 1996,the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the 75'buffer yard requirement to reduce the buffer to 35'along the common boundaries of Walnut Point Heights.The buffer was reduced to 10'along the property adjacent to an Ag zoned parcel.Public water and sewer serve the site.A forest stand delineation was approved in May 2003,which indicated no existing forest on the property.The applicant requested the use of expressed procedures under the Forest Conservation Ordinance,which allows the Planning Director to automatically approve the use of payment in lieu of in situations where there is no existing forest and the afforestation requirement is below two acres.The request was approved on June 11,2003.The 15%mitigation requirement would be 25,264 square feet of afforestation,or payment in lieu of in the amount of approximately $2,526.00.All agencies have either reviewed the plan or have issued comments.Revisions to the plan were submitted to address the comments from the Soil Conservation District and the Permits Department.The State Highway Administration issued the same comment,as stated on the adjacent Walnut Point Subdivision, .that improvements were needed at the intersection of Maryland Route 63 and Business Parkway.The site plan proposes a 20,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility for Cosmic Pet.The warehouse will be 250'x 80',and 26'in height.A future 10,000 square foot addition will require a new site plan.A single access is proposed onto Business Parkway.A paved parking lot with 18 parking spaces will be provided,which exceeds the required 8 spaces.The warehouse will employ six employees.Hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Solid waste will be disposed of in a screened dumpster.The loading docks and the truck maneuvering area are oriented on the backside of the building and not on the side adjacent to the Walnut Point Heights subdivision.Screening will be provided along the west side of the property with a staggered row of 95 Leyland cypress,planted 8'on center and 6'in height.Additional landscaping will be provided around the parking lot.The Board of Zoning Appeal's decision did not specifically address the requirements of the buffer;therefore,the current requirement would apply.The requirement states that perimeter screening in the form of a solid fence or a vegetative screening or both,as determined by the Planning Commission during the site plan review, shall be required for all IR uses.Vegetative screening shall consist of tree species that are a minimum of 10'in height and 2'caliper at the time of planting.Trees shail be of a species having the average mature spread of crown at a minimum of 15'.The trees should be planted and spaced to create an opaque screen between the adjoining land uses.Shrubs may be required to supplement the tree plantings to create the opaque screen.The screening area is approximately 1,100 square feet and a minimum of 7 trees per 100'linear feet of perimeter buffer will be required,totaling approximately 50 trees.The developer is proposing 95 trees,6'in height,as opposed to 10'in height.Leyland cypress trees are not available in 10'height so the trade off was to increase the number of faster growing trees.A similar situation occurred when the site plan was reviewed for the development across the Business Parkway and the Planning Commission agreed to permit Leyland cypress trees to be planted in closer spacing.Mr. Kercheval stated that some of the neighbors,in the adjacent subdivision of Walnut Point Heights,had expressed their concerns on the proposal,and were particularly concerned with potential noise being generated from the business.Mr.Lung responded that generally a distribution warehouse does not generate a lot of noise and that 25 trips per day would be generated during the hours of operation. Members discussed the need to increase the screening in the buffering area between the warehouse and the adjacent residential subdivision and agreed that a stockade style fence should be added.The screen plantings would abut the residential area and a fence wouid be placed towards the warehouse to help shield the neighbors from noise.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval,subject to plantings and a stockade style fence being placed along the adjacent residential subdivision of Walnut Point Heights.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Discussion followed on the height of the fence and members agreed to add to the motion that the fence should be a minimum of 8'.Unanimously approved.Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the subdivision plat contingent upon receipt of all outstanding agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS: American Family Entertainment Mr.Arch presented for review and approval a site plan for a temporary seasonal drive-in theater for American Family Entertainment.The subject site is located at the Mason-Dixon Dragway,off of U.S. Route 40.The movie screen will be an anchored 50'inflatable screen.Viewers will listen to the films via their car radio.Hours of operation will be Friday and Sunday evenings,when drag races are not scheduled.The drive-in plans to operate through the fall season depending on the weather conditions. 180 Mr.Arch stated that,if the drive-in is a success,the owner might consider a more permanent structure in the future,which would change the dynamics of the site.No new construction is associated with the proposed temporary operation.The existing facilities of the dragway would be used.There will be 4 employees.Private water and sewer serves the site.The Health Department and State Highway Administration approved the plan.The Engineering Department approved the plan,but plans to take some photos of the parking area to monitor the stormwater character.The Permits Department approved the plan,and commented on the need for handicap accessibility.The drive-in anticipates approximately 300 viewers per evening.A letter of support was received from the Washington County Convention and Visitors Bureau encouraging the seasonal drive-in concept.Mr.Wachter of American Family Entertainment,stated that the movies would be appropriate for family entertainment.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. Great Outdoors Advertising Signs -Dual Highway Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Great Outdoors Advertising Signs.The developer is proposing two billboard signs,located along the northeast side of the Dual Highway,at the Turner's Bowling Alley and Memory Lane Antiques site.No changes are proposed for the two existing businesses.The property is zoned Business General and outdoor signs are a principal permitted use in this district.The maximum sign height for "Sign P;'will be 65'and "Sign B"will be 60'and each sign will be 48'in width.Currently,183 parking spaces are provided on the site,and 180 spaces are required. One parking space will be removed to accommodate the one sign.The site is exempt from forest conservation requirements since it was a lot of record,prior to the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Revisions to the plan were submitted to address comments from the State Highway Administration and the Permits Department.Mr.Tellers of Great Outdoors Advertising Signs,stated that,per the Zoning Ordinance,the proposed signs are under the maximum height requirement and also under the size requirement for each sign face.He further stated that the setbacks and the distance spacing are in compliance with the State's requirements.Members discussed the location and height of the proposed signs and their concerns with the proposed location begin situated in the gateway area to the City of Hagerstown.Brian Mack of Great Outdoors Advertising Signs,stated that the proposed locations are probably the last two available sites along the Dual Highway for billboard signs.Mr.Anikis suggested ·tabling the request for thirty days so that the Planning Commission members could visit the proposed locations and view the relationship with the existing signage along Dual Highway,and the developer could provide a visual of the proposed signs for the Members to review.Mr.Cump,the consultant of Gerald Cump and Associates,added that the billboard located at Howard's Arts &Frames is similar to the ones proposed by his client.Ms.Lampton advised the developers that the Planning Commission does have an opportunity to provide discretionary comments and decisions on such matters.Mr.Ardinger questioned if the matter was tabled,would an undue hardship be imposed upon the developer.Mr.Mack advised that there were advertising contracts pending on the signs promoting local businesses.Mr.Anikis made a motion to table the matter for thirty days to allow time for a site visit.Mr.Ernst seconded the motion.The vote was unanimous.Discussion followed.Mr.Clopper stated that part of the reason he voted for tabling the motion was based on the fact that the Members did not receive any information on the site plan to review prior to the meeting.Members will make arrangements to view the locations of the proposed billboards. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Valencia Ms.Pietro stated that a preliminary consultation was held on February 6,2003 to discuss the concept plan for Valencia,also known as the Roulette Farm.The subject site is located along the north and south side of Poffenberger Road.At the consultation,the developer proposed 312 single-family lots on minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet.The total tract is 229 acres.The property is zoned Agricultural. Public water and sewer will be available to serve the site.The Engineering Department made numerous comments,as outlined in the summary,including their recommendation to use closed road sections due to the density of the proposed subdivision and the requirement of a traffic study.The State Highway Administration will also require a traffic study.The school capacity would be tested at the final plat stage. The developer,John Clark of Elm Street Development,submitted a revised plan to address the agency comments from the preliminary consultation.A corresponding letter outlined the changes made to the plan.The total number of proposed units were reduced to 243.The road network is more curvilinear and follows the existing contours more closely.The revised plan provides more open space around the perimeter along Antietam Creek and in the interior portion,adjacent to lots and along Poffenberger Road. The vista along Poffenberger Road has been improved by reducing the number of new lots on Poffenberger Road from 32 to 16.All rear-facing homes were eliminated along Poffenberger Road by incorporating either front or side views,and direct driveway access to Poffenberger Road was eliminated. Forest conservation will be done on site.The existing historic house,barn and outbuildings on the site are identified in the County's Historic Sites Inventory and the National Register of Historic Places.There are two historic stone arch bridges on Poffenberger Road in the area of the proposed development that are also identified on the County's Historic Site Inventory.The HDC has concerns with the impact of the proposed development and recommended that there be a reduction of dwelling units around the existing farmhouse,which the developer did address on the revised plan and the historic buildings will be situated on a separate parcel.The Engineering Department resubmitted similar comments on the revised plan and reiterated their recommendation to use closed road section streets and traffic calming measures. However,the revised plan reflects open section streets with sidewalks on one side,and no traffic calming measures.Accel/decel lanes will be reqUired at all entrances into the proposed development.Members discussed the improvements needed on Poffenberger Road and the bottlenecking problems that occur with the one-lane stone arch bridges.Mr.Clopper suggested traffic lights be installed on either side of the 181 bridges,as an option to address the site distance problems.There was discussion regarding the notification to the developer of the infrastructure deficiencies and the developer's contribution for the road improvements.Mr.Arch stated that the results of the traffic study will be very significant,particularly the trip distribution during peak hours.Members supported the Engineering Department's recommendation for traffic calming measures and closed section streets.Members also discussed and recommended some amenities in the open space areas,given the size of the proposed development.Mr.Kercheval recommended that trees be planted along the historic property,as an added buffer.Mr.Moser said that the potential residents of the development should be made aware of the noises,odors,etc.associated with the active farms in the area.No action was required. Mt.Aetna Farms PUD Mr.Lung stated that a preliminary consultation was held on June 3,2003 for the proposed Mt.Aetna Farms PUD.The property is located west of Robinwood Drive,north of Medical Campus Drive.The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and consists of 225 acres.The current zoning is a mix of Residential-Suburban and Agricultural.The preliminary consultation is the first step in the PUD overlay zoning classification process.Mr.Lung provided a brief overview of the proposed PUD and highlighted the agency comments from the preliminary consultation.The developer is proposing 1,103 dwelling units. The units will be constructed in four phases and will consist of 426 single-family units on various size lots, 521 townhouses,10 apartment units and 156 condominiums.The PUD is a neo-traditional design with a town center and a community center located in the middle of the PUD,and will filter out to the lower densities at the edges of the deveiopment.There is approximately 50 acres of open space,which includes the forest conservation area and exceeds the 25%open space requirement for a PUD.The gross density is 4.7 dwelling units per acre.One of the main items discussed during the consultation was the need for infrastructure improvements and it is anticipated that there will be significant offsite improvements needed to allow this development to move forward.The improvements may include the possible construction of a connection between Eastern Boulevard across the Antietam Creek by way of a bridge,constructed by the developer,to tie in with Robinwood Drive at Varsity Lane.The developer for the adjacent Rosewood Village PUD was required to construct the first portion of Varsity Lane.Mr. Kercheval asked Staff for some suggestions for traffic improvements to elevate problems.During the 'consultation,there was discussion about the street design,the neo-traditional design elements, monumental entrances,use of alleys,private ownership of streets/alleys and traffic calming measures. The Board of Education voiced their concerns regarding the anticipated school inadequacies.The Historic District Commission recommended that the existing farmhouse and structures listed on the County's Historic Site Survey be saved and incorporated within the design of the PUD.The historic structures are not shown on the current plan.The forest stand delineation showed approximately 50 acres of forest on site.The concept plan does not indicate that much of the existing forest will be retained and there were questions regarding retaining existing forest verses planting street trees and using landscaping to meet the forest conservation requirements.Hagerstown Community College (HCC)does not oppose the plan and have indicated that they would like to meet with the developer to discuss how the PUD may fit in with their plans for future expansion.HCC is concerned about the security and discussed that some type of security fencing may be required to control the access to the campus at certain points and also to provide screening at the rear of the single-family lots.Mr.Lung referred to a letter from the project's consultant,Mr.Stannard,which outlined the modifications made to the concept plan to address the agency comments obtained at the preliminary consultation. Members discussed their concerns with the improvements needed to the area infrastructure,adequacy of schools,and adequate parking within the proposed PUD.Mr.Ardinger questioned the Engineering Department's comment on not permitting street trees in the right-of-way.Mr.Lung stated that the Engineering Department did not rule out entirely the use of street trees and it would need to be discussed further.Mr.Anikis voiced his concerns with the removal of any priority forest on the site.He also stated that,if setback reductions were being considered,he would prefer that the request be submitted sooner than later.He also recommended that the historic house and barn be saved,and integrated into the PUD plan.Mr.Kercheval asked the consultant how the alleys would work in the PUD.Mr.Stannard,Senior Planner with the Bowman ConSUlting Group,Ltd.,provided some photos shOWing the general layout and explained that the one of the reasons for the design of the alley system was because he believes that is the basis of Smart Growth at the site level.Many of the units have the traditional alley thus the neo- traditional term for the development.A large number of the proposed units do have attached garages and driveway compartments and many of the units have rear access via an alley.The alleyway concept assists with moving the traffic in and out of the development giving multiple ways to access the site. Many of the roads are private and will be maintained by the homeowners association.Mr.Kercheval also questioned the uses of the proposed commercial area.Mr.Stannard explained that the commercial area would be a mixed-use section that will contain a small commerciai area with living units above the stores, a community center,and an active recreation area.The stormwater ponds will be incorporated as amenities in the commercial area.Ms.Lampton questioned the consultant on the sidewalk system.Mr. Stannard explained that sidewalks would provide internai circulation and serve as the connections to the green space areas between and outside of the various neighborhoods.Based on the size and location of the proposed PUD,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not accept a rezoning application until a traffic study is finalized,and the necessary improvements are identified by both the State Highway Administration and County Engineering Department.The rezoning application is the next step in the process for the PUD zoning.Mr.Moser questioned if the developer had implemented the traffic study process.Mr.Stannard responded that they were awaiting the baseline information from the hospital's traffic study.Mr.Moser made a motion to require the completion of the traffic study before accepting the PUD rezoning application.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimousiy approved. 182 OTHER BUSINESS Demolition Permits -Westfields Mr.Goodrich presented the demolition request for the Westfields subdivision (formerly St.James Park). The Historic District Commission's opinion to save the existing structures was included with the summary. In 1989,the Board of County Commissioners adopted a policy that,if there was a demolition permit application for structures listed in the County's Historic Inventory,those applications would have to go before the Historic District Commission (HOC)for review and comment.The policy also states that when the Historic District Commission opposes demolition of certain structures,that recommendation would come before the Planning Commission for concurrence and support and where the opportunity exists, implementation or inclusion in any action the Planning Commission might take on the development. Westfields has filed 21 demolition applications for the structures on the subject property.One compiex consists of 7 structures located on the eastern portion of the property,fronting the Sharpsburg Pike.The other complex of 14 structures is located toward the western side of the property.Mr.Goodrich distributed photos to the Planning Commission of the existing structures that are accessible,or partially visible.He also distributed a summary of the discussion from the HOC meeting on July 2,2003.HOC feit it was important to maintain the historic buildings because they represent the rural,agricultural and architectural heritage of the county and recommended retaining the structures to maintain that character. During the HOC's meeting,Jeremy Holder,representing Ausherman Homes,presented the developer's position on the proposed demolition requests.Ausherman Homes became involved with the proposed development long after the decision was made to let the structures deteriorate.The HOC did recommend that only the brick dwelling and the stone dwelling located on the rear complex should be retained and made available for future purchase and rehabilitation and until the dwellings can be made available to interested parties they should be secured from the weather and vandalism.Mr.Goodrich referred to a photograph of the brick dwelling and explained that no photograph was available of the stone dwelling, due to its inaccessibility.Both structures are in disrepair and neither is identified on the Historic Site Survey.The stone house is a very small structure consisting of two rooms and a loft and is basically a shell with foundation issues.The brick house has been heavily looted and is also basically a shell.Mr. Holder,representing Ausherman Homes,stated that it was their interest to minimize their financial and 'insurance risks on the project,and it would be the owner's preference to demolish all the structures to not obligate the homeowners association with the iong-term maintenance and insurance of the structures. Mr.Anikis questioned,if the developer would be willing postpone the demolition request on the brick dwelling for six months,to see if a buyer could be found.He also suggested that perhaps the stone dwelling could be relocated to the Ag Center.Mr.Holder stated that he believed the owner would be willing to consider putting the two demolition permits on hold to explore some options.Members discussed,at length,the options of retaining the two structures.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant demolition of all the existing structures on the subject property.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Moser, Mr.Clopper,Mr.Kercheval,Ms.Lampton,Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger voted "aye."Mr.Anikis voted "no." So ordered. Mr.Anikis provided his research of the onsite cemetery to Mr.Holder,as discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting.Mr.Holder reiterated that the cupolas from the historic barn would be retained and either incorporated into the design of the community center,or donated to the Ag Museum, and that the cemetery area would be delineated with a fence and placard. Nathan Semler -Request for Deletion of Immediate Family Member Provision Ms.Baker presented a request by Nathan Semler to eliminate the immediate family member clause from a parcel of land subdivided in 1998,along Mt.Briar Road.Ms.Baker explained that the subdivision occurred with the immediate family member provision due to the lack of public road frontage.Technically, it appears to have road frontage;however,the State owns a portion of the frontage area,as a part of the Rail to Trails Program.Mr.and Mrs.Ward subdivided the property and conveyed it to their daughter, Amanda and their son in law,Nathan Semler.Since that time,the property owners have divorced and are requesting to sell the property.Mr.Semler is in the process of conveying a portion of the property back to the Ward's to provide them with some additional privacy,leaving approximately 9 acres.A shared common access with a 25'panhandle will remain as the access for the property.Ms.Baker referred to a letter by Mr.Semler stating the hardship and the reason for the request.Mr.Semler was present,and further explained that,as a part of the settlement agreement in the divorce proceedings,the property was listed for sale and a contract is pending.The settlement date was postponed to resolve the issue of the immediate member clause on the property.There is no foreclosure action associated with the property. Ms.Baker confirmed that approximately 5)1,years remain under the immediate family member provision. Mr.Kercheval made a motion to grant approval of the waiver from the immediate family member provision.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. Seneca Ridqe -Stream Buffer Waiver Mr.Goodrich presented a request for a waiver from the Subdivision Ordinance regulations that require a stream buffer for the Seneca Ridge development.He explained that design regulations require a stream buffer when there is a stream on a development site and buffers are determined by the slope of the ground on each side of the stream.The buffer is the area on each side of the stream that is kept free of development and kept in permanent vegetative cover to filter the water that flows into the stream.The existing stream runs along the edge of the subject property,exits under Maugans Avenue,and continues along the edge of the Maugansville Elementary School.During development reviews,the Washington County Soil Conservation provides a service by reviewing the sites and recommending a stream buffer width,based on their standards.A minimum 25'buffer is reqUired.However,the County Engineering Department,in their implementation of the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance regulations, requires substantial stormwater management improvements on the site to control not only the runoff from ===.,"""..", 183 the subject property,but to also address a downstream flooding problem.The developer will have to access the stream and buffer area to build the stormwater management system,consisting of three large ponds with significant changes to the stream.Mr.Beall from Davis,Renn &Associates explained that the stream will have to be diverted to comply with the stormwater requirements,and the old natural streambed will be ieft undisturbed,as much as possible.He also stated that the stormwater ponds would be constructed to retain almost twice the 100-year flood.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant the stream buffer waiver for the Seneca Ridge development.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS •Workshop Meeting Mr.Arch stated that the public Comprehensive Rezoning Workshops have been scheduled for July 22, July 24,July 29 and July 31,2003 from 10:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.Additional information on the workshops will be provided to the Members . •Great Outdoors Advertising Signs·Billboard Site Visit Additional information will be forwarded to the members to visit the proposed billboard sites,at their convenience,prior to the next regular meeting in August. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Moser,seconded by Mr.Anikis,to adjourn at 10:17 p.m.Unanimously approved. f~A-~\-- Paula A.Lampton 0 Chairperson WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -August 4,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 4,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Robert Ernst II,Vice-Chairman,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner, Misty Wagner and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Absent was Robert C.Arch,Planning Director. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Ms.Lampton stated that Mr.Arch would not be in attendance and would be away from the office indefinitely and that Steve Goodrich would serve as the Interim Director in his absence. OLD BUSINESS Great Outdoors Advertising Signs,Site Plan Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Great Outdoors Advertising Signs.The site plan was previously presented at the July 2003 regular meeting.The Planning Commission had concerns about the proposed billboard signs and tabled the matter to permit the Members to visit the site independently.The proposed northernmost sign is 60'in height and will be situated on the right side of Turner's Bowling Alley.The second proposed sign is 50'in height and will be located on the left side of Memory Lane Antiques.The width of both signs will be 48'.Members discussed and agreed that the signs meet the provisions,as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.They also discussed that the billboard signage provisions should be reviewed.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant site plan approval,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. Joseph Daniels.Variance -Panhandle Length Mr.Lung presented a revised variance request for Mr.Daniels.The subject site is located along the east side of Wolfsville Road at the Frederick/Washington County line.The property is zoned Conservation. Mr.Daniels'original variance request to create a four-lot subdivision involving the use of panhandle length variances for two of the lots was reviewed and denied by Planning Commission at the July 2003 meeting.One panhandle length was 1,040 feet and the other 870 feet.In reviewing the previous request,the Planning Commission also determined that,in addition to the excessive panhandle lengths, the lots were also configured in a three tier stacking arrangement.Mr.Daniels'consultant revised the plan to eliminate the stacking and submitted a revised request to create two new lots,having panhandle lengths of 1,300'and 690'.Mr.Lung stated that the Smithsburg Fire Department had visited the site and advised that the proposed accesses should not pose a problem from a fire safety aspect.Mr.Lung stated that the access points onto Wolfsville Road would require approval from the Engineering Department and that some clearing may be needed to obtain an appropriate sight distance.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Discussion followed.Mr.Ardinger questioned the Staff on the panhandle length requirements in surrounding counties,and suggested that the requirements for a panhandle length variance be reviewed and discussed at a future workshop.Mr.Lung added that the Planning Director has the authority to approve variances up to 600',which has greatly reduced the number of variance requests presented to the Planning Commission.Vote was unanimous. Pashen Estates.Revised Concept Plan Ms.Pietro presented the revised concept plan for Pashen Estates.The property is located on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike and the south side of Spielman Road.Ms.Pietro began the presentation by providing a comparison from the previous concept plan reviewed during the regular meeting in May to the revised plan.Previously,after a lengthy discussion regarding the poor site distance on Spielman Road,it was deemed that the owner would go back to the drawing board and work with the State Highway Administration to try and obtain the necessary site distance by clearing the south side of Spielman Road. The revised plan eliminates lot 9 and provides a combined access point across from the existing Knoll Lane on Spielman Road.The consultant,Mr.Cessna,stated that the owner received the entrance permits for Spielman Road and Sharpsburg Pike and has resolved all issues with the State Highway Administration.Mr.Anikis questioned if the road between lots 3,4,5 and 6 would be a public road and referred to the Planning Commission minutes of June 3,1996 wherein a variance was granted for access separation,based on the fact that the State Highway Administration had determined that the access was the preferable location with the stipulation that blacktop be placed as the lots were created.Mr.Anikis stated that he was concerned that no decellane was required and he also had concerns as to who would maintain the shared drive.Ms.Pietro stated that on the original concept plan submitted in 1996 proposed the development of the entire property and the proposed street off of Sharpsburg Pike wouid have served all the lots.Since the drive is private property,maintenance of the drive will be property owner's responsibility.Mr.Cessna stated·that a driveway maintenance agreement would be a part of the conveyance.Mr.Anikis also stated that he had some concerns with the steep slope of the proposed drive and the substantial amount of fill that was used when the road was widened in the 1960's and questioned if a culvert would be installed to address any flooding and potential drainage problems for property owners.Mr.Cessna stated that any grading issues would be addressed via a hydraulic study required by the State Highway Administration.He also explained that lots 3 and 4 already have a common use right of way.Ms.Pietro stated that the existing right of way was based on the assumption that it would be a pUblic road as requested and approved by the Planning Commission on the original concept plan.Mr. 185 186 Goodrich stated that a variance request would be required for the four lots using one driveway as the access point.Discussion followed on the use of a private drive versus the use of a public street.Mr. Kercheval stated that the County might not want to mainta'ln a road for only four lots.Mr.Goodrich suggested that the access for lot 6 be reiocated to access Spielman Road.Ms.Pietro stated that the deveioper is ready to submit a preliminarylfinal plat for the subject property based on the concept plan. Ms.Lampton advised the developer that,in general,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed subdivision could move forward,but was not a guarantee on an approval,or that there would not be additional questions in the future.It was also recommended that a note be added to the plat that no further subdivision would occur on the remaining lands. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS: Pleasant View Heights.Section E -Preliminary Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary plat for Pleasant View Heights,Section E.The sUbject site is located to the rear of the existing Pleasant View Heights subdivision,along the east side of Downsville Pike,south of Rench Road.The property is zoned Agricultural and is located in the Rural Policy area.A preliminary consultation was held in 2002.Section E is the final section of the subdivision and consists of 17 new lots at approximately one acre each with 14.72 acres of remaining lands.Mr. Lung stated that the subject plat was submitted prior to the current subdivision moratorium.The new lots will be accessed by an extension of Melody Lane.The lots will be served by onsite wells and septic systems.The Health Department and the Permits Department approved the plan.A water appropriations permit application has been submitted to the Water Resources Administration.The subdivision plat includes a stormwater management parcel.The plat was revised and resubmitted to address comments from the Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District.The State Highway Administration requested improvements to the existing access onto the Downsville Pike and the developer has agreed to the improvements.Forest conservation mitigation is being addressed onsite via .a combination of retaining existing forest and the additional plantings of 5.67 acres.Mr.Lung asked the Commission to consider granting the Staff the authority to approve the final subdivision plat.Mr.Anikis questioned the use of the remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated that,with the limited road frontage and the new proposed zoning,there wouid be limited potential for additional subdivision of the remaining lands. Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval,contingent upon receipt of all the agency approvals and granting the Staff authority to approve the final plat.Seconded by Mr.Anikis. Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS: Proposed Hanger -Hagerstown Regional Airport Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for a proposed hanger at the Hagerstown Regional Airport.The subject site is located along the east side of Henson Boulevard,near its intersection with Air Park Road.Zoning is AP.Total parcel area is 392 acres.The County is proposing to lease 1.25 acres to the developer,Mr.Rider,for the construction of an airplane hangar.The building area will be approximately 22,500 square feet and the building height will be approximately 36'.There will be four employees.Public water and sewer will serve the site.A building mounted sign is proposed for the east side of the building.No additional lighting will be added.The proposed hanger projects five airplanes per day.Solid waste will be disposed of within the building and removed by the developer.A forest stand delineation will be conducted for the entire acreage and the forest conservation requirements will be addressed.Mr.Goodrich stated that the forest on the site will be delineated and that the intended mitigation method is onsile forest retention.All agency approvais have been received.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Advanced Auto Parts Ms.Wagner presented for review and approval a site plan for Advance Auto Parts.The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Virginia Avenue and Halfway Boulevard.The property is zoned Business Local.Total parcel area is .84 acres.The existing building,formerly the Burger Chef,will be removed and a retail auto parts store will be constructed.The business will consist of 6,600'of retail space and will be 20'in height.Five employees are proposed for the business.The hours of operation will be daily from 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.Pole mounted lights are proposed.Solid waste will be disposed of in an onsite dumpster and the recyclables will be disposed of inside the business and removed by a private hauler.A 4'x 3'business sign is proposed.Fourteen parking spaces are required,and thirty-two spaces are proposed.City water and County sewer serves the site.Forest conservation mitigation requirements will be met by the payment in lieu of method.The proposed landscaping consists of shrubs and evergreens around the building.The Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District are the only outstanding agencies and their approvals are anticipated.Mr.Clopper questioned if a buffer was needed to prevent headlight glare.Ms.Wagner explained that the site plan presented was for a change in use and no buffering was proposed.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved. AT&T Wireless Services Martin Property Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed 150'monopole cell tower to be located on property along the west side of Ashton Road,south of 1-70.The property is zoned Agricultural. A commercial communication facility is a special exception use in the Agricultural zoning district.A special exception was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals based on the findings that there was a gap in cell coverage,no tower was available for co-location in the area,and the proposed site is the least 187 obtrusive to the neighborhood and thE)view shed of the area.A fenced compound will contain the equipment shelters for the AT&T carrier and two future carriers on a 75'x 75'leased parcel.The fenced area will be screened w·lth Leland cypress trees.Access to the site will be provided via an existing farm lane.The tower will be a natural gray,non-reflective color and will be unlit.The location meets all the setback requirements per the Zoning Ordinance.The closest residence is approximately 1,200'away. The required FCC environmental reviews and the review by the Maryland Historic Trust were completed and approval letters are on file.The site plan also notes that the tower owner shall be responsible for the removal of the tower,if it is no longer in use.An affidavit is also in the file certifying that the tower will be made available to at least two other carriers.Mr.Lung stated that all agency approvals have been received;however,the consultant will need to correct a few minor typos on the site plan.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. Antietam Tractor &Equipment Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Antietam Tractor and Equipment.The subject site is located along the south side of Leitersburg Pike,west of the Antietam Creek.The property contains 11 acres and is zoned Agricultural.The site plan proposes an 80'x 100'addition to the existing building for additional service bays,a 40'x 80'storage building,and a new gravel display area.No change is proposed for the existing entrance or parking area.Existing trees around the site will be utilized for landscaping and new plantings will be placed around the front of the building and around the existing sign.The site is served by an existing private weli and septic system.A revision addressing the comments from the Planning Department,Permits Department and the Soil Conservation District was submitted and is currently being reviewed.Approximately two years ago,an approved simplified subdivision plat added land to create the 11-acre parcel.The developer will be required to submit a development plat to remove the "not for development"statement on this parcel and to address forest conservation requirements.Mr.Lung expiained that there is no existing forest or priority areas on the site and the subdivision and site plan would qualify for the Express Procedure for mitigation of the area on the simplified plat and the disturbed area on the original parcel.The payment in lieu amount would be $4,878.70.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon the submission of the development plat for the simplified parcel and all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Vote was unanimous. Engineered Polymer Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Engineered Polymer.The subject site is located along the north side of Industrial Lane,near its intersection with Ferguson Lane.Zoning is PI.The existing development consists of a resin production plant for paint and coating applications.The site plan presented shows the proposed addition of storage tanks,a loading area,and truck scale bUilding.Total site acreage is 8.5 acres.Hours of operation are Monday through Friday,24 hours a day.The plant operation has three work shifts with a total of 30 employees and no increase is proposed to increase the number of employees.Twenty-nine parking spaces are provided,15 are required.Freight and delivery is 10 trips per day.Solid waste will be disposed of in an onsite dumpster.Pubiic water and sewer serve the site.The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements since it is a single lot of record submitted prior to the July 1st Ordinance revision.Landscaping will be provided to the rear of the new building.The Permits Department is currently reviewing a recent revision.There will be no change in the signage.Lighting will be provided throughout the parking area.The addition of the storage tanks will permit the company to make waterbased/latex products.Mr.Anikis questioned whether there would be any health or fire hazards,if there was a leakage problem,and would the closest fire company have the appropriate equipment to address the problem.Ms.Pietro stated that a copy of the plan was forwarded to the Williamsport Fire Department and to Fire and Rescue.Gordon Poffenberger,Fox &Associates, explained that any spillage would be contained by a concrete wall surrounding the tanks with a fire suppressive system and a water line would also be looped around the back of the tank farm area with fire hydrants.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval subject to approval by the Permits Department.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Vote was unanimous. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Planning Commission Workshop Meeting Mr.Goodrich reported that a total of 165 citizens attended the four workshops held throughout the County regarding the Comprehensive Rezoning of the rural area.Mr.Anikis commended the Planning Staff members on the presentations made at the workshops.A Planning Commission workshop meeting will be scheduled for August 11,2003 at 1:00 p.m.to discuss any outstanding issues on the proposed rezoning and to discuss the formal requests for changes in the proposed zoning received by the Planning Department.Copies of the incoming comment sheets and the formal requests to review zoning will be forwarded to the Members prior to the workshop meeting. A Joint Public Hearing for the purpose of taking testimony on the proposed rezoning of the rural portions of Washington County has been tentatively scheduled for September 15,2003. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Ernst,seconded by Mr.Anikis,to adjourn at 8:43 p.m.Unanimously approved. pa~~--------- Chairperson 189 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -AUG~ST 11,20'03 The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, August 11,2003 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,George Anikis, Bernard Moser.Staff:Interim Director, Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung;Associate Planner,Misty Wagner;GIS Coordinator,Bud Gudmundson,Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval and Robert Ernst were absent. OPENING REMARKS Mr.Goodrich stated that the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Areas is a priority for the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Staff will attempt to stay on the same schedule,as previously discussed.The joint public hearing for the Comprehensive Rezoning of thp Rural Areas is scheduled for September 15,2003. DENSITY CALCULATIONS The three zones in the rural area have a density designation for the number of units per acre.The Agricultural Zone is at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres,Environmental Conservation is at 1:20,and Preservation is at 1:30.There are different ways to calculate density,or how many lots can be achieved. Planning Staff chose the most liberal determination.The acreage of the parcel is divided by the density amount 5,20 or 30.This will,most likely,include a decimal,which is rounded up to the next whole number for the number of lots permitted.The determination of the number of lots is not in addition to the remaining lands. FORMAL REQUESTS TO REVIEW ZONING CHANGES Mr.Goodrich advised the Members that there were nine requests submitted to date.The Staff is looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission members as to whether the zoning should stay as proposed,or changed according to the property owner's request.Any action by the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners,and will be incorporated into the maps presented during the public hearing.Any additional requests received at or after the public hearing during the comment period will be considered in the future. Ms.Kinzer,GIS Analyst,provided an overview of each of the Formal Requests to Review Zoning Changes submitted to the Planning Office. 1)Laurence and Patsy Johns The property is located at the southwest corner of Millers Church Road and Leiters Mill Road.The total tract is 50.05 acres.The owners are requesting an Ag density of 1 dwelling per acre instead of the proposed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.Staff's position is that,other than Rural Village,there is no such density proposal in the Rural Area.Planning Commission members discussed the request and it was their consensus that the request could not be granted. 2)Thomas and Dorothy Fath The property is located on the east side of Alternate Route 40 at Roxbury Road.The property consists of 9.01 +/-acres.The owner has requested that the property be placed in the Ag zone, rather than Environmental Conservation.The property is on the border between the proposed Ag and the EC Zones.The Ag/EC boundary,as depicted on the Land Use map in the adopted Comprehensive Plan,runs through the property,splitting it almost in half.Staff elected to place the property into the EC zone because Beaver Creek runs through the rear of the property.The change of the proposed zone for this property would yield the potential for one new lot,if it were placed in the Ag zone.If it remained in EC,it would yield no new lots.Since the property is on the border between the Ag and EC,and because the Fath's already obtained approval from the State Highway Administration's for a second entrance,Staff had no objection to the applicant's request to change the property from EC to Ag.The Planning Commission discussed the request and Agreed with the Staff's recommendation to grant the request. 3)Howard F.Payne (John Griffith Farm) The property is located on the northwest corner of Maryland Route 34 and Monroe Road.The property is approximately 147 acres and is adjacent to the Town of Boonsboro and its Growth Area. The applicant,Mr.Payne,is the potential developer of the farm.He has requested that the property be placed in the Town of Boonsboro's Growth Area.A preliminary consultation has been conducted and reviewed for the property.In the Land Use Plan,the property was split between the Environmental Conservation and Preservation Zones.Staff elected to place the property into the Environmental Conservation Zone to create a transition buffer coming out of Boonsboro,based on the density and because the majority of the property was within the EC zone.The property was also placed in the EC zone due to environmental issues (floodplain).Mr.Payne has had discussions with the Town of Boonsboro and they are in agreement with annexing the property,provided that public water and sewer is provided to the development.The development potential for the property under the EC zoning would be 9 lots.If it were included within the Growth Area of Boonsboro,the density would be determined during the second phase of the rezoning processes when the Staff reviews the Urban Areas.A preliminary consultation was heid in January 2003 for this property.The concept plan proposed 42 lots on wells and septic systems.Currently,the property is zoned Ag.At the 190 consultation,there was discussion generated as to whether the development should go into the Town's Growth Area.The Health Department requested a hydro-geologic study and some test wells to determine the water quality.Both the Town of Boonsboro and the Health Department were concerned about the environmental issues.There is a lelter in the consultation file from the Town of Boonsboro.Mr.Lung stated that a preliminary plat is anticipated in the near future and this proposal was one of the consultations permitted to proceed by the Board of County Commissioners under the current moratorium.The developer would need to submit a subdivision plat and try to obtain a preliminary approval from the Planning Commission prior to October 31,2003,in order to proceed. The plat has not been received,but the consultant for the developer has indicated that they do intend to submit a plat.Ms.Lampton questioned the reason for the EC designation.Ms.Kinzer explained that the rural legacy line followed the old Growth Area boundary for the Town of Boonsboro,and this property has many environmental issues thus the reason for the designation,aiong with the property being a transition area.Mr.Moser stated that there are already problems with sinkholes in adjacent subdivisions and it was his understanding that any development along that road will have to address the problems with the road infrastructure.Mr.Lung stated that the developer was put on notice that upgrades to at least of portion of Monroe Road will be necessary.Members discussed that,if they would deny the request and the parcel was not included within the Town Growth Area,the developer would only obtain 9 lots and noted that the request did not include a request to change the zoning from Environmental Conservation.Staff had discussed this request and believes that annexation into the Town is probably the better of all the choices.Even though development would occur it would be serviced by public water and sewer and reduce environmental effects.In conclusion,the Members agreed that It was up to the Town of Boonsboro as to whether or not they will annex the property.It was their consensus to grant the request and if the Town of Boonsboro does not include the property within their Growth Area,that the proposed zoning of EC remains the designated zoning. 4)Thomas &Mary Holder;Jeffrey &Krista Payne;Christopher &Pamela Decker! The property is located on the west side of Monroe Road,west of Boonsboro.The property consists of 161 acres.The applicants requested the proposed zoning designation of Preservation be changed to Agricultural.The property is on the border between the proposed Ag and Preservation zones.The Ag/Preservation boundary from the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan runs through the property splitting it almost in half.Staff had originally placed the property in the Preservation Zoning District since it had an Ag Preservation District.However,since then,the district has been terminated.Staff examined the growth coming out from Boonsboro and where to draw the line. Changing the proposed zone for this parcel would yield a maximum of 33 lots under an Ag zoning and under a Preservation zone it would yield 6 lots.Members discussed the proximity of this property to the Town of Boonsboro and the previous request submitted for the Griffith farm.If the Griffith farm is not annexed into the Town and the zoning remains EC,and if this property is designated Ag,then the transition from greater to less density would not occur as one moves from an urban to rural area. Staff stated that,with public road frontage being very limited,access is also a factor.Staff also noted that when the property was taken out of the Ag District,two lots were subdivided for the property owner's children.Therefore,there are two lots within this parcel,plus an existing dwelling.Mr. Goodrich stated that it was easier to look at this parcel in the Ag zoning because it has such a iarge common boundary with other Ag zonings.If the Griffith Farm becomes part of the Growth Area,it would provide the transition of the densities.Staff noted that this request was for an Ag designation and not inclusion within the Town of Boonsboro Growth Area.Mr.Moser commented that he believed that this property should also be included within the Town of Boonsboro Growth Area since this property does abut the Town.Mr.Ardinger commented that,in general,anywhere in the County where public water and sewer is available from a municipality,those developments shouid be encouraged to annex to have the public services,which would cause less problems down the road for the County.Ms.Kinzer stated that,if the property is placed in the Growth Area,then the zoning designation for that property would be determined in the zoning phase for the Urban Areas.Though the density has not been determined for those areas,it would be definitely less than 1:5.The property owner can request the property be placed in the Growth Area,during the zoning phase for the Urban Area.Mr.Goodrich stated that the previous request for Mr.Payne was included in the Growth Area with the old Growth Area boundary that split the property and it had some history as being a part of the Growth Area,where this property does not.Mr.Ardinger stated that he believed that both this property and the Griffith property should be included in the Growth Area boundary,and if neither property is,then they should both have the same zbning and be compatible.Ms.Lampton stated that half of this property is already designated Ag.Staff recommended granting the request for the Ag zoning.It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to grant the request. 5)Thomas Grosh The property is iocated on the south side of Maryland Route 66.Mr.Grosh has requested that the property be designated Agricultural rather than the proposed zoning of Environmental Conservation. The property is located on the border of the Ag and EC zones and is about equally split between the zones.Originally,the Staff had elected to place the property in the EC zone due to its proximity to the C &0 Canal and the Potomac River.The property also has an Ag Preservation District.Changing the proposed zone could yield'a maximum of 21 lots under Ag zoning,or only 6 lots under EC zoning. The property also has limitation factors,which include,but are not limited to a 50'wide panhandles that is approximately 1,000'long and provides the access to MD 56.Also,access to future lots would have to cross railroad tracks.Mr.Gudmundson stated that the EC zone was based upon three criteria,steep slopes,floodplain,and wooded areas.It was noted that a lawn mowing business (rural business)is also located on a small portion of the property.Planning Commission Members discussed the request and it was their consensus not to break the chain of EC and to deny the request. 191 6)Fred and Sue Frederick The property is located on the southwest side of Hassett Road,south of Maryland 56.The total tract is 10.95 acres.The property owners are requesting Ag zoning.The property is not on the border of Ag and EC zones.The Ag/EC boundary from the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan runs through the property,with the majority of the acreage in Agriculturai and with a portion located in the EC zone.The Staff elected to draw the EC boundary further to the north and east because of the large Ag permanent easement to the east and the environmental factors of its proximity to the Potomac River and the C&O Canal.Changing the zoning for this parcel could yield a maximum of 3 new lots under Ag zoning,as opposed to the no new subdivision potential.There are no improvements on the property.Additionally,the Staff set criteria when reviewing proposed zoning designations.One of the criteria established was that there should not be any "donut-hole"or "spot" zoning.The property owners are asking for Ag zoning,but they are not contiguous to AG.Other properties would have to be brought in,in order for the request to be granted,which could range from 4 to 20 parcels that could yield a maximum increase of eight new lots in this area.An additional criteria was that subdivisions should maintain the same zoning designation.The subject property is part of a three-lot subdivision.The remaining parcels in this area that would have to be adjusted are a part of another subdivision.Staff could not recommend granting the request given the different criteria established.The Planning Commission discussed and Agreed to deny the request. 7)Charles Ernst The property is located at the intersection of Blairs Valley Road and Cross Creek Drive.The property consists of 3 parcels totaling 19.6 acres and one parcel does have improvements.The other two parcels are unimproved and still have the "right"for one dwelling unit on each,as a lot of record. The applicant is requesting Ag instead of EC.The Ag/EC boundary from the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan runs through the property along Cross Creek Drive,which has the improvements.The remaining two parcels are shown within the EC land use designation.Originally, Staff elected to put the property into the EC zone due to the permanent Ag Preservation Easement directly to the east of the property and the Ag Preservation District to the northeast of the property. Under the Ag zoning,the parcels would yield a maximum of 2 new lots and no new lots under EC. One of the Staff's criteria when reviewing proposed zoning designations,was that there should be no "donut-hole"zoning in the rural areas,therefore,at least one other property (Beltz farm with the permanent Ag easement)would also have to be rezoned from EC to Ag to accommodate the request. Staff is not in favor of granting the request.Planning Commission members discussed the applicant's request and it was the consensus of the Members to be consistent and Agreed with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. 8)Mason Dixon LLC,Martin,Horst &Eby The owners of four different properties have jointly asked to be included within the Urban Growth Area with an Industrial/Flex zoning designation instead of the Ag zoning with Airport Overlay.The properties are located on the south side of Mason Dixon Road between Maugansville Road and Daley Road.The property is also located in the Airport Overlay,which for residential purposes is a 1:50 density and would net eight residential lots for the subject tracts of lands.In between the properties there is a pocket of 11 parcels,that includes 10 single-family residential homes and a 97- acre farm along Maugansville Road.The Mason Dixon parcel is 172 acres,Martin property is 60 acres,Horst property is 72 acres and the Eby property is 92 acres.Mason Dixon LLC received a special exception to establish a truck distribution center off of Mason Dixon Road.Members discussed the access to the properties from 1-81 at the State Line area.Mr.Lung stated that there are some businesses in this area that are hooked onto Antrim Township's sewer system,such as the Econo Lodge.A railroad track also borders the westside of the property.Staff could not support the request given the time and effort the Staff had already spent,deciding where the Growth Area boundary should be and the limit of where water and sewer is or should be made available.This request would take it way beyond where the boundary Is now.Also considered was the fact that there are the intervening properties and those residents are not asking to be included with the Growth Area.The Growth Area boundary was not moved to the railroad track area because the area is all farmland and at the time there was no proposal.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals had already granted the special exception for the Mason Dixon LLC parcei,uniess that decision is appealed.Staff does not know the intentions of the other property owners.Mr.Moser stated that the BZA granted the Special Exception with the capability to allow future associated uses on the adjoining property.Industrial/Flex zoning cannot be located outside of the Growth Area.Mr. Ardinger stated that,from the economic development respects,rail service is close to the subject properties.Mr.Clopper stated that,the Maryland side of Mason Dixon Road is not strictly a residentiai area and it includes some businesses.Ms.Kinzer noted that those areas are included in the Growth Area.Mr.Moser stated that he would need more detailed information on what is to be proposed,before he could Agree to an Industrial/Flex designation.Ms.Lampton Agreed with Mr. Moser.Mr.Clopper requested a few minutes to read through the information presented on the request. (Five Minute Break·Meeting Resumed at 3:05 p.m.) Discussion continued on the request.Mr.Anikis stated that there is not enough information as to what is proposed.He further stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals report only permitted the development of the truck distribution center on 40 acres of the 170 acres and it did not go beyond that acreage.Mr.Anikis stated that he had concerns about the residential homes around the acreage,the lack of public facilities,and the poor roads.He added that the he believed that the request was premature.He further stated that,with not knowing what is proposed,he was not comfortable with 192 granting the request.Ms.Lampton and Mr.Moser agreed with Mr.Anikis.Mr.Clopper stated that there are some strong arguments,given the proximity of the railroad,airport,and the interstate.He questioned what other options the property owners would have,instead of Industrial/Flex zoning.Mr. Goodrich stated that they would be permitted to do whatever is in the Ag zone and go before the BZA for any Special Exceptions that are ailowed in the Ag zone,or apply for a Rural Business designation as a new business,however,a truck distribution center is not a Rural Business,and there is the option of making the request at the public hearing.He further stated that the proposed AG zone is not nearly as broad range with its uses,compared to the current AG zoning.Members discussed the comparison of the Industrial/Flex designation in the Williamsport Industrial Park area.Mr.Moser stated he concurred with Mr.Anikis.Ms.Lampton stated she also concurred with Mr.Anikis and that the granting of the Special Exception by the BZA is one issue,but to give a "cart blanche" Industrial/Flex to the other Agriculture land is another. Mr.Ardinger questioned when the rezoning of the interchanges occurred.Mr.Goodrich stated that there was some debate in this area about whether the land that was zoned Ag should be included and designated HI.Staff tried to focus on what was already HI and determine whether they should be designated HI-1 or HI-2,or some other designation and not go beyond those HI areas.The 97-acre tract of residential land was considered as to whether it should be brought into the HI.Part of the reason it was not included was because of the east/west road and Maugansville Road was not adequate to handle increased traffic.Mr.Ardinger stated that given the proximity of Airpark Road, Phoenix Color,Citicorp and the railroad,he was "on the fence."He further stated that this an industrial area with the airport and the businesses around it and that it would make sense to have the designation,comparing it with the Industrial/Flex area at Williamsport.Mr.Clopper stated that he could argue this request either way and added that this area is also good,flat Agriculture land.Mr. Moser stated that he would not be against an industrial type of development possibiy occurring on these lands,but would need to see a more detaiied plan before making a recommendation to give an industriai designation.Ms.Lampton,Mr.Moser,and Mr.Anikis agreed they had concerns with the request because of not knowing what may be proposed for the properties.Mr.Ardinger stated that this area has valuable economic development potential and that the developers would stiil have the right in the future to request a change in the zoning.Mr.Goodrich stated that a zoning request could be made when the Urban Area is reviewed.Mr.Clopper stated that he Agreed with Mr.Ardinger,but he wouid have to agree with Mr.Moser,if it would come down to a vote.It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to deny the request. 9)Nevin &Shirley Lewis The property is located south of Smithsburg.The owners are requesting Ag instead of EC zoning on eight of their parcels,totaling 191.3 acres.Two of the parcels are located within the Growth Area of Smithsburg and will be reviewed in the future Comprehensive Rezoning of the Urban Area.Of the remaining 6 parcels,3 lots are adjacent to the Smithsburg Growth Area and none of the parcels are on the border between Ag and EC and are not even close to that border.Staff elected to place this area into the EC zone due to the number of Ag Preservation Districts in the area and because it is part of the Beaver Creek Watershed Special Planning Area.The development potential under the EC proposal could yield 5 new lots.Under Ag zoning,the parcels could yield a maximum of 29 new lots. Mr.Goodrich explained that two of the parcels are located in the Growth Area and if an AG use is occurring on the properties,that use can continue even in the Growth Area.He also stated that if the zoning request were granted,it would create the "donut hole"effect.Mr.Clopper stated that most of the property is orchard,with some crop and pasture areas,and one small parcel is where the fruit stand is located.Mr.Ardinger suggested that the applicants could go to the Town of Smithsburg and request inclusion into their Growth Area on the three parcels that are adjacent to the Town.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to Agree with the Staff's recommendation and to deny the request.Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff would contact the applicants,as requested on the their formal request form,and the applicants could also present their request during the upcoming public hearing. Mr.Moser made a motion that the Planning Commission wouid recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the following recommendations on the formal requests to review zoning: Laurence &Patsy Johns -Deny Thomas &Dorothy Fath -Agree Howard F.Payne (Griffith Farm)-Agree -(If not,it would retain its EC zoning) Holder/Payne/Deckert -Agree Thomas Grosh -Deny Fred &Sue Frederick -Deny Charles Ernst -Deny Mason Dixon,LLC -Deny Nevin &Shirley Lewis -Deny Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM WORKSHOPS To date,ail the comments received by the Planning Department have been forwarded to the Members and Staff wiil continue to forward to the Planning Commission members and also to the Board of County Commissioners for their review. 193 RURAL BUSINESS REVIEW Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Staff is continuing the process of sorting through the various properties that need the Rural Business designation to refine the list of existing businesses.Several sources are being used to make that determination.A copy of the letter/survey form that will be sent to the potential list of 862 rural businesses in the County was given to the Members for their review.The letter/survey is another way to further refine the list of existing rural businesses. PUBLIC HEARING DATE The public hearing has been scheduled for September 15,2003 at 6:00 p.m.in the Kepler Theater at Hagerstown Community College.Mr.Goodrich stated that,prior to the hearing,he would provide a preview of the new zones and the efforts made by the Staff and Members to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms.Lampton thanked the Planning Staff and Commission Members for their time and efforts.Mr. Goodrich thanked the Planning Commission Members for their support. ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. :Yt:~n¥----- Chairperson 195 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 8,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September 8,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Robert Ernst II,Vice-Chairman,R.Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Interim Director/ Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro; Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton stated that the forest conservation mitigation request for Limestone Acres would be omitted from the agenda. MINUTES Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of June 16,2003,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of July 7,2003,as amended. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS •VARIANCES: Paul and Twila Shade -Triple Tier Stacking &Panhandle Length Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a variance request for Paul and Twila Shade.The property is located along the north side of Millers Sawmill Road and is zoned Agricultural.The property owners are proposing to create a 2.5 acre panhandle lot on a 75 acre parcel.The panhandle length would be 600'.A three tier stacking arrangement would also be created.The variance being requested is from Section 405.11.G.4,which prohibits the stacking of panhandle lots for more than two tiers and limits the panhandle length to 400'.Mr.Seibert,consultant for Frederick,Seibert &Associates,explained that the panhandle lot is for his client,Ms.Lewis,and that the lot is located behind the two existing lots that were created before zoning.The owner of the lots,Mr.Shade,had no control of the existing conditions when he purchased the property and that,by definition the lot is not a panhandle because it does not own the flag.Ms.Lewis will own the panhandle and the other lot owners would have a right of way for access and wouid enter into a maintenance agreement.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the two variances as requested.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Mr.Moser,Ms.Lampton,Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Anikis and Mr. Clopper voted "aye."Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger voted "nay."So ordered . •SUBDIVISIONS: Meadows Green,Phase III -Final Plat Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a final plat for Meadows Green Phase III.The property is located on the west side of Mapleville Road (Maryland Route 66),south of U.S.40.The property is zoned Agricultural.Phase III consists of 16 single-family lots ranging in size from 1 to 9 acres and will also contain 21 acres of remaining lands.Two new roads will serve Phase III.The final stormwater management area is located in Phase III.All agency approvals have been received on this phase and no changes have been made to the layout design.Phases I and II were previously approved,through the policy statement that the Planning Commission shall have the authority to review and approve all final plats,when previous approval has been granted to the preliminary plat,providing that the final plat meets all the Subdivision Ordinance requirements and represents no substantial change from the approved preliminary plat.Phase III is being presented because there has been changes with regards to Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)issues relating to school capacity.Mr.Goodrich explained that the school adequacy test is routinely performed at the final plat stage.Students from the Meadows Green development would attend Greenbrier Elementary,Boonsboro Middle and Boonsboro High Schools.A part of the capacity is based on the existence of portable classrooms and enrollment for Yz day kindergarten.The entire process for determining adequacy was changed by the Board of County Commissioners in July 2003.Therefore,when the old calculations were applied to this part of the Meadows Green development,.the school was adequate; however,using the changed factors and applying the test again,the school is not adequate at this time.Section 9 of the APFO permits the County and the developer to reach an agreement to make the system adequate.The homebuilder,Mr. Horton,plans to purchase the property and has made a monetary offer to the County towards making the school system adequate at the rate of $3,015.00 per lot,which is approximately $48,240.00.The rate per lot was based on a recent bid received by the Board of Education for improvements to the Salem Avenue Elementary School and by a recommendation from the Board of Education.The monetary offer is 196 contingent upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners.Staff is presenting the final plat in anticipation of the offer being agreed upon.Mr.Goodrich stated that this development is relatively small and will only generate 3 or 4 elementary students.He further explained that this development had been already submitted and under review when the provisions changed,the offer by the homebuilder is voluntary,with the condition that this would be the oniy situation where this would occur.It is not setting precedence and will not be routine in the future.If the Pianning Commission is inclined to approve the finai plat,the approval should be contingent upon the offer being accepted by the developer on behalf of the homebuilder and approved by the Board of County Commissioners and also upon receipt of a signed agreement and the monetary offer.Mr.Anikis questioned if the funds would be directed to Greenbrier Elementary.Mr.Kercheval stated that the monies would go into a fund to address the needs of County schools.He further explained that assuming all day kindergarten is accepted,technically,all day kindergarten is not slated to be in place this year at Greenbrier Elementary;however,when all day kindergarten is accepted,the school wouid be at a minus 5 status.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the final plat,subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners and receipt of a signed agreement and the funds.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS: FedEx Ground -Preliminary Site Plan Mr.Goodrich presented for approval a preliminary site plan for Fed Ex Ground.The Zoning Ordinance permits a preliminary site plan so that construction can proceed prior to all the finer details being finalized. The parcel area is 85 acres,and is located on the north side of Halfway Boulevard at the proposed Newgate Boulevard.Mr.Goodrich stated that the developer would also be extending Halfway Boulevard and Newgate Boulevard.FedEx Ground has submitted the preliminary site plan for approval to begin grading the site and the entire site plan will most likely be presented at the October meeting for final approval.The ultimate build out is 485,000 square feet and approximately 1,500 to 2,000 employees are proposed.The Planning Commission previously approved the subdivision of the land,including a parcel .for the stormwater management area,and approximately 20 acres of forest conservation,utilizing onsite priority retention areas.Public water and sewer will serve the site.Mr.Ardinger questioned if the proposed number of employees was a fairly accurate projection for the build out.FedEx plans to open in 2005 and is projecting 570 employees and 163 contractors (drivers)in the first phase.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved. Dual Highway LLC 2003 Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed car sales lot for Dual Highway LLC 2003.The subject site is located on a 2.14 parcel at the southwest corner of Emmert Road and Dual Highway.The property is zoned HI-1.The site inciudes a paved display area for 180 vehicles and an 80' x 35'saies/office building.Eight additional parking spaces are provided for employees and customers. Hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.Water and sewer services will be provided via an existing well and septic system on the adjoining lots owned by Dual Highway LLC. The Health Department has approved the site plan with the condition that an easement be recorded granting access to the facilities.Stormwater management will be provided by an onsite facility located at the north end of the property and has been approved by the Engineering Department.In the HI-1 zoning district,the Zoning Ordinance requires that buffer yards be provided when commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses.Vegetative screening or a fence is also required within the buffer yard.The required buffer yard would be 25'along three sides of the property due to the location of residential deveiopment. However,the owner was granted a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals that reduced the buffer yard to 5',as shown on the plan.The variance did not address the screening issue.To meet that Ordinance requirement the owner proposed vegetative screening of Leyland cypress,10'in height, planted 10'on center along the south and west property lines.No screening is provided along the north property line.Mr.Lung stated that there is a provision in the Ordinance,which allows the Planning Commission to waive the screening requirement when there is a road separating the adjoining residential development.The owner is requesting a waiver of the screen planting area along the northern portion of the buffer yard.Lighting will consist of five 30'high poies with four 1,OOO-watt metai halide cutoff lights located in the center of the property and fourteen additional 15'high poles with two 450 watt metal halide cutoff lights iocated along the outer edge.Mr.Lung stated that the specs of the site pian state that the lights will be angled at a 15 to 25 degree angie to reduce the glare and to optimize their performance. Staff is concerned that there is the potential for glare at this angle.Staff recommends that the lights on the 30'poles be parallel to the ground and not angled to minimize glare and additional adjustments may be necessary on the other lights to reduce glare.The lights are expected to be on all night for security purposes.The Board of Zoning Appeals also granted a setback variance from 25'to 5'for the sign location.Revisions were made to address comments from the Permits Department and their approval is pending.All other agencies have approved the site plan.Mr.Moser questioned if there was a need for an access point at Emmert Road.Mr.Fulton stated that there have been some discussions,that eventually the proposed Funkstown Bypass.design would be in this area and the proposed access provides the necessary radius for tractor-trailer turning movement.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented with the exclusion of screening on Emmert Road and also with the provision that the lights be mounted in a horizontal position.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. 197 AT &T Wireless -Saer Property Mr.Lung presented for approval a site plan for a telecommunications tower for AT &T Wireless to be located approximately 500'south of Business Parkway,north of 1-81,west of Greencastle Pike,and east of the Walnut Point Heights residential development.The property is zoned HI-1.The applicant received an approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 17,2003 for a Special Exception for a 140' monopole communications tower.The property is also occupied by a warehouse building.The cell tower will be located on a 75'x 75'leased parcel with a 15'x34'fenced equipment compound.The tower will be designed for three carriers.The cell tower is a monopole design with a galvanized gray finish and no lighting.The Maryland Historic Trust found there would be no impact on historic resources in the area. The Environmental Review is also complete and documentation was provided that there were no suitable, available sites in the area for co-location.There are provisions for removal of the tower in the lease agreement and on the site plan.An affidavit is on file indicating that the tower owner is making space available for the co-location of two additional carriers.The access road for service and maintenance of the tower is located off of Business Parkway.No landscaping is provided around the base of the tower. All agencies have approved the plan.The assigned address will need to be noted on the site plan and it is the only outstanding issue.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval,as presented. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. Word Processing Services,Inc. Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Word Processing Services,Inc.The subject site is located along the west side of McRand Court,which connects with Hump Road.The property is zoned IG.The developer is proposing to construct an office building and a warehouse for office equipment on a 2.5 acre parcei.The office floor space will be approximately 6,448 square feet.Warehouse space for Phase I will be 6,248 square feet and 3,185 square feet in Phase Ii.City water and sewer will serve the site.There will be 10 office employees and 10 warehouse employees.Hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Daily UPS delivery is proposed.The site requires 32 parking spaces,and 37 spaces are provided.The proposed sign will be 2'x 4',and 4 to 6'in height and will be .located at the proposed entrance.Exterior lighting will be building mounted. Solid waste will be disposed of in an enclosed dumpster.Landscaping will include oak,flowering cherry and white pine trees.The owners have requested to pay the fee in lieu of,representing the amount of $1 ,698.84 to meet the Forest Conservation requirement.The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and there are no existing forest or priority areas.All approvals have been received except from the City Water Department and their approval is pending the application for annexation.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval and the payment in lieu of request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved. Excel Construction Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Excel Construction.The subject site is located on the north side of National Pike,near its intersection with Walnut Point Road.Zoning is Conservation.The owner is proposing to construct an office and storage addition to the existing garage for the construction company.Total parcel area is 5.8 acres.Access to the site will be provided via the National Pike.The office floor space will be approximately 2,500 square feet.No sign is proposed.Lighting will be building mounted.Solid waste will be collected inside the facility.Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Daily UPS deliveries are proposed.The site will require 14 parking spaces,and 18 spaces are provided.No additional landscaping will be added to the existing landscaping.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation since it was a lot of record prior to 1993.The agencies have reviewed and approved the plan.The Health Department is the only outstanding agency and their approval is anticipated upon receipt of a revision to the site plan.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the Health Department.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. Longhorn Steakhouse Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for the Longhorn Steakhouse. The subject site is located on an out parcel within the parking area of Prime Outlets.Zoning is HI-1.The developer is proposing to construct a steakhouse restaurant on .8 acres.The building area will be 5,355 square feet.Public water and sewer will serve the site.There are 40 part-time and 20 full-time employees proposed with a maximum of 25 employees per shift.Hours of operation are 11 :00 a.m.to 11 :00 p.m.,seven days per week.Solid waste will be disposed of in an enclosed dumpster area.Lighting will be pole-mounted throughout the parking lot.Signage will consist of a building mounted sign and a 35'pole mounted sign. The site will require 66 parking spaces,and 99 spaces are proVided by a combination of 28 new spaces and 71 existing spaces that will be cross-used with Prime Outlets.Sidewalks will be provided around the restaurant.Landscaping will include various ornamental grasses,yews,hollies,spirea,dogwoods, viburnum,arborvitae,ash and river birch.The site is disturbing less than 40,000 square feet and is exempt from forest conservation requirements.A revision of the pian has been submitted to the Permits Department to address their comments on the plan.The City of Hagerstown's Annexation Review Committee will review the plan as to the availability of water and sewer services.Discussion followed on the safety concerns of pedestrians crossing to and from the restaurant to the additional parking area.Mr. Jones of Longhorn Steakhouse agreed with the request by the Planning Commission members to provide striping from the entrance across the parking lot to the additional parking area that is not contiguous with the building or enclosed by curbing.He also indicated that he would contact Prime Outlets about painting the crosswalks and would cover the costs involved.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval, as presented subject to the addition of the painted crosswalks.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Unanimously approved. 198 Domestic Uniform Supply Company Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Domestic Uniform Supply Company.The subject site is located on the southeast side of Hump Road in the Washington County Business Park.Zoning is IG. The developer is proposing to create a distribution/collection center for uniforms.Cleaned uniforms will be delivered by tractor-trailer at 10:00 p.m.During the day,uniforms are delivered and collected by local delivery trucks.No cleaning will occur on-site.A 5,100 square foot building with office space will be constructed.There will be two access points on Hump Road.Total parcel area is .95 acres.City water and sewer will service the site.The City of Hagerstown's Annexation Review Committee has reviewed and approved the plan.Six employees are proposed.The hours of operation are 5:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.to 11 :00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.A 6'sign will be placed on the right side of the entrance.Lighting will be building mounted.The site will require 6 parking spaces,and 13 spaces are provided.A screened dumpster will be provided onsite.There will be two small stormwater management ponds on the site.Landscaping will be provided along the front and side of the building and around the entrance.Ms.Pietro stated that the Forest Stand Delineation was completed and it indicated that the existing forest is of poor quality.The developer is requesting to pay the fee in lieu of for the mitigation of .43 acres in the amount of $1 ,873.10 and will retain the existing forest onsite.The Permits Department is currently reviewing a revision.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval and the payment in lieu of request.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.So ordered. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS, Halterman &Marsden Property's Ms.Baker stated that a preliminary consultation was held for the Halterman &Marsden Property's on July 30,2003.The property is located on the south side of Longmeadow Road,west of Maryland Route 60. The property is zoned Residential,Suburban.Lot sizes vary from 10,000 square feet to over 2 acres. The developer is proposing 136 single-family lots on 60.7 acres.One stormwater management pond will be onsite.Public water and sewer will serve the lots.Two access points off of Longmeadow Road will .provide access to the development.Due to the limitation of road frontage and a potential wetland area, there is no access proposed onto Leitersburg Pike.Forest conservation will be a combination of retention and planting onsite.Ms.Baker stated that the proposed development was included in the recent traffic study of the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Corridor.There is an internal traffic issue being reviewed by the Engineering Department as to the potential of connecting this proposed subdivision with the adjacent Emerald Pointe PUD,however,there were concerns about the amount of grade between the two properties and this will be analyzed further by the Engineering Department.Ms.Baker stated that sidewalks and amenities were not proposed for the development.The Planning Commission had requested sidewalks in the adjacent Emerald Point PUD,along the outer portion along Marsh Pike.Mr. Anikis questioned the school capacity of Paramount Elementary School and the average price for the proposed homes.Ms.Baker stated that the average home price will be $200,000,and the school capacity would be tested at the final plat stage.Mr.Clopper questioned if school buses would access the development and members agreed that it would be desirable to have the buses enter the subdivision. Ms.Baker will contact the Board of Education's Transportation Department for their input.Members discussed and recommended that,given the size of the subdivision,sidewalks and open space areas with amenities,such as tot lots,should be considered for the subdivision.Mr.Clopper questioned the wooded lots and whether the residents would have the option to remove the trees for house locations.Mr. Goodrich stated that the wooded areas would be shown as permanent retention areas on the final plat, and the owners should know those areas will have to be retained permanently.The developer,Mr. Kilajian,confirmed that no homes would be built in the wooded areas.Mr.Kercheval suggested that some trees should be added on the lots located in the center of the subdivision to provide the residents with some additional privacy.No action required. (Five minute break at 8:50.Mr.Ardinger left the meeting) OTHER BUSINESS SI.James Village North-PUD Revision Before the presentation,Ms.Lampton recognized the number of letters from interested citizens regarding their concerns and their desire to speak during tonight's meeting.The normal procedure is to review the concerns raised,but not to take testimony or full-blown presentation by the developer during the meeting. Specific questions by the Planning Commission members will be directed to the individual who sent the letter or to a spokesman for St.James Village.Ms.Lampton also stated that she would not be participating in the discussion or voting on the matter.Ms.Pietro began her presentation by explaining that Sections 5 and 6 of St.James Village North are pending final approval.During the review process, there were some concerns raised by residents who live within the development that some of the amenities shown on the original plan and the brochures when they purchased their lots were not being built.The developer was contacted about the omission of proposed amenities and a revised concept plan was presented.The Permits Department requested that the final approval of Sections 5 and 6 not be granted until the issues of amenities are addressed.Ms.Pietro provided a comparison of the approved PUD plan and the revised plan·submitted.The revised plan eliminates one tennis court,and one basketball court in the center of the subdivision.The walking trails were also eliminated due to the drainage issues,and the nature trail/rest area was omitted.The open space area proposed along College Road was eliminated,per a recommendation from Thompson's Gas Company.A tot lot was also eliminated at St.George Circle.The bus waiting areas will remain as proposed.The consultant,Steve Zoretich of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,explained that the drainage issues,grading issues,and other circumstances,such as the construction and site constraints,were not looked at in detail on the original 199 plan and w~r~th~r~asons th~am~niti~s could not b~built.Mr.Mos~r qu~stion~d th~s~rvic~of Thompson's Gas Company,v~rsus natural gas s~rvic~and ask~d Ms.Pi~tro to r~vi~w th~minut~s r~garding th~propane system originally discussed.Mr.Lyles stated that he had negotiated with Thompson Gas to put in the propane system and they own the system and the service of natural gas would b~negotiated between Columbia Gas and Thompson Gas.M~mb~rs discussed at length propos~d changes to the amenities of th~PUD and the current dralnag~probt~ms of the site.Mr. Goodrich stated that the PUD plan originally approved is a contract between the Planning Commission and the developer and the same is a contract of sorts between the developer and the residents of the community and suggest~d that th~developer offer alternatives.H~furth~r stated that the County is w~11 aware of the existing problems of St.James Village North and the need to address those issu~s and efforts have been made to resolve some of the problems.Mr.Clopper made a motion to deny the revisions to the PUD plan for St.James Village North.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Ms.Lampton and Mr. Ernst abstained.So ord~r~d. Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Corridor Study Terry McG~e,Chief Engineer for Washington County,presented th~findings of th~Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Corridor Study which,among other things,included the Impact of the ~ight proposed subdivisions in that corridor.Several months ago he and his staff began to express some concerns given the multiple developments proposed in this corridor.The Engineering Department met with the Board of County Commissioners and they agreed to take a look at the entire corridor as a regional traffic corridor.The regional study area Included Maugans Ave.lLongmeadow Road between Maugansville Road and Maryland Route 60 (Leitersburg Pike),Maryland Route 60 between Longmeadow Road and Marsh Pike,and Marsh Pike between Maryland Route 60 and Longmeadow Road.Mr.McGee stated that 1-81 is a major destination and this corridor is the quickest route for the northern end of Hagerstown to get to it.Eight developments are proposed in the corridor area:North Village,Seneca Ridge,Paradise Heights,Maple Valley Estates,Paradise Manor,Glen Erin,Halterman property,and Emerald Pointe PUD.The eight developments would feed traffic of varying amounts into this corridor that already has certain failing intersections and stressed road segments.The preliminary analysis proposes .signalizing several intersections that are not currently signalized,including both ramps on Maugans Avenue at 1-81,Crayton Boulevard at Maugans Avenue,and Paradise Church Road at Longmeadow Road.The State of Maryland is currently in the process of installing a signal at Longmeadow Road and Maryland Route 60.Based on the analysis we are aiso proposing a three-lane road section from Marsh Pike to Paradise Church Road and then a 4-lane section from Paradise Church Road to that same section in front of the Shopping Center.The Engineering Staff is working with our consultant to better determine preliminary cost estimates.The findings will be presented to the Director of Public Works and will be the basis for discussions with the Board of County Commissioners as to the necessary improvements and who will share in the costs.The Board of County Commissioners had previously authorized the Director of Public Works to negotiate with the developer of the Seneca Ridge development because it was the most advanced project.A draft developer's agreement is currently under review and the benchmark given for that agreement was $5,000 per unit.If the actual share is determined to be less, the developer would be refunded the difference.Mr.Kercheval added that the County is also adding tax dollars into this road system,therefore the taxpayers,as a County,are also paying. Mr.Lippe of Ryan Homes was present and questioned if the Planning Comrnisslon would review and approve any of the eight subdivisions in this corridor pending the road situation being resolved.Ms. Lampton stated that with the exception of Seneca Ridge,the proposed developments in the corridor area are on hold until the infrastructure Issues have been resolved.Ms.Lampton thanked Mr.McGee for his presentation. Sylvia J.and William D.Martin.RZ-03-001 -Density Recommendation Mr.Goodrich began the presentation by referring to a letter from William Wantz,representing the applicants,addressed to the Board of County Commissioners,requesting that the rezoning application be referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration of the appropriate density for development on the site.The applicant has requested a rezoning from Business General to Residential,Rural.Mr.Wantz had made the suggestion and,as a courtesy to the applicant,the Commissioners honored that request and forwarded the matter to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the density for the subject property.The Planning Commission previously recommended denial of the application.The Planning Commission is on the brink of going to public hearing with a Comprehensive Rezoning of the rural area,which includes this property.The County Attorney has advised the Staff that placing density restrictions on a rezoning application is permitted.Mr.Goodrich stated that under the proposed Comprehensive Rezoning,the property would be zoned Environmental Conservation with a density of 1:20 and that the old Conservation zoning would be eliminated.After the discussion,it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to decline making a formal recommendation due to the previous recommendation on the application and the impending Comprehensive Rezoning.No action was taken. UPCOMING MEETINGS A second Joint Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Rezoning (Rural Area)on Monday,September 15, 2003 at 6:00 p.m.in the Kepler Theater at Hagerstown Community College.Mr.Perini was present and questioned if they should be present at this hearing on their request for Glen Erin.Mr.Goodrich stated that he had spoken with Mr.Perini's attorney and advised him that he should be present at the hearing and make the request. 200 A Joint Rezoning Hearing will be held on Tuesday,September 23,2003 at 10:00 a.m.in the County Administration Building for a rezoning application for a historic preservation overlay. Mr.Anikis requested that the Heaith Department make a presentation on groundwater contamination, particularly in the South County region,as a part of a Planning Commission workshop.Mr.Moser suggested that a representative from the State should also attend the workshop to discuss the ramifications as to what the State would require of the developer and/or the County. Mr.Kercheval stressed the importance of updating the Adequate Public Facility Ordinance with regards to schools,and requested that the Planning Commission members anticipate meeting In the near future to discuss any proposed changes. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Clopper,seconded by Mr.Ernst,to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.Unanimously approved. -y;~;1 fto/lL Paula A.Lampton U Chairperson 201 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -October 6,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 6,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser, George Anikis (arrived at 8:35 p.m.)and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Interim Director!Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton stated that Mr.Anikis will be arriving iater in the evening and that Mr. Ernst has officially resigned from the Planning Commission.She further stated that a site plan for Mountainside Teleport would be added to the agenda. OLD BUSINESS SI.James Village North PUD -Revised Plan Ms.Pietro stated that as a result of last month's meeting,wherein the owner of St.James Village North PUD requested to revise the PUD plan.The request was denied.Mr.Lyles has agreed to follow through on the Planning Commission's request to provide the proposed amenities as shown on the approved PUD plan by October 31,2003.The only variation of the proposed amenities will be the relocation of the .proposed tot lot behind the rental duplex area.The tot lot will be added to the existing playground equipment.The owner is proposing to add a tennis court,a half-court basketball court,walking trail and covered rest area.Ms.Pietro explained that a half-court basketball court is proposed due to the limited spacing.The consultant will be meeting with Chris Carter of the Transportation Department of the Board of Education to discuss the proposed and existing school bus waiting areas.Discussion followed on the proposed amenities.The remaining sections of the PUD are on hold until the existing drainage problems are resolved.No action required. NEW BUSINESS -AG DISTRICTS: Mr.Goodrich presented three Agricultural Land Preservation District applications,as outlined in a memorandum submitted by Eric Seifarth,Land Preservation Administrator.The Ag Districts applications are for Henry H.Moyer,AD-03-003,consisting of 104.05 acres,Todd Bowman,AD-03-004,consisting of 373.48 acres,and David Shank,AD-03-006,consisting of 77.38 acres.The applicants have applied for a ten (10)year Agricultural Land Preservation District in exchange for property tax credits.Mr.Goodrich stated that the minimum acreage to qualify for an Ag District has been reduced to 50 acres.Each property is located in the rural area and no public services are proposed for the areas.Staff is recommending the approval of the applications because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the three Ag District applications,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. -SUBDIVISIONS: Riverwood,Lots 12-21,Preliminary Plat &Forest Conservation Plan Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for lots 12 through 21 of the Riverwood subdivision.The property is iocated along the east side of Gift Road.The property is zoned Agricultural.The plat was submitted in October 2002.The developer is proposing to create ten single-family lots,ranging from 1 to 3.5 acres.Total acreage of the subdivision is 19.8 acres. Private wells and septic systems will serve the lots.A new street,to be named Riverwood Court will provide access to the lots.Forest conservation requirements will be met by retaining 3.37 acres on lots 15 and 16 and 3.36 acres on the remaining lands,close to the Potomac River.The C &0 Canal access to the remaining lands and easements have been recorded.A proposed right-of-way has been set aside to access the adjacent lands.Fred Frederick,consultant,Frederick,Seibert &Associates stated that the owner has no plans to subdivide the adjacent lands.All approvals have been received,except from the Engineering Department.The road issues have been addressed and the Geo-technical Report is currently being reviewed.All road issues have been addressed.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan,contingent upon approval by the Engineering Department.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. 202 Overview of the Remaining Subdivisions Before proceeding,Mr.Goodrich provided an introduction on the remaining subdivisions on the agenda. He explained that the Longmeadow/Maugansville Road Corridor study and the status of the current moratorium have impacted several proposed subdivisions.At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners,the County Engineering Department has placed the proposed subdivisions in the Longmeadow/Maugansville Corridor on hold to allow time for a traffic study to be prepared.A determination would be made as to the necessary road improvements and how the costs might be divided between the various developers.North Village,Glen Erin and Seneca Ridge are affected by the corridor study. The current moratorium also impacted several proposed subdivisions.The moratorium was implemented as a result of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the current rural area rezoning proposed.The County Commissioners had exempted eight different subdivisions because a preliminary consultation was held prior to the moratorium.The eight subdivisions were given a deadline of October 31,2003 to acquire preliminary plat approval from the Planning Commission in order to proceed.Four out of the eight subdivisions have submitted a preliminary plat for approval.Staff presented the option of a preliminary plat approval with the condition that the plan be brought back for an unconditional preliminary approval,upon receipt of all agency responses,which would permit the developer to meet the deadline. The Planning Commission would also have the option to grant a conditional approval and upon receipt of all agency approvals,grant Staff the authority to sign off on the plat,or schedule another meeting for receipt and review of all the agency responses before the October 31 deadline.The proposed subdivisions impacted by the moratorium are Glen Erin,Appletown Estates,Limestone Acres,and H.F. Payne. Glen Erin·Preliminary Plat Mr.Goodrich presented for review and approval a preliminary plat for Glen Erin.An overview of the location and the history associated with the proposed subdivision was provided.Under the former .Comprehensive Plan and Growth Area boundary,there was some debate as to whether the proposed development was inside or outside of the Urban Growth Area.It was an issue,because of the developer's desire to provide public water and sewer on the property.Public water and sewer is not encouraged outside of the Growth Area and at that time,the boundary cut through a portion of the property.Glen Erin was initially proposed as two different projects.The portion to the west side of Marsh Run proposed 3 existing dwellings and 6 new lots,and the application for the east side of Marsh Run proposed 60 to 70 new lots.The Planning Commission had given conditional preliminary plat approval to the front portion and that conditional approval was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals by an adjacent property owner because there was a debate over the accuracy of the floodplain boundary and an issue about discharging stormwater into the floodplain across other private properties. The Board of Zoning Appeals placed a hold on the application until those issues were resolved.Since that time,both of the previous plans were withdrawn and a new application was submitted.The new Comprehensive Plan was adopted with a new Land Use Policy area map and new Growth Area boundary.The new boundary is more definitive and follows the course of Marsh Run so that the western portion of the SUbject property was included in the Growth Area and the east side was in the rural area.The Planning Commission reviewed several individual requests for changes to the proposed Growth Area boundary in August 2003,before presenting the proposed rural area rezoning.The developer made his individual request for inclusion of the entire development within the Growth Area during the public hearing.That determination will be made in the future,as a part of the rural area rezoning.The proposed subdivision is one of the eight subdivisions placed on hold because of the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road Corridor StUdy and is also one of the eight proposed subdivisions exempted from the moratorium and has the October 31,2003 deadline for preliminary piat approval. The proposed subdivision of Glen Erin consists of 73 new lots on 145 total acres,located on the east side of Marsh Run.The area on the west side of Marsh Run (front portion)has been excluded from the development.The remainder of the front portion of the property is known as Parcel A,and is reserved for future development.The current Agricultural zoning permits 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit on private wells and septic systems and a minimum lot size of 20,000 when they have public water.The proposed development is proposing public water and sewer to be built by the developer and the minimum lot size will be approximately 31,000 square feet and the largest lot size is over 4 acres.The sewer system will be mostly by gravity flow to pumping stations located within the development and pumped towards Marsh Pike and eventually to an existing force main that runs along the railroad track that runs parallel to Marsh Pike.A new road serves the proposed subdivision from Marsh Pike that will cross over Marsh Run to the new lots,known as Glen Erin Drive.The new roads will be constructed to County standards.A second entrance was requested at the consultation stage,however,that is not possible due to the limited road frontage and stream crossing.A small stub located on the corner of the property has been provided at the request of the Engineering Department to provide access for the adjacent property and ideally to the east to Leitersburg Pike.A monumental entrance is proposed with a median and brick fence entrance along both sides of Marsh Pike.Sidewalks are proposed for both sides of the entrance road for approximately 300',back from Marsh Pike and the remainder of the development will have paved shoulders without sidewalks.Stormwater management is scattered throughout the proposed deveiopment.There are some substantial floodplains and wetlands on the property.The developer will be meeting the forest conservation obligations by planting approximately 22 acres of forest on site in the floodplain and wetland areas. 203 Copies of the agency reviews have been provided to the Planning Commission.There were extensive comments submitted by the Engineering Department on the proposed development and the majority of the comments pertain to the stormwater management.The Heaith Department approval was received and is contingent upon the availability of public water and sewer.The City of Hagerstown stated that water and sewer is available on a "first come first serve basis,"which is their standard response.Both water and sewer services are contingent upon entering into an Annexation Agreement with the City of Hagerstown and the inclusion of the property within the Urban Growth Area.Paramount Elementary will serve this subdivision and is currently adequate, however,amendments to the Facilities Ordinance may be considered,or enrollment could increase before the final plat phase. Members discussed at length their course of action on how to best handle the request for preliminary plat approval,given the number of outstanding issues and the moratorium deadiine of October 30,2003.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to take this matter under consideration,until a workshop meeting.Members requested that Terry McGee,Chief Engineer,and a representative from the Soil Conservation District be present at the workshop to discuss their concerns,give some insight on the floodplain issues and to discuss the proposal of one access point.Mr.Moser made a motion to table the matter of the proposed Glen Erin subdivision until the workshop scheduled for October 20,2003. Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. Paul Merson/Appletown Estates Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a preliminary plat and preliminary forest conservation plat for Appletown Estates.This proposed subdivision is one of the eight exempted from the moratorium status.The preliminary consultation was held in April 2001 for 11 lots.The number of lots has been reduced to 8 due to perc testing issues.Total property area is 17.8 acres.The subject property is located on the east side of Appletown Road,adjacent to Maryland Route 67.The property is zoned Agricultural.The proposed subdivision will be serviced by a cul-de-sac street to be built by the developer and turned over to the County.Lot sizes will range from 1.2 acres to 3 acres.Lots will be served by onsite well and septic.A stormwater management pond will be located at the front of the subdivision. Forest conservation requirements will be met by a combination of onsite retention and onsite planting.A stream and potential wetland area is on the property and forest conservation will be used as a buffer for the sensitive areas.The outstanding agencies are the Engineering Department and the Permits Department,which have some minor comments on the plan.The Soil Conservation District is reviewing the hydrogeologic report and Staff does not anticipate any major comments from that report.Ms.Baker confirmed that lot 3 would have a sand mound septic system due to the soils and the location of the stream on the back portion of the property.Mr.Moser questioned if the Maryland Department of Environment had any comments on the wells,given the history on Clevelandtown Road.Ms.Baker stated that the Health Department did not require test wells and made no indication of any problems in that area.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon all agency approvais.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. Paul Redmond/Limestone Acres Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a preliminary plat for Limestone Acres located on the west side of Itnyre Road,near Smithsburg.The property is zoned Agricultural.This piat is also one of the eight exempted from the moratorium status.The proposal is for 14 lots situated on approximately 20.5 acres with approximately 55 acres of remaining lands.A cul-de-sac road will be built by the developer and turned over to the County to serve the lots.Onsite wells and septic systems will serve the lots.A stormwater management pond will address the water quality and quantity controls.Forest conservation requirements will be met by the payment in lieu method,which was approved at the July 2001 Planning Commission meeting.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Limestone Acres.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. North Village -Final Plat Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the final plat for North Village,Section 2 and a revised preliminary plat to add four additional lots to the subdivision.The preliminary plat was previously approved.The site is located on the north side of Longmeadow Road and zoning is RS.The Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Corridor Study affects the proposed subdivision.The developer is proposing 89 single-family lots on minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet with 22.5 acres of remaining lands.Lots 59 through 147 are proposed for Section 2.Public water and sewer will serve all iots.New or extended streets will serve the proposed iots.Forest conservation requirements will be met by planting 5.8 acres of forest onsite.All approvals have been received except from the Engineering Department and their approval is pending an agreement regarding the fee towards the infrastructure needs in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Corridor area.Mr.Goodrich stated that the developers for North Village and Seneca Ridge have reached agreements with the County Commissioners about their contributions on a per lot basis.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the final plat contingent upon a signed agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and approval from the Engineering Department.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. Seneca Ridge -Final Plat Mr.Goodrich presented for review and approval a final plat for Seneca Ridge.The final plat is for 73 single-family lots and 93 townhouse units.The apartment section previously received approval from the Planning Commission.The proposed development was on hold due to the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Corridor Study.The developer has reached an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners as to their contribution for the infrastructure needs.A new public road network is 204 proposed for the single-family area and private roads will serve the townhouse units.Public water and sewer will serve the site.Improvements at Maugans Avenue intersection will include a signal and dedicated turning lanes and bypass lanes at the developer's expense.The Planning Commission previously required screening along the edge of the stormwater area behind the townhouse units.There are substantial stormwater management ponds on the site.There are recreation areas in the apartment and townhouse areas.Sidewalks are proposed to allow movement within the development and to connect with Sunrise Avenue.Currently,Maugansville Elementary School is adequate and a new school is proposed for Maugansville that will be much larger than the existing school.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the final plat for Seneca Ridge.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. (Mr.Anikis arrived at 8:35) H.F.Payne -Preliminary Plat Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Howard Payne.The proposed subdivision is one of the eight proposed subdivisions exempted from the moratorium status.The subject site is located along the east side of Rohrersville Road (Route 67),south of Rohrersville.Zoning is Conservation.The developer is proposing to create 27 single-family lots.Lots 3 and 4 are currently under review,and lots 1 and 2 were previously approved.The total area of the lots is 122 acres and 11 acres are remaining.Lot sizes range from 3 to 15 acres.Individual wells and septic systems will serve all lots.The lots will be served by new pUblic streets,which will have two access points onto Route 67.The subject site has several streams and wetland areas.Three stream crossings will need to be constructed.A permit application has been submitted to MOE.The State Highway Administration has no objection to preliminary plat approval,providing that the final piat approval not be offered until a complete access permit package is submitted.The Engineering Department stated that, with the possible exception of a traffic barrier detail,the construction plans met their approval for those issues under their jurisdiction,however,they will not sign off on the construction plans until such time that the State Highway and MOE approvals are received.The Soil Conservation District approval is contingent upon the Engineering Department's approval.The Health Department and the Permits Department have approved the plan.To meet the forest conservation requirements the owner will retain ·onsite 34.41 acres of forest.The consultant,Rob Holmes,stated that the permit from MOE usually takes 4 to 6 months.Three stream crossings were submitted to MOE for reviewed and permitting.MOE's comments will be submitted to the Engineering Department.Mr.Moser requested Staff's comments on the list of suggestions submitted by the adjacent property owners,specifically the comments from the neighbors'private consultant on the wetland setback.Mr.Goodrich stated that if there are State requirements regarding the wetlands on the property such as setbacks,Staff can implement them on the plan,but that would be at the State's notification to the Staff.Members discussed tabling this matter to the October 20 'h workshop to allow time for any action by the Board of County Commissioners regarding the exemption deadline from the moratorium.A copy of the plat will be forwarded to the Planning Commission members prior to the workshop meeting.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to table the matter to the Planning Commission workshop meeting prior to the end of October.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. (5-MINUTE BREAK) -SITE PLANS: Kegerreis Outdoor Advertising Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Kegerreis Outdoor Advertising.The site plan is for a proposed billboard to be located on the east side of Eastern Boulevard on the existing car-wash business parcel.Zoning is Business General.The proposed billboard sign will be constructed on a one-acre parcel.Total advertising space on the sign is 952 square feet and the height will be 40'.The billboard sign will have two lights.All agencies have approved the site plan.The site is exempt from forest conservation requirements.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr. Moser.Unanimously approved. AT&T Wireless Services LLC -McKee Farm Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for a monopole cell tower for AT &T.The subject site is located on the McKee Farm on Resley Road,west of Hancock.Zoning is Conservation. The developer is proposing a 199'telecommunications tower on an 80'x 100'leased area.Elevation of the site is 657'.There are no overhead or underground utilities onsite.A 5'chain link fence with barbwire and a 12'gate will surround the tower.No lights are proposed for the tower.The pole will house three AT&T antennas and three additional AT & T antennas in the future.A letter has been placed in the file stating that AT&T would allow other wireless carriers to utilize the tower.A copy of the lease agreement between Mr.McKee and AT&T is also on file,which stipulates removal of the tower when it is no longer in use.Also,a copy of the Environment Screening Checklist Report prepared by A&C Associates.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a Special Exception for the monopoly communication tower on April 2, 2003.Access to the tower site will be provided by a right-of-way over the farm from the property owner's driveway.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because the disturbed area is less than 40,000 square feet.All agencies have approved the site plan.Mr.Ardinger made motion to grant site plan approval..Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Mr.Clopper abstained.So ordered. AT & T Wireless -Cook Property Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for AT&T Wireless for a 1gO'monopole cell tower to be located on property owned by Clarence Cook.The site is located along the north side of Breezy Acres Road,formerly known as Ridnour Road,north of Leitersburg.The cell tower site is approximately 570'off the road.Zoning is Agricultural.In March 2003,the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a Special 205 Exception to permit a commercial communications tower on the property.Access to the tower will be via a 10'wide gravel access road.There wili be a 22'x 22'fenced equipment compound that will be screened with fourteen Leyland cypress trees,planted 10'on center.The tower will be of a non-glare galvanized finish and will not be lit.AT&T will be located on the tower and there will be space available for additional carriers.The location of the tower meets all of the setback requirements of the Ordinance, based on the height of the tower.There is a provision for the removal of the tower in the lease agreement when the tower is no longer needed.The applicant has complied with the FCC Section 106 review,which also deals with impacts on historic sites and approval by the Maryland Historic Trust.A detailed background of the historic review of the site was completed because there was opposition at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing and there were some questions on the impact of historic sites.Mr.Lung further explained that the Maryland Historic Trust review was not complete at the time the Board of Zoning Appeals reviewed the matter.The County's Historic District Commission had identified some additional sites that they wanted reviewed.Since then,that review has been completed and the Maryland Historic Trust has determined that there would be no negative impact on national register eligible sites,however, the County's Historic District voiced its opposition to the proposed cell tower.Mr.Goodrich stated that Historic District Commission cited no specific reason,other than the proposed tower would be visible in an area where there is a listed historic site,particularly the Village of Leitersburg.All agency approvals were received except from the Soil Conservation District who is reviewing a revision of the sensitive areas stream buffer review.Staff has also requested some clarification on the plan.No problems are anticipated with the revision.Mr.Kercheval questioned the bUffering on cell towers.Mr.Lung explained that there are no bUffering standards for cell towers,however,Staff had requested some landscaping around the tower compound,which was provided.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Clopper abstained.So ordered. FedEx Ground Mr.Goodrich presented for review and approval a final site plan for Fed Ex Ground ..A preliminary site plan was approved at the September 2003 meeting.The proposal is for a 480,000 square foot package distribution facility to be located at the end of the extension of Halfway Boulevard.The subject site is located on the north side and at the end of Halfway Boulevard at the proposed NewgateBoulevard . .Halfway Boulevard will eventually be extended to Maryland Route 63 and Newgate Boulevard wili uitimately extend to U.S.Route 40.The total site area is 114.5 acres and 86 acres will be utilized for the proposed site.The property is zoned Highway Interchange I.Public water and sewer will serve the site. The forest conservation obligations will be met by onsite retention,which was approved previously by the Planning Commission at the subdivision plat stage.There wili be approximately 700 employees for the first phase and more than 500 parking spaces will be provided for employees.The distribution center will be utilized by FedEx vans that take packages to and from the site.FedEx trucks will utilize loading bays to bring packages in to be delivered by the vans and to take packages out to other FedEx hubs. Landscaping is proposed as buffer along the parking area edge and along an existing residential lot, which is appropriate for an industrial site.An extensive lighting plan has been provided that included the intensity of the lighting across the entire site to show that the developer is attempting to limit the spiliover of lighting on the adjacent property.Staff asked for authority to sign off on the site plan,upon receipt of all of the agency approvals.Some outstanding agency comments will need to be addressed.The Engineering Department has some substantial technical comments,primarily regarding stormwater management and it appears to be addressable at this time.The County Water Quality Department is working with the developer to find a way to serve the site by gravity and the technical details will need to be worked out.The City of Hagerstown will provide the public water and technical details will also need to be worked out.The State Highway Administration had originally asked for a traffic study.However,in their discussions with the County Engineering Department,they were of the opinion that since this will be a new road and the interchange was recently reconstructed that there wasn't a need for a traffic study for this particular development.Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon receipt of all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. Mountainside Teleport -Phase II The consultant,Rich Reichenbaugh,of Associated Engineering,provided an overview of the current structures on the site.Phase II will add more antenna dish pads.Currently,there are six dishes in operation.The Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District have signed the site plan drawings.No water or sewer is required on the site.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.There will be no additional staff requirements anticipated,or additional traffic generated.Mr.Reichenbaugh explained that originally there were two lots and Mountainside Teleport planned to utilize lot 1,however,the site plan was revised to include the purchase of lot 2,therefore a subdivision plat and a site plan has been submitted for review and approval.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant approval of the site plan and the subdivision plat contingent upon Staff's final approval. Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved. FOREST CONSERVATION Woodberry Commons (formerly Nursery Mews)Mitigation Request Ms.Pietro presented the mitigation request for Woodberry Commons,formerly known as Nursery Mews. A preliminary consultation was held in 2002.The owner proposed semi-detached dwellings on 12 acres and forest retention was proposed onsite.The consultant,Gerald Cump of Gerald A.Cump & Associates,Inc.,has submitted a request to meet the forest mitigation by the payment in lieu of method. Mr.Cump explained that the site contains no priority areas and that there is a large drainage swell and the request for payment in lieu mitigation option is desired,or the owner will have to redesign the project. At the preliminary consultation,landscaping and fencing was requested along the raiiroad tracks,which will be provided.The required planting wouid be 4.95 acres and the calculated payment in lieu amount would be $21,562.20.Mr.Anikis requested a more detailed explanation in writing,outlining the reasons 206 for the request and the impact on the development.Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the mitigation request subject to receiving a detaiied letter of justification for the file.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. Unanimously approved. Hagerstown Regional Airport Mitigation Request Mr.Goodrich presented a mitigation request for payment in lieu of as the method that Hagerstown Regional Airport could meet their forest conservation obligation.In the Airport's long range plan,they have multiple improvements proposed,including the extension of the runway.The forest mitigation is for the disturbed areas.The Forest Stand Delineation has been completed and is under review.It was determined that there is 7.6 acres of existing forest on the site.The Airport has over 600 acres owned by the County.There are 152 acres of disturbed area and 85 acres are exempt from forest conservation mitigation because they are essential parts of the Airport operation,including the runway extension. Therefore,approximately 67 acres is the net tract area for mitigation.Most of the existing forest will be removed and 3 acres will be retained onsite.The forest mitigation would be for 5.12 acres.The planting of forest on the Airport property is not desired because it would create hazards for its operations.Staff is anticipating a letter from the Director of Building,Grounds &Parks Department to address why forest could not be planted on other County owned property..Mr.Goodrich confirmed that the letter would be received.Mr.Goodrich stated that this proposal would be offsite planting and the recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Ordinance dictates that offsite planting will be at a 2:1 ratio,which would reflect 10 acres of retention.Mr.Bowie,representing URS,the Airport's consultant,expressed that the payment in lieu of method was not their first priority;however,the FAA would not approve the planting of trees on the Airport property.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the mitigation request.Seconded by Mr. Anikis.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Powers Property Request for Preliminary Consultation Extension Mr.Lung explained the request from the Smithsburg Development Corporation.A preliminary consultation was held approximately two years ago for a proposed development on the subject property, but for a different developer.The Ordinance states that a preliminary plat has to be submitted within a .year of the consultation.The new developer has submitted a letter requesting a time extension/waiver of an additional consultation.Mr.Lung explained that the Staffs opinion on this matter is that,since the original consultation had expired,another consultation shouid be required in order for the new developer to move forward.The primary reason for having another consultation would be to make sure that the Staff and the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to review and provide comments on the new plan and to insure that previous comments had been addressed.The proposed development is located in the area designated as Industrial Flex in the new Comprehensive Plan and the property is also inside the Growth Area.The new developer has worked out an agreement with the Water and Sewer Department for placement of service lines to serve the proposed development.Aaron Orndorff, representative for the Smithsburg Development Corporation,explained that the basic reason for the request was for the sake of time,apprOXimately 4 months,having another consultation would incur.Also the developer's desire to begin the preliminary plat phase.He further stated that most of the comments discussed at the previous consultation have been addressed and that another consultation would result in the same comments being addressed again.The original plan showed 98 residential lots and 2 commercial lots.The revised plan replaced the commercial lots with residential lots.Mr.Orndorff stated that the State Highway Administration had purchased all the access rights along Maryland Route 63,but they did agree to permit one access on Route 63.The original plan did not show stormwater management areas and the number of lots will be reduced,due to adding stormwater management areas,which would be addressed on a preliminary plat.Mr.Goodrich stated that,it is the Staff's opinion that there is enough difference between the previous plan,along with other changes,such as the new Growth Area,the new Comprehensive Plan and Rural Area rezoning,and the road conditions in that area to warrant another consultation.He also stated that it would not take Staff four months to process a preliminary consultation. He further stated that a consultation is an exchange of information and if some of the issues have already been discussed and worked out,those agencies can simply confirm the issues have already been resolved.A new plan has not been presented.Mr.Lung stated that there were several outstanding issues from the previous consultation that may have been addressed,but Staff has not heard from those agencies.Some of the issues include a traffic study that was to take into consideration pedestrian traffic and the possible need for sidewalks.There was also a comment from the County Engineer about the use of traffic calming measures,and the Soil Conservation District's request for information on the sensitive area review.Planning Commission members discussed and agreed with the Staff's recommendation. Due to the changes from the original plan,another preliminary consultation is necessary and would be beneficial to the developer.Mr.Goodrich suggested that the preliminary plat could be submitted for review as the concept plan and if there were no problems,the plan could move forward;however,if there are issues,the Staff would bring the plan back to the Planning Commission for review.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to deny the request for an extension of the preliminary consultation.Seconded by Mr. Anikis.So ordered. UPCOMING MEETINGS A second Joint Public Hearing -Comprehensive Rezoning (Rural Area)has been scheduled for October 8,2003 at 6:00 p.m.in the South Hagerstown High School auditorium. A workshop meeting was scheduled for October 20,2003 at 3:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex conference room.Mr.McGee from the Engineering Department and a representative from the Soii Conservation District wiil be invited to discuss the two pending subdivisions of Glen Erin and H.F.Payne The subdivisions will be first on the agenda and discussion will follow on the proposed APFO amendments regarding schoois. 207 Ms.Lampton discussed scheduling workshops in the future to discuss homeowner associations and water quality issues. ~.=~~,,# ADJOURNMENT Motion made by approved. Mr.Ardinger,seconded by Mr.Clopper,to adjourn at 10:18 p.m.Unanimously ~;1-'J~ Paula A.Lampton -cr-F-------- Chairperson . 209 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -October 20,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,October 20,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser, George Anikis and Ex-Offcio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Interim Planning Director,Stephen T.Goodrich; Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman.Also present were:Terry McGee,Chief Engineer,Washington County Engineering Department;Dee Price,Washington County Sail Conservation District;Gary Rohrer,Director of Public Works;and Dori Nipps,County Commissioner. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 3:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Mr.Goodrich stated that the Glen Erin and H.F.Payne subdivisions were tabled at the recent regular Planning Commission meeting of October 6,2003.The two subdivisions were under pressure because they had been exempted from the moratorium and given a deadline to obtain a preliminary plat approval, by October 31,2003.The two subdivisions were presented to the Planning Commission.Both plans did not have the necessary agency responses.The Planning Commission had several concerns on the proposed plans,and tabled both subdivisions with hopes that additional agency review would be available by today.Also,the Planning Commission had asked that the County's Chief Engineer and a representative from the Soil Conservation District be invited to discuss the outstanding issues and answer any questions . •H.F.Payne -Preliminary Plat Ms.Pietro provided an overview of the previous discussion on the preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Howard F.Payne.The subject site is located along the east side of Rohrersville Road (Route 67),south of Rohrersville.One access point is proposed onto Rohrersville Road,which the State Highway Administration had requested and approved,and it is the only access point for the development.Lots 3 and 4 are currently under review,and lots 1 and 2 were previously approved.The proposed plan is for 27 lots.New public streets are to be constructed to serve the lots.Forest will be retained to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.The subject site has wetland areas and several streams that will require the construction of bridges.The sensitive areas will be noted on the plat.Every owner should be aware of these conditions and the deeds should also refer to the conditions on the plat.The outstanding agencies are the Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District.The Engineering Department's approval is pending on review of studies being conducted.The State Highway Department (SHA)has approved a preliminary plat with the stipulation,that prior to final plat approval,a complete access permit package is submitted to SHA.Ms.Pietro stated that a letter was submitted by Ms.Vahey,an adjacent property owner in Bent Willow Estates.Her letter listed twelve items of concern on the proposed subdivision.Ms.Pietro provided the Members with a copy of Mr.Payne's response to the concerns outlined in Ms.Vehey's letter.Mr.Ardinger questioned Mr.McGee on the status of the Engineering Department's review.Mr.McGee stated that the bulk of their review hinges on the Maryland Department of Environment and/or the ACOE,issuing the permits for the waterway crossings. Those permits could take four to eight months,from the September 2003 submittal date.The Soil Conservation District approval is contingent upon the Engineering Department's approval.The developer would bear the costs and will construct the waterway crossings.Mr.Anikis questioned the access point for lot 1.Ms.Pietro explained that lot 1 uses an existing gravel lane,which will be abandoned,from a point to Route 67 and will connect with South Mountain Court.Mr.Anikis questioned the fact that only one entrance is proposed for the subdivision.Mr.McGee stated that they had looked at a second entrance on Route 67,but the SHA would not permit an entrance off Route 67,An access through Bent Willow Estates is not ideal so the Engineering Department elected not to pursue a second entrance.Mr.Moser questioned the intention of the remaining lands off of South Mountain Court,which adjoins the forest conservation easement.Mr.Holmes stated that the remaining lands would most likely remain open.Mr. Moser also questioned the side property line on lot 26 with the septic area jutting over to the adjoining lot 25.Mr.Homes explained that it was the only way they could get a perc test and the entire property line could not be moved because of the lot width requirements.Mr.Moser suggested that the developer could eiiminate a lot,which would prevent problems down the road between the lot owners.Members discussed Mr.Payne's response to the concerns raised in Ms.Vehey's letter.Mr.Anikis encouraged Mr. Payne to consider installing a UV system on the water systems.Mr.Payne stated that he believed it was a reasonable request and gave his word that he would install a system in each home in this subdivision. Ms.Lampton confirmed that the plan would come to the Planning Commission for review as the plan proceeds to keep the members abreast of all the issues.Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the preliminary plat,subject to receiving the approvals from all of the County and State agencies and contingent upon the Staff bringing back the plat to the Planning Commission for their review,prior to issuing a preliminary approval,with no contingencies.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Discussion followed that the Planning Commission's action satisfies the need to obtain a preliminary plat approval prior to the October 31,2003 deadline.Unanimously approved. , 210 -Glen Erin Preliminary Plat Mr.Goodrich stated that,during the recent County Commissioners'meeting,Marsh Run Associates,the developer of Gien Erin,attended the meeting.During the Citizen Comment period,a presentation by the developer was made to the County Commissioners.The developer asked the Commissioners to consider their request to be included within the Growth Area boundary.This request is a one of the rural area rezoning applications received in response to the Comprehensive Rezoning of Rural Areas.The Commissioners approved the developer's request.Therefore,in the Staff's opinion,after speaking with the County Attorney on this issue,the County Commissioners'action removes the October 31,2003 deadline for Glen Erin to obtain their preliminary approval.Mr.Kercheval elaborated that the owners expressed concerns that this Board would not grant their request to be included within the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Kercheval stated that,he had advised the Commissioners that this Board did not indicate that, but had stated that there were concerns with approving the preliminary plan with so many outstanding issues.He clarified that he had voted against approving the request of the developer;however,the Commissioners approved it. Mr.Goodrich stated that,prior to this meeting,he had received a letter from the consultant documenting their efforts to date and their understanding,that the action by the County Commissioners negated the need to meet the deadline to obtain a preliminary approval.The plan remained on the agenda for review since there are some Engineering issues that could be addressed by Mr.McGee,who was in attendance. Mr.Kercheval asked Terry McGee to comment on the one access point proposed.Mr.McGee stated that,absent a formal policy,the Engineering Department looks at a plan as to where a second entrance is logicai and where it can be reasonably accomplished,however,they cannot enforce a second entrance. In this particular case,the Engineering Department does not believe that a second entrance is feasible, due to several physical constraints,including the crossing of a major floodplain.The Engineering Department is awaiting verification,but has been told that the Army Corps of Engineers is reluctant to allow more than one crossing because of wetland areas.There is an easement on the back portion of the subject property for a possible connection,if the adjoining property should ever be developed that could eventually provide access to Maryland 60.Mr.McGee explained that the proposed road crosses 'floodplain area.The design criteria will require the developer to oversize the structure so that the road remains passable in a 100-year storm event,however,if a storm exceeds that,the road could be impassable for a period of time.A discussion followed on the floodplain area.Mr.McGee stated that, though they cannot prohibit a developer from putting basements in,the Engineering Department can only recommend that design and have a note added to the plat.The Engineering Department will also require a number of the proposed lots to have detailed grading plans,which will also be noted on the plat. Mr.Anikis questioned the comments in the letter from the Washington County Soil Conservation District, regarding the buffer and stormwater management.Dee Price,from the Soil Conservation District, explained that during the preliminary reviews,the consultant stated that the owner was willing to move the stormwater management structure close to the roadway. Mr.Ardinger questioned,since the property is now in the Urban Growth Area,whether this action presents an opportunity to the developer to substantially change the plan.Mr.Perini stated that it is not their intention to change anything on the plan,but the City of Hagerstown may require changes,including the reduction of the proposed lot size.The Hagerstown Annexation Committee did approve water and sewer service,contingent upon the property being in the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Perini stated that an appeal has been filed on the Annexation Committee's decision. Mr.Goodrich summarized the status of the Glen Erin subdivision.The Commissioners'action eliminates the deadline.The plan would go through the normal review process and whatever the City might do should not sway the Planning Commission members on any future action. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Clopper,seconded by Mr.Moser to adjourn for five minutes.Unanimously approved. ************************************************************************************************************************ WORKSHOP MEETING -APFO AMENDMENTS (Schools) Mr.Goodrich provided copies of the proposed amendments to the APFO,which affect Article V - Schools.He also explained a chart showing the data on the School Capacity Evaluation for the elementary schools,at 105%of capacity,in comparison with the proposed 85%capacity.Schooi Capacity Evaluation charts were also included for the middle and high schools.A copy of the Enrollment Report from the Board of Education for September 30,2003 was also distributed. Author of the text,Gary Rohrer,Director of Public Works,presented the draft amendments to the APFO. He explained that he and Steve Goodrich had drafted the text and the editing of the sections were based on work sessions with the Board of County Commissioners,along with various input that he had received from the Board of Education and 'others.Mr.Rohrer explained and answered questions on each of the proposed amendments,which included changes to Article I -Definitions;Article III -Administration;and Article V -Schools.The County Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments.The developer will be advised,at each phase of a proposed subdivision,as to the adequacy of schools.To address the inadequacy of a school,the Commissioners may enter into an agreement with the developer to include monetary compensation by the developer to be placed in a dedicated account for school construction. 211 The Board of County Commissioners'public hearing on the amendments to the APFO will be held on October 27,2003. UPCOMING MEETING The Planning Commission will have a general overall discussion on the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Area on November 17,2003 at 3:00 PM in the Administrative Annex conference room.Mr. Goodrich informed the Planning Commission members that the Staff has started to review the individual Comprehensive Rezoning requests.There are over 30 requests,for either inclusions within the Growth Area or changes to the zoning assigned during the Comprehensive Rezoning.When Staff has completed their review,the requests will be forwarded to the Pianning Commission for their review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. pa7!::tm~----~ Chairperson 212 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -November 3,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its reguiar meeting on Monday,November 3,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser, George Anikis and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff:Interim Director/Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of August 4,2003,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.'Unanimously approved. SUBDIVISIONS Paradise Manor Preliminary/Final Plat Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a preliminary/final plat for Paradise Manor and the preliminary/final Forest Conservation Plan.The subject site is located along the east side of Paradise Church Road,north of Eden Drive.Zoning is RR.The developer is proposing to create 106 single-family lots,approximately 15,000 square feet in size.The total area of the subdivision is 100 acres with 43 'acres of remaining lands.The proposed subdivision is an extension of a development that has been in place for a number of years and a continuation of the current land use.Public water and sewer will serve the site.Access to the lots will be via the newly constructed public streets.Access from the new streets will be onto Paradise Manor Drive,which connects with Paradise Church Road.The west branch of Marsh Run is located on the site,along with floodplain stream buffers that range in size from 59'to 120'. There will be two stormwater management areas on the property.Access easements have been provided on the plan for the stormwater management areas and the forest conservation easement. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by retaining existing forest and planting new forest.The forest conservation easement area is 25.9 acres.All approvals have been received,except for the Engineering Department and the approval from the Soil Conservation District is pending Engineering's approval of the plat.This development is one of the projects along the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor that requires an agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the developer about the determined amount per lot towards the infrastructure costs. A traffic study has been completed for this project and any findings from that study will determine the upgrades needed.Mr.Goodrich stated that there are three developments in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor area (Paradise Manor,Paradise Heights,and Maple Valley Estates) on the agenda this evening and all three of the developments are being presented for review because the developers and the County have agreed,in principal,that the developer will be obligated to pay a determined amount per lot for the road and the school improvements.Mr.Ardinger questioned if the dollar amount had been defined.Mr.Kercheval stated that the amount will be defined equally and that the Board of County Commissioners will still have to adopt the APFO regarding schools.Mr.Goodrich stated that when an agreement is formalized, Engineering will be able to signoff on the plat and that the Planning Department will not be signing the plats until assurance is received from Public Works Department that the agreements have been finalized.Therefore,any approvals from the Planning Commission would be contingent on receipt of all approvals.Mr.Anikis questioned the build-out timeframe of the development.The developer stated that he estimates three to four years at 25 to 35 units per year.Mr.Moser questioned if the County Parks Department reviews the proposed subdivisions, as to their future park projects.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Parks Department does not review the individual plans;however,the draft Land Preservation and Recreation Plan document that sets the County's goals for parkland is currently out for public review and a public hearing will be held on the proposed Plan.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat and the preliminary/final Forest Conservation Plan,contingent upon approvals from the Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Paradise Heights,Section A -Preliminary Plat Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a preliminary plat for Paradise Heights,Section A.The property is located on the west side of Paradise Church Road and is zoned RS.The developer is proposing 55 single-family lots and semi-detached lots in Section A.Pulaski Drive will be extended from the North Village subdivision,to'service the proposed development.A secondary access will be proposed in the future phases.A stormwater management pond,located in the northwest corner of the property,will service Section A.Public water and sewer will serve the property.A pumping station will be onsile to service the North Village subdivision and this proposed development.The Planning Commission previously approved the Forest Conservation Plan,at the preliminary consultation stage,for onsite planting and the payment in lieu fee of $20,865.Paramount Elementary,Northern Middle and North High will serve the development and are all currently adequate.This proposed subdivision is also 213 one of the developments located in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor study area.As previously mentioned,the developers and the County have agreee,in principal,to-",n agreement for the road and school improvements in the corridor study area.Outstanding agencies include the Engineering Department,due to the corridor study and some minor revisions to-the plan.The Soil Conservation District is awaiting the Engineering Department's approval of the plan.The Water and Sewer Department has provided their verbal approval and requested some minor revisiens to the plan.The City Water Department is also awaiting revisions to the plan.Mr.Kercheval questioned the developer on the projected build out of the development.The developer,Mr.Downey,responded that he anticipates 55 lots in three to five years,depending on the economy.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plat,contingent upon receipt of the approvals from the Engineering Department,Soil Conservation District,Water and Sewer Department,and City Water Department.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. Unanimously approved. Maple Valley Estates -Preliminary Plat Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Maple Valley Estates,Sections C,D &E.The subject site is located along the north side of Longmeadow Road, adjacent to Corello Drive.The property is zoned RS.The developer is proposing to create 102 single- family homes on 48.2 acres.Public water and sewer will serve all lots.New public streets will be constructed with a new connection to Woodhaven Drive.Forest Conservation Ordinance.requirements will be met by planting 7.16 acres of forest onsite.Existing ease met}!areas of 1.39 acres are present to meet previous section requirements.Stormwater management areas consist oUr;O acres.The proposed development is located in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor study.All approvals have been received,except for the Engineering Department.The Soil Conservation District gave their verbal approval contingent upon Engineering's final approval.As previously noted during the discussion of Paradise Manor,this development is in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor and is being presented for review because the developers and the County have agreed,in principal,that the developer will be obligated to pay a determined amount per lot for the road and the school Improvements.Ms. Lampton questioned the developer on the build-out timeframe.The developer,Mr.Oder,stated that the projected build-out of the development would be four years.Discussion followed on the proposed new .street names using the mutual word of "Maple"in the address and whether the proposed street names may create confusion and safety concerns.Mr.Townsley,consultant of Fox &Associates,stated that a listing of proposed street names were previously submitted to the Planning Department and approved by Fire and Rescue and suggested that they could review the proposed street names again.The Planning Commission members agreed that the street names should be reviewed for safety reasons.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval and approval of the Forest Conservation Plan for Maple Valley Estates,subject to receipt of all outstanding agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper. Unanimously approved. Rocky Springs Enterprises,Lots 6-8 -Preliminary/Final Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary/final plat for Rocky Springs Enterprises,lots 6 through 8.The proposed lots are located along the west side of Garis Shop Road.The property is zoned Agricultural.Mr.Lung stated that an administrative waiver to a preliminary consultation was granted in June 2003,and a subdivision plat was previously approved for lots 1 through 5.Following that approval, a plat was submitted for lots 6,7 and 8 and was accepted for processing,even though it resulted in more lots than what is permitted under the current subdivision moratorium.The overall density of the proposed subdivision meets the criteria established in the new Comprehensive Plan of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the Agricultural Policy Area.Mr.Lung explained that the proposed subdivision plat would normally be approved on the Staff level,however,the moratorium enacted by the Board of County Commissioners for developments larger than 5 lots outside of the Urban Growth Area requires that this matter was brought before the Planning Commission.Based on the conditions set forth in the moratorium,the Board of County Commissioners can consider an application for exemption for any subdivision that,in the opinion of the Planning Director,is consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan,following the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission.The first five lots would not be considered part of the density requirement and 14 lots would be permitted on the 69.43 acres of remaining lands.The proposed three additional lots would fall well within the density guidelines,per the revised Comprehensive Plan. Potentially,nine additional lots would be permitted with the development still meeting the density requirements under the proposed Ag zoning.Existing forest will be retained with some additional planting on the remaining lands to meet the forest conservation requirements.Mr.Moser questioned the use of the remaining lands and whether a note should be added to the plat that no further subdivision would occur.Mr.Lung stated that a mechanism would need to be in place to document that three lots were already deducted from the permitted density and a statement is also needed on the plat to track the ability for future subdivision.All agency approvals were received on the plat.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat and to also recommend that the Board of County Commissioners exempt the proposed subdivision of lots 6 through 8 from the moratorium.Seconded by Mr.Anikis. Unanimously approved. Garden State Tanning -Preliminary/Final Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary/final plat for Garden State Tanning.The plat is for a one-lot subdivision located on the south side of Bottom Road in the vicinity of Williamsport.The property contains approximately 26 acres and is zoned IG.A considerable amount of the property is floodplain.The useable area is 4.38 acres.Prior to any development,a site plan would be required for review and approval by the Planning Commission.The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all lots have water and sewer disposal facilities available.In this case,public water is available from the City of Hagerstown and the line actually runs though the property,however,sewer is not available.The property 214 does not contain any soil that would pass a perc test and there are currently no public sewer facilities nearby.Mr.Lung expiained that the property is zoned Industrial General and there are principal permitted uses in this district that would not require sewage facilities.The Health Department did not oppose the plan.Prior to any development,a site plan would have to be submitted and reviewed,with the Health Department determining if the use would be suitable for the location,without available sewage facilities and a note to that affect would be added to the subdivision plat.The developer,Mr.Spaulding, stated that Garden State Tanning's senior management would like to have this parcel subdivided from its main property and that it may be considered for future donation,however,there is no specific plan for the lot,at this time.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat for a parcel without available sewer facilities.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. SITE PLANS Cornerstone Rare Books Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for an antique and rare bookstore,known as Cornerstone Rare Books.The subject site is located within the Fountain View PUD,aiong Route 11.As a part of the PUD process,there were commerciai iots approved along Route 11 and the subject site is located on commercial lot 1.Commercial lots 2 and 3 were previously converted to apartments.An existing barn is located on commercial lot 1,which is now being renovated and converted into a partial residence and antique bookstore.The zoning is Agricultural with a PUD overlay.The lot size is .80 acres.Public water and sewer will service the lot.There are seven newly paved parking spaces, including a handicap space.Entrance to the site will be off of Diller Drive and no commercial access is permitted onto Route 11.The project is exempt from stormwater management requirements.The outstanding agencies are the Engineering Department and the Water and Sewer Department,who requested some minor revisions.The State Highway Administration requested notes to clarify the entrance.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant final site plan approval,subject to receipt of the approvals from the Engineering Department,Water &Sewer Department and State Highway Administration. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. FOREST CONSERVATION North Village Development Company.Inc.-Mitigation Request Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a mitigation request for North Village Deveiopment Company,Inc.The reserved forest was established in 1995 for the subdivision of two lots and the remaining lands.The proposed owner would like to purchase the remaining lands for commercial development and is requesting to remove .45 acres of reserved forest,located adjacent to and south of Longmeadow Road.The reserved forest would be retained at another location offsite owned by the proposed owner,either along Spielman Road or the Dam #4 Road area.In determining the requirements for retention or planting,Staff reviewed the Forest Conservation Worksheet and determined that the requirement would be calculated,as if no retention had ever took piace,and would be based on 1.78 acres.Under the new requirements,forest retention is doubled when located offsite and wouid calcuiate at .90 acres.Ms.Pietro explained that a fee in lieu of was previously paid in 1995,as a part of the requirement at that time.Credit would be given for that payment and .9 acres wouid be the new mitigation requirement.If the offsite mitigation request is permitted,the amount of forest would be doubled to 1.8 acres for retention of existing forest,per the new Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.There are no sensitive areas or other forest on the subject parcel.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant approval of the mitigation request contingent upon the calculation of the mitigation requirement being based upon as if the forest was not retained at all.Seconded by Mr.Anikis. Unanimously approved. Emmanuel Baptist Temple -Mitigation Request Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a mitigation request for Emmanuel Baptist Temple.The subject site is located on the left side of US 40,west of Huyetts Crossroads.A site plan was approved in 2002,which added a gymnasium/multi-purpose facility.The original Forest Conservation Plan proposed the total requirement of 3.10 acres,which retained .46 acres and reforested 2.01 acres for a total of 2.47 acres.The balance of 1.09 acres was mitigated by payment in lieu of.The applicant has requested to remove .89 acres of reforest requirements to improve the visibility of the church.The new construction was not completed until this spring because of the wet weather and the proposed pianting was not done. The church is proposing to retain .46 acres of existing forest and reforest 1.12 acres for a total of 1.58 acres.The payment in lieu amount would increase from 1.09 acres to 1.98 acres.Mr.Aikens,Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Temple,explained that,rather than planting trees at random in a reforestation fashion, they would prefer to plant ornamental trees,along with some landscaping to enhance the beauty of the property's road frontage and sign location.Mr.Clopper rnade a motion to grant the mitigation request to remove .89 acres and the acceptance of the payment in lieu of for 1.98 acres.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Ivan &Elizabeth Martin.Lot 1 Onsite Septic Reserve Area Ms.Pietro presented for review and approvai a request for an offsite septic reserve area for Ivan and Elizabeth Martin.A singie lot is currently under review for Ivan and Elizabeth Martin,located off Air View Road.Mr.Martin wants to subdivide his existing house from the rest of the farm acreage of 99 acres. 215 The septic reserve area would be located on the remaining lands.An easement would be established around the existing septic system.Mr.Bush,consultant of Gerald A.Cump &Associates,explained that Mr.Martin may convey the farm in the future and keep his lot area to a minimum to keep as much land as possible for agricultural purposes.The subdivision does propose an easement to be reserved to and around the septic area that would carry forth in any future conveyances.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the offsite septic reserve area.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Unanimously approved. South Pointe PUD Modification Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a request for a modification to the South Pointe PUD plan. The subject property is located along Oak Ridge Drive.The original PUD was approved in the early 1990's for South Pointe.The original PUD plan proposed townhouses,single-family lots,commercial area,and apartments.The plan also proposed the amenities of a tennis court,pool,tot lot and picnic area for the apartment area.Since then,the development has become a senior citizen/empty nester residential community.The owner is proposing to remove the proposed apartments on the PUD plan. Townhouses and a three-story retirement living center would replace the proposed apartments and would tie in more with the rest of the development and would decrease the overall density.The owner is proposing a pool,gazebo,walking paths and an open space area as the amenities for Phase 5.The Planning Commission's approval is necessary for any changes made to an approved PUD plan.The plan was routed to the County Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District and neither agency had any concerns with the revised plan.Phase 4 includes the townhouse units and it is approximately 60%complete.Phase 5 is the final phase and will consist of the proposed retirement living center.The retirement living center layout is similar to the original proposal,which concentrates the units into one building,rather than scattering the units in several buildings.Staff does not believe this change would warrant another public hearing.Mr.Crampton confirmed that the proposed amenities on the original plan had not been advertised and that the homeowner's association was notified of the proposed changes at their recent meeting and were supportive of the changes.Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the revised layout of the South Pointe PUD,as presented.Seconded by Mr.Moser. Unanimously approved. Mt.Aetna Subdivision/Troy Henson -Request for Additional Lots Mr.Lung stated that the process for this subdivision began several years ago and there has been an evolution of design based on numerous factors unique to the property,which resulted in a 24-lot subdivision with 101 acres of remaining lands.The subject property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road,east of Maryland Route 66.Zoning is primarily Agricultural with a small area of Conservation.The outcome of the previous review by the Planning Commission of the Mt.Aetna subdivision,resulted in conditions on previously approved plats that included the stipulation that,"There shall be no further subdivision of these lots or the remaining lands without Planning Commission approval."Two individual subdivision proposals have been received and each wish proposal is to create additional lots beyond the 24 lots.Both requests are interrelated since they are both from the original parcel and from plats,which contain the statement regarding no further subdivision. The first request is by Mr.Henson.He owns lot 3 and is requesting the Planning Commission's permission to move forward with a plat to subdivide lot 3,which is just over 6 acres into two lots.The County's APFO road adequacy policy changes when a developer's proposal exceeds 24 lots.Even though Mr.Henson is asking for one additional lot,if he were to submit his proposal first,he would then be responsible for any road improvements that may be required because the higher level of review that is triggered by exceeding the 25th lot.There has not been a road adequacy determination made on Mt. Aetna Road.To clarify an item in Mr.Lung's memorandum to the Planning Commission,any road improvements that would be necessary for Mt.Aetna Road have not been determined.The consultant for either Mr.Henson or Mr.Easterday would have to perform a road adequacy determination to find out what improvements may be required.Because of the configuration of Mr.Henson's lot,there would most likely be an additional panhandle.There have already been two panhandle lots created from the original parcel.Mr.Easterday is also proposing two additional panhandle lots for a total of five panhandles,which is one over the limit.Therefore,either Mr.Henson or Mr.Easterday will have to eliminate a panhandle,or present a variance request to the Planning Commission.The new lot for Mr.Henson would have its own access point onto Mt.Aetna Road.Forest conservation has already been addressed for lot 3 and an additional lot would not require any additional requirements.A panhandle through the front lot would be used to access the second lot.Mr.Henson would have to meet the County's sight distance requirements to have an entrance established.The Planning Commission members discussed Mr.Henson's application and the fact that he would have to address road adequacy and may need to submit a variance request for the panhandle.They further stated that Mr.Henson's request did not impact their concerns with the remaining lands of the property.If Mr.Henson submitted a plat,the Planning Commission would then review it;however,they could not offer a pre-approval to Mr.Henson. Mr.Lung explained the second request by Todd Easterday,who is the original developer of the subdivision and the owner of the 101 acres of remaining lands.Mr.Easterday is requesting the Planning Commission's endorsement of a concept plan to divide the remaining lands into 6 parcels resulting in a total of 30 lots.The proposal would also lengthen the existing cul-de-sac an additional 500'for a total length of 2,400'.The panhandle length of the proposed lot 30 exceeds 400',which is the maximum length allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance and would require the approval of a variance.The Washington County Engineering Department stated that they would not support the additional lengthening of the cul-de-sac,however,they do not have a standard on cul-de-sac length and that is determined by the Planning Commission.The original design showed the cul-de-sac as 3,000'long, which the Planning Commission rejected.Now the owner is proposing to add an additional 500'. 216 Additionally,the Engineering Department commented that the County's APFO Road Adequacy Policy would apply since the plan exceeded 24 lots,and the higher level of review would take effect.Therefore, the condition of Mt.Aetna Road would be reviewed from a vertical and horizontal alignment. Approximately 70%of lot 28 is located in the Zone of Dewatering Influence associated with the H.B. Mellott Quarry and about 95%of lot 30 is also in the Zone of Influence.There was a considerable amount of discussion and concern by the Staff and the Planning Commission when the plan was originaliy reviewed regarding the Zone of Influence.Mr.Lung explained that there were several factors that steered this development in the direction of the originally approved for 24 lots.The factors included the location of the subdivision in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area,many existing environmentally sensitive areas on the site,the Zone of Dewatering Influence.It was these factors that resulted in the condition that there be no further subdivision of the property.The Planning Commission discussed at length Mr.Easterday's request.Mr.Easterday offered several other options for the Commission's consideration.However,the Chairperson,Ms.Lampton,advised Mr.Easterday that the Commission could only act on the request that was presented.Following the discussion,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they could not support Mr.Easterday's request based on the following:the proposal for six additional lots would not be consistent with the current subdivision moratorium in the Rural Area;the iength of the panhandle associated with the proposed lot 30 exceeds 400',which is the maximum length allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance;the proposed design would also lengthen the existing cul-de-sac an additionai 500'for a total length of 2,400';the concerns regarding the impact of additional lots within the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area without additional hydro- geologic studies or well testing;concerns about the impact of additional lots on the environmentally sensitive areas located on the property;and also concerns regarding the location of additional lots in relation to the Zone of De-watering Influence established by MDE for the Beaver Creek Quarry.Mr. Moser made a motion to deny Mr.Easterday's request and further stated that Mr.Henson,hearing the discussion this evening,may move forward.Mr.Anikis seconded the motion.The vote was unanimous. UPCOMING MEETINGS A Joint Rezoning Public Hearing is scheduled for Monday,November 10,2003 at 7:00 p.m.in the ·Washington County Court House,Court Room #1. A Planning Commission workshop has been scheduled for Monday,November 17,2003 at 3:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex conference room.Mr.Goodrich asked the Planning Commission members for clarification on the discussion for the workshop meeting on the Comprehensive Rezoning. Members agreed that an overall discussion of the Comprehensive Rezoning plan along with some input from Jim Kercheval as to the Board of County Commissioners'position would be helpful. Mr.Kercheval advised the Planning Commission members that the Martin rezoning application,the Board of County Commissioners had,recently approved RZ-03-001,for the maximum of nine lots. Mr.Kercheval also advised the Members that the Water Quality Board would be making recommendations on what steps to take on water quality issues.Commissioner Wivell will serve on that Board.Mr.Moser stated that he would like the study to include septic systems and alternative systems, such as sand mounds or peat systems. Members also discussed future workshops on APFO issues and water quality issues. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr.Moser,seconded by Mr.Clopper,to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.Unanimously approved. :P~;4~& Pa·ula A.Lampton U Chairperson 217 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -NOVEMBER 17,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, November 17,2003 at 3:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson;R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,George Anikis, Bernard Moser and Ex-Officio,Jim Kercheval.Staff:Interim Director,Stephen T.Goodrich,Stephen T. Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung;Associate Planner,Misty Wagner;GIS Coordinator,Bud Gudmundson,Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst and Office Associate,Sandy Coffman. OPENING REMARKS Ms.Lampton stated that the members had decided that it was important for them to review and discuss some of the issues raised,during the public hearings to formulate some questions regarding the future steps in the Comprehensive Rezoning process.Comments and questions will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners when they later join the meeting. DICUSSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS The Planning Commission members discussed the main issues raised at the pubiic hearings and agreed that some of the points were valid and that perhaps some areas will need to be modified. -Setbacks Several comments were made regarding the proposed setbacks in the rural areas. -Small Property Owners Many small property owners expressed their concerns that the proposed rezoning will inhibit them from giving lots to their children or to sell off lots in their retirement years.It was suggested that a mechanism be developed that would allow the small property owners to divide off a couple lots within a given tlmeframe. -Value of Farmland/Loss of Equity The impact on the value of farmland and the ioss of equity was one of the primary issues discussed at the public hearings. Ms.Lampton suggested that it may be worthwhile to review the proposed density bonuses,as discussed during the October 22,2001 Planning Commission workshop.The density bonus handout was redistributed to the Members.The density bonuses were listed on a percentage basis,which provided a bonus for the use of clustering,no stripping of road frontage,protection of better Ag soils, the use of historic preservation easements,visual buffering along roads,additional setbacks along permanent preservation easements,for additional forest conservation mitigation above thresholds, connection to public water and sewer,additional community amenities,and a mixture of affordable housing.Previously,the Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on this concept and on whether the density bonus concept was manageable.The Board of County Commissioners adopted the Comprehensive Plan with the density of one unit per 5 acres instead of the 1:10 in the Agricultural Policy Area,without the proposed density bonuses.Some form of the density bonuses could be an option.Members discussed that,if the Commissioners are interested in modifying the proposed rezoning and if a task force is appointed,the density bonuses may be an option for them to consider. -Possible Task Force The Planning Commission members discussed the idea that was raised during the public hearings of a task force being formed.Members suggested that,If a task force was appointed,that it should be limited to a smail number that have experience,and aiso have the County at heart,rather than their own agenda.The action of the task force would have to be time sensitive,with a recommendation within 30 or 60 days.If a task force is formed,they should obtain information and up to date studies from the same representatives that spoke at Delegate Shank's meeting.The task force should look at specific programs,such as TORs,and IPAs and the funding needed for those programs. STAFF COMMENTS Mr.Goodrich stated that the Staff stands behind the Plan,as presented,admitting that there are places that could be modified,such as addressing the concerns of small property owners.The Staff spent five years developing the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning to implement the Plan.The Staff heard the arguments about equity,but know of studies that say there is no loss of equity.The Staff has discussed the different issues raised at the public hearings.They have also reviewed and discussed TORs and other programs.The Comprehensive Rezoning is the Staff's proposal to accomplish the County's goals to limit development in the rural area,by reducing density,separating incompatible uses in the rural area, and encouraging development in the urban area. 218 (IO-Minute Break) WORKSHOP MEETING RESUMED The meeting resumed at 4:20.President Gregory I.Snook,Vice President William J.Wivell and Commissioners James F.Kercheval,John C.Munson,Doris J.Nipps and County Administrator,Rod Shoop joined the meeting. COMMENTS -PLANNING COMMISSION Ms.Lampton began the second part of the workshop meeting by stating that there was no formal agenda for this meeting,but it was an opportunity to share some thoughts between the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.She proceeded to summarize the Pianning Commission's discussion, during the first part of the workshop meeting.The Planning Commission is not in favor of changing the proposed densities,but they do support addressing some of the issues raised at the public hearings,such as the concerns voiced by the small property owners.Also,the members support ideas to create better developments that are more compatible in the rural areas,such as preventing stripping of road frontage and encouraging clustering.The Planning Commission members had also questioned the proposed timeline for adopting the rezoning plan,and whether the Commissioners will keep with the proposed plan.They also discussed the possibility of a task force being formed. Ms.Lampton stated that the equity issue is a concern shared by all,but as discussed earlier by the Staff, it would be difficult to quantify if in fact it exists.The Planning Commission held a workshop in 2001 where the Planning Staff had presented the option of density bonuses.The density bonuses were different items that could be done,which could increase the number of lots in a development and couid create better .developments in the rural area.The previous County Commissioners did not include this concept,as a part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.The Planning Commission members agreed that it was worth presenting the concept of density bonuses,as a tool to address one or two very specific issues,if a task force is formed.The Planning Commission suggested that,if a task force is formed,their meeting schedule should be aggressive,and the members should have some history of the plan and have the County at heart,and not their own agendas. COMMENTS -BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of County Commissioners discussed the issues and questions raised by the Planning Commission,as summarized below: Mr.Wivell stated that he was in favor of a task force being developed with their roles being clearly defined.He believes the task force group should be a cross-representation of the agricultural, business and the realtor communities.He stated that he voted against the Comprehensive Plan,due to the equity issue.He believes that the items to address would be the density issues,some setback regulations,and revisions to the proposed principal permitted uses in the Rural Business zone.He stated that he believes that the APFO is a tool to direct growth or a way to have growth pay for itself. Mr.Wivell questioned how the rural areas were identified as Agricultural,Environmental Conservation and Preservation in the new Plan.Mr.Goodrich explained the process of how the rural areas were identified.The goal was to protect the Ag land in the rural area,and the Ag areas were established where there were existing agricultural operations and the best agricultural soils.The Ag area was originally proposed at a ratio of 1 unit per 10 acres,and was later changed to 1:5 by the Commissioners.The EC area was based on a series of environmental factors,such as floodplains, stream buffers,steep slopes,threatened or endangered species,etc.and the areas where there were multiple environmental limitations was the basis for a lower density.The Preservation areas were,for the most part;State and Federally owned lands and the rural legacy areas where there was a defined area that the County was trying to purchase easements.These areas were designed not for residential development,and the lower density is to limit the amount of development. Mr.Munson stated that he agreed that a task force should be formed.He also recommended that the task force should have one or two members that would be the average young person that is struggling financially.He also stated that he foresees problems with the proposed lot widths and the number of acres required in the different zones.He believes that by pushing growth to the Urban Growth Area,it will incur expenses to the County to extend water and sewer lines,and upgrade roads.He also stated that he believes that the APFO will help to curtail growth in the County. Ms.Nipps stated that she was leaning towards haVing a task force to look at very specific items.She recommended that the task.force should have less than 10 members and that a timeline of approximately 90 days be established for their recommendation.She also stated that the Historic District Commission had written a letter asking the Planning Commission to review the permitted uses within the Rural Village areas,because they thought that certain businesses,which were excluded, should be included. Mr.Snook stated that,in his opinion,if a task force is formed,they should only look at the equity issue. Other issues could be resoived between the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, " 219 such as the setback issues;principle permitted uses,and family member exemptions.He also commented that the Commissioners plan to ask for legislative authority to issue IPAs,during the upcoming legislative session,which is necessary for an IPA program.He further stated that the Commissioners agreed that they wanted to review different programs,such as IPAs and TORs that would help promote agriculture and also give back equity to the property owners. Mr.Snook asked the Planning Commission to finalize their comments in reference to the input received, during the rezoning process and the ideas discussed today,to provide their recommendation.The Planning Commission will proceed with its normal review and recommendations on the Comprehensive Rezoning and the individual rezoning requests.They would also address such issues pertaining to Planning and Zoning such as setbacks,family exemption issues,and principle permitted uses,within approximately 60 to 90 days. Mr.Goodrich reported that the Staff has finished their analysis of the individual rezoning requests and has reviewed the written comments received during the public hearing process.The Staff has also created a similar list of issues that need to be addressed,such as the small property owners,family member issues, setbacks,Rural Business zone,and the equity issue.Staff is currently working on formUlating their recommendation to the Planning Commission. FUTURE MEETING Mr.Goodrich announced that Pat O'Connell who would be the guest speaker of the Ag Advisory Board at a meeting scheduled for November 24,2003 at 1:15 p.m.in the Annex conference room.Mr.O'Connell is a regional expert on the Installment Purchase Arrangement (IPAs)program and created the Howard County Program.The meeting is open to the public. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. -=tcl--A ~~ Paula'. Chairperson WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -December 1,2003 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 1,2003 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room. Members present were:R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Bernard Moser,George Anikis and Ex-Officio, James F.Kercheval.Staff:Interim Planning Director,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K.Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill L.Baker and Misty Wagner.Paula Lampton,Chairperson, and Sandy Coffman,Office Associate,were absent. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mr.Ardinger at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS •VARIANCES: Daugherty Property Panhandle Length Ms.Baker presented for review and approval a variance request for thl'l Daugherty property.A preliminary consuitation was held in 2002 for Dan Ryan and Primus Land Company for this SUbject property.The property is currently zoned Conservation and is designated as Preservation under the proposed Comprehensive Rezoning.The original layout had proposed an extension of Stone Row Lane to service 26 lots.Since that time,the plan was revised for only three lots due to perc tests and other issues.The variance request is for iots 1 and 2.Lot 2 has a panhandie length of approximately 760'that would extend from Stone Row Lane.The second variance is for lot 1,for the panhandie length of approximately 442',which would normally be addressed as an Administrative Variance.The developer has proposed that lot 3 would share an access with lot 2.Lot 3 is not a part of this discussion,since it is a lot without road frontage and due to the past policy of the Planning Commission it would be denied. That denial could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals.A discussion followed on the right of way issues.Ms.Baker stated that,if the Board of Zoning Appeals approves the request and a variance is permitted,the developer would most likely generate an access right of way agreement between the property owners of lots 2 and 3.Ms.Baker explained that for Planning purposes,it does not matter who owns the right of way unless the developer intends to subdivide off of it,then the issue becomes a civil matter.Mr.Weikert stated that the developer Wuuld prefer to have the access for lot 3 over to lot 2's panhandle.That he would be willing to legally clear up the right of way,which is located to the north of the Bent Wiliow subdivision,if lot 3 could have sole access over the panhandie.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant the variance request for the panhandle iengths of lot 1 and lot 2.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.Discussion followed.Mr.Clopper inquired If a condition could be added to the motion that no further subdivision would occur on lots 1 and 2.Mr.Anikis accepted Mr.Clopper's addition to the motion. Mr.Clopper,Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Anikis voted "aye."Mr.Moser voted "nay."So ordered. -SUBDIVISIONS: Sweetwater Crossing Estates -Preliminary/Final Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary/final plat for Sweetwater Crossing Estates.A preliminary consultation was held in 2002.The plat was submitted prior to the moratorium.The site is located at the southwest corner of Maryland Route 67 and Gapland Road.The property is zoned Conservation.The plat proposes 14 single-family lots on a total of 58 acres.Lot sizes range from 3 to 7 acres.The property contains two existing dwellings.One is a stone dwelling listed on the Historic Site Survey.The Historic District Commission reviewed the plan,at the preliminary consultation phase,and had no objections.Two public streets will be constructed to serve the subdivision.One street will be located off of Maryland Route 67 to serve six lots.The other street will be located off of Gapland Road and would serve seven lots.Lot 4 will have its own individual access onto Gapland Road.There are four panhandles proposed for the subdivision.Two stormwater management facilities will be located on out parcels and will be dedicated to the County.Individual rain gardens,which are a new concept in stormwater management,will be required on lots 3 through 7,and also on lots 13 and 14.Each lot will be served by an onsite well and septic system.There is existing floodplain,which affects one of the streets and lots 1,2,3 and 5.Building envelopes and septic areas are located outside of the floodplain.The developer will have to obtain the appropriate State and Federal permits for working in the floodplain. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be meet by retaining 10.7 acres of existing forest onsite. The public schools serving this subdivision are Pleasant Valley Elementary School and Boonsboro Middle and High Schools,which are currently adequate,based on the 105%rated capacity.Mr.Anikis questioned Mr.Kercheval on the status of the amendments to the APFO pertaining to school adequacy and whether this subdivision would be grandfathered in.Mr.Kercheval stated that the Board of County Commissioners would be voting on the APFO amendments in approximateiy two weeks.Mr.Lung stated that if the Planning Commission approves the final plat this evening,the subdivision would be evaiuated under the 105%rated capacity.All of the reviewing agencies have approved the plat,or issued comments that have been addressed and rerouted for their approval.The Engineering Department and Soil Conservation are reviewing revisions to the construction drawings.The State Highway Administration is completing their hydraulic review.No additional comments are anticipated from the outstanding agencies 221 222 that would prohibit this plat from being approved,as it is presented.This property is designated as Environmental Conservation under the new Comprehensive Plan.During the preliminary consultation, Staff recommended the use of clustering,under the current clustering provisions,however,the developer did not choose to pursue that recommendation.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat and forest conservation plan for Sweetwater Crossing Estates,subject to agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimously approved. Twin Ridge -Preliminary Plat Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Twin Ridge.The proposed subdivision is located in the Urban Growth Area and therefore,is not affected by the rural area subdivision moratorium.The property is located along the southside of Reiff Church Road,west of Greenside Apartments in the Maugansville area.The property is zoned Residential,Multi-Family.This property has been the subject of several previous subdivision proposals by other developers over the last ten years.Previously,there was a 46 lot single-family subdivision proposed on the property that was approved,but was never built.Last year,a preliminary consultation was held for 92 semi-detached dwelling units for Wayne Alter.Since that time,the project was transferred to RBL,LLC,which is owned by David Lyles.The plan is basically the same concept that was previously presented.This proposal is a preliminary plat for 90 lots with semi-detached dwellings situated on 16 acres,which yields 5.63 dwelling units per acre.Lot sizes range from 5,000 square feet to 15,500 square feet.Most lots are in the 5,000 square foot range.A new street looping through the development will provide access to the development, with two access points onto Reiff Church Road.Improvements will be required on Reiff Church Road to Maugansville Road to meet APFO road adequacy standards.There is a 1.2 acre stormwater management parcel located to the rear of the site that will be dedicated to the County.Public water and sewer will be provided to the development.The property is within the Washington County Water Quality Department sewer service area,and sewage will be treated at the City of Hagerstown treatment plant. The property is located in the Joint Sewer Service Area and both sewer authorities have approved the plan.Water is provided by the City of Hagerstown.The Annexation Review Committee has reviewed the plan and the developer has agreed to the Annexation Agreement,which will occur at the final plat stage. The Water Department has issued a verbal approval and still needs to review some technical elements of the plan.The site is located relatively close to the Hagerstown Regional Airport;however,it is not in the designated Airport Overiay zone.The Airport Advisory Commission reviewed both the concept plan and the subdivision plat and issued the same concerns about development occurring in the area adjacent to the airport and requested that this type of development not be approved.The property is not located in the "no-build,"clear zone that is associated with the runway.Mr.Lung stated that there is no requirement to add extra insulation or special windows for single-family dwellings.Mr.Ardinger stated that this development would be affected,primarily by takeoff traffic from the airport.Staff requested that the developer include the standard note used for development close to the airport,which is a disclaimer notifying property owners of the proximity of the development to the airport and the chance of noise and other issues associated with aircraft.It is also required that notification be recorded in the deeds for the lots.The developer has agreed to place the note on the plat and this matter will be addressed at the final plat stage. There are several items concerning the subdivision design and the forest conservation requirements that have been on-going from the previous subdivision proposal.The Planning Commission previously approved the method of payment in lieu to address forest conservation reqUirements for this property. The forest conservation requirement is 3.2 acres and the fee would be $14,069.88.When the Planning Commission approved the forest mitigation,there was a stipUlation that asked the developer to provide some vegetative screening along the property line between the apartments and this development.The developer has agreed to provide that screening,by planting Leyland cypress trees,10'on center along the iength of the common boundary line.During the review of the previous development plan,the Staff and the Planning Commission asked for the provision of pedestrian access between this development and the existing development located off of Green Mountain Drive to the south.A public access strip was provided at the end of the Green Mountain Drive cul-de-sac to the property line of Twin Ridge.This strip abuts the stormwater management area,which provides connectivity between the developments.There will not be an actual path,due to maintenance issues,but it would be a public way that someone could walk without crossing private property to access Green Mountain Drive.During the previous reviews, both the Staff and Commission members discussed the need for internal sidewalks within the subdivision. The previously approved subdivision for 46 single-family lots included sidewalks on closed section streets.This proposal is utilizing an open section street design,which makes it difficult to provide sidewalks.The developer has worked with the Engineering Department to come up with a plan to provide a sidewalk along one side of the road,just outside of the County right-of-way,along the interior of the street and outside the right-of-way for Reiff Church Road.There is no requirement in the Ordinance that requires sidewalks in this type of a development;however,given the density and the history of previous proposed subdivisions,Staff believes the proposed concept for pedestrian access is beneficial.The plan was also routed to the Board of Education to address school bus waiting areas and no response was received'.The developer is willing to place a school bus waiting pad in the development,per any recommendation from the Board of Education.During the review of the concept plan for this development,the Planning Commission asked the developer to consider providing play areas within the development.The preliminary plat does not provide any common play areas.A provision to provide play areas is not a requirement in this type of development;they are required in PUD's,townhouse,and apartment developments.The developer maintains that providing play areas in this type of a development would require a Homeowners Association to be established for the ownership and maintenance of the common play areas.The developer also maintains that,with a 40'rear yard setback, there is sufficient area on the individual lot for owners to provide their own play equipment.Schools that are served by this development are adequate,based on the current APFO criteria.The actual APFO 223 school determination test would be made at the final piat stage.Mr.Anikis questioned the status of Maugansville Elementary School and whether it would be expanded.Mr.Lung stated that a new Maugansville Elementary School is being planned.Mr.Kerchevai added that a new school will replace Maugansville and Conocheague Elementary and this proposed subdivision should fall under the new APFO requirements for school capacity,at the final plat stage and that there is no intention of grandfathering this subdivision in. All agencies have approved the preliminary plat,with the exception of the condition that the City Water Department will review some of the technical elements of the plan.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Twin Ridge.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Vote was unanimously approved. Discussion followed and members agreed that the Planning Commission members wili review the final plat in the future,atthe appropriate time. -SITE PLANS: L &I Tree Clearing Ms.Wager presented for review and approval a site plan for L &I Tree Clearing.The subject site is located on the east side of Willow Road in Hancock.The property is zoned Agricultural.The plan proposes a permanent mulch manufacturing site and storage area.A sawmill is proposed for placement in an existing 50'X 100'steel building,located in the middle of a ten-acre parcel.All buildings on the property are existing and the property was previously used as a orchard packing shed and service area. No new construction is proposed.Initially,there will be two employees and,in the future,the number of employees will increase to fifteen.Hours of operation will be Monday through Saturdays,7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.No lighting or signage is proposed.Solid waste will be disposed of in an onsite dumpster. Sixteen parking spaces are required and provided.Two to three tractor-trailer deliveries are expected daily.The site is exempt from stormwater management and forest conservation requirements.All agency approvals have been received expect for the Health Department and State Highway Administration.Mr.Clopper moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Vote was unanimous. Pavestone Company,Inc. Ms.Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Pavestone Company,Inc.The subject site is located on the east side of Hopewell Road,west of and adjacent to 1-81.The property is zoned Industrial General. The owners are proposing the creation of an additional stockyard (Storage Yard B &C)and a building for packaging loose products of color stone,used for ground cover.The existing uses on the site are an office,paver plant,and storage area for the pavers.The existing number of employees will not change. The current hours of operation will remain 24 hours a day,seven days a week for the plant operation. The office will be open Monday through Friday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.No new signage is proposed and the existing dumpster will be used.Two existing pole mounted lights will be used.The Planning Commission granted an approval In April 2003 to remove the forest conservation area and permitted the owner to pay the fee in lieu of.The owner has paid that mitigation fee to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved. The Sugar Shack Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for the Sugar Shack.The subject site is located along the east side of Roundtop Road,west of Hancock.The property is zoned Agricultural.The proposed and existing use is for the establishment of a private social club on an exiting lot of record with a single-family dwelling.The existing club is currently 1,220 square feet,with a proposed 380'addition. A gravel walkway to the parking area will access the existing macadam driveway that connects with Roundtop Road.There is an existing 2'x 14'sign at the driveway entrance.Solid waste will be collected inside and disposed of by a private hauler.The club currently has thirty-eight members and two employees.Hours of operation are Wednesdays and Saturdays;from 2:00 p.m.to 1:00 a.m.Nineteen parking spaces are required and provided.Pole mounted lights are provided.UPS deliveries will be on a daily basis.A Special Exception was granted in 2003 by the Board of Zoning Appeals to establish a private club.A variance was granted to reduce the minimum 50'side yard setback to 2.4'from the existing club facility.The proposed site is exempt from forest conservation requirements because the owner is disturbing less than 40,000 square feet.Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Unanimously approved. Valley Supply &Equipment Company,Inc. Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Valley Supply &Equipment Company,Inc. The subject site is located along the north side of Leitersburg Pike,west of Millers Church Road.The property is zoned Agricultural.This site was previously occupied by a contractor's equipment storage and repair facility for Mayetta Contractors.The property was recently sold to Valley Supply and Equipment for renting construction equipment.The new owner will be relocating their Funkstown business.Earlier this year,Valley Supply &Equipment was granted a Special Exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals to construct a two-story addition and expand the previously approved storage yard.The plan proposes a 140'x 60'addition that will attach to the west side of the existing 60'x 60'building.The enlarged storage yard will be located to the rear and will be fenced.There will also be a gravei equipment display area to the front of the building.Additional parking spaces will be provided in a paved area to accommodate employees and customers.The Board of Zoning Appeals also granted a variance from the previously established 100'setback along the west property line to 25'and the developer has provided vegetative screen planting along the property line in the vicinity of the storage yard.Additional landscaping will also 224 be provided around the front of the building.The site is served by an onsite well and septic system.A new stormwater management facility wiii be located on the property,per the County's new standards.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Clopper questioned where the water from the proposed truck wash pad facility would go.The consultant stated that the business utilizes a self-contained recyciing unit and the water will not enter the septic system.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant site pian approval. Seconded by Mr.Anikis.Unanimousiyapproved. Whistling Hills Mr.Ardinger stated that Mr.Anikis had received an email from the homebuilder of the adjacent subdivision,regarding the proposed site plan,which was distributed to the other members.Ms.Baker explained that a site plan for a wildlife preserve and,as defined by the State,a regulated shooting area was presented for review and approval.The site is iocated on the west side of Maryiand 66,also known as Mapleville Road,adjacent to the south,is the Meadows Green subdivision.The site is approximately 137 acres and is zoned Agricultural.No new area will be disturbed.The site is a release area for different fowl,as regulated by the State of Maryland.From October through the end of March,the owner and operator,Mr.Michaels conducts three to five shoots.The fowl are raised off-site and brought to this site specifically for the shoots.The site is served by an on site well and septic system.The site is exempt from stormwater management and forest conservation regulations.The Soil Conservation District's approval is pending,for general notes to be added regarding the Beaver Creek stream buffer.The Health Department's approval is also pending,due to some revisions to the plan.There is a 47 lot single-family development known as Meadows Green,located to the south of this site,where safety concerns regarding this use have been raised by the developer.On June 25,2003,Paul Prodonovich,Director of the Department of Permits and Inspections,declared this to be a principal permitted use and therefore, the site is under the required 50'setbacks,as listed in the Agricultural zone.There is no definition for a wildlife preserve in the Zoning Ordinance.A specific note was added to the plat that clearly indicates that this site plan does not include,authorize or approve of trap,skeet,rifle,archery or related firing ranges for the purpose of game or practice.If the site would evolve,in the future,additional setback requirements would apply.A discussion followed on the proposed site plan.Mr.Anikis stated that the subject property appears to be narrow and,with only a 50'setback from the property line,his main concern is the safety aspects.He also stated that,if this plan proposed a regulated hunting range,a 1,000'setback would be required.He believes the proposed use is a more dangerous because it is not a controlled function and that a 1,000 setback from the closest property In Meadows Green should be required.Mr.Anikis also questioned if there would be bird pens with a feed storage area,if hunting dogs participated,if dog kennels were onsite,if public facilities were avaiiable,and if there was a parking area for the participants. He also questioned if there was a range area to determine the hunter's shot pattern,which would,in his opinion,be considered a firing range.Ms.Baker responded that a parking area would be provided off a gravel lane that extends along the property line with the Meadows Green subdivision.She further explained that Mr.Michael has an easement agreement with two other adjoining property owners,as a part of the preserve.The hunts occur on the opposite side of the property from the Meadows Green subdivision.Ms.Baker stated that a 1,000'setback applies to firing ranges and that there is a 150'yard requirement that a weapon cannot be discharged within 150'yards of an occupied dwelling,which is a DNR enforcement issue.Ms.Baker stated that she had forwarded a copy of the site plan to DNR for their comments and she did not receive a response,to date.This regulated shooting area is permitted and reguiated by the State.The County has to make sure that the owner is meeting the site plan requirements, including the 50'setback requirement,per the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Clopper stated that the two neighboring properties,that are included as a part of the reserve,should be included as part of the site plan,which would considerably increase the amount of acreage.Mr.Clopper suggested that, since neither the applicant nor a representative was present to answer the Planning Commission's questions,a site visit could be scheduled for the Planning Commission members to visit the site. Members discussed Mr.Clopper's suggestion and agreed that more information was needed on the proposed use and that a site visit with the applicant and a DNR representative would be helpful.Ms. Baker will make the necessary arrangements for a site visit.Mr.Clopper made a motion to table this matter to permit time for a site visit and to acquire pertinent information,as discussed.Seconded by Mr. Anikis.Unanimously approved. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS: Washington County Health System Mr.Lung stated that a preliminary consultation is not required for this type of development.However,in this particular case,due to the complexity of the project,its size,and the timetable for this project,the Washington County Health System had requested the consultation so that they would know the agency comments and concerns before they moved forward with the site plan process.Mr.Lung provided an overview of the proposed hospital.The proposed site is located south of Medical Campus Drive,near the existing Robinwood Medical Campus,on land that the Hospital Association currently owns.The property is zoned Residential Suburban (RS).The proposed hospital is being designed to add two additional stories in the future,which would still be below the 120'height limitation.A hospital is considered as a Special Exception Use in the RS .zoning district.The next step would require the applicant to request authorization from the Board of Zoning Appeals.The special exception request should also address the heliport,power plant,and if applicabie,any incinerators for disposal of hazardous waste.One of the issues raised at the consultation was that the existing property line is shown through the buiiding,which is connected to the existing Robinwood Medical facility.The consultant had explained that the proposed hospital and the Robinwood Medical Campus will need to be on separate parcels and would be a part of the setback variance at the time of the Special Exception request.Some parking may be eiiminated at ZZ5 the Medical Campus due to the location of the proposed hospital and an updated site plan for the Medical Campus will also be required to verify that the parking requirements will be met.Cross-parking agreements between the two facilities may be considered.Mr.Hamill,representing the hospital, confirmed that the required parking requirements would be met.One of the major issues discussed,was the traffic situation in this area.The Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic study prepared for the hospital and the offsite improvements have been identified.The Engineering Department is working with the traffic consultant regarding the particular offsite improvements that will be required to address this project as well as other projects in the area.It is the Staff's understanding that the Hospital Association is in the process of working with the County Commissioners as to the hospital's share of the improvement costs.The traffic study identified improvements necessary at numerous intersections along Route 40 and in this corridor area,along with realigning and adding additional lanes on Robinwood Drive. This project will be part of the upcoming CIP discussions.Members agreed that addressing the traffic issues in this area would be a priority.Another issue discussed was the provision of public water and sewer to this site.The property is in the service area of the City of Hagerstown for water and sewer.The hospital would be subject to the Annexation Committee Review process,prior to any approvals for water and sewer service.An analysis of the water system is being conducted by the consultant to determine the impact of the hospital and what improvements may be needed on the water system.The Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department indicated that a major issue is the availability of sewer capacity in regards to the terms of the current policies that are in place.It is the intent of the developer to address forest conservation requirement onsite and a revised forest conservation pian will be required.Mr.Moser questioned the use of the proposed power plant.The consultant clarified that the onsite power plant will not be generating power on an on-going basis,but would only be used as a backup supply source.Mr. Kercheval questioned the comment from Emergency Services regarding the number of ambulance bays for the trauma center.Mr.Hamill stated that during a recent meeting between the architect and the Director of Emergency Services,that the concerns raised at the preliminary consultation had been addressed and that with the four proposed ambulance bays and with the standby parking for the trauma center,there was more parking than originally perceived.The proposed heliport will comply with FAA requirements and has been coordinated with the Maryland State Police and Secret Service.Mr.Ardinger questioned when the Hospital Association planned to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the .timeframe for a submittal of a site plan.Mr.Hamill stated that the request should be submitted in early spring.Mr.Lung added that the site plan may be reviewed on the Staff level,concurrently with the Appeals Board process to help keep the project on track.Mr.Hamill stated that the proposed opening date for the hospital is March 2007.No action was required. OTHER BUSINESS RZ-03-004,John and Hilkka Bucksch,Map Amendment Mr.Goodrich stated that the rezoning application was made at the owner's request.The requested HP zone is not a change of the land use allowed,but an additional layer of review for changes to the exterior appearance of the buildings on the site.In the Staff's opinion,the owners have met three of the eleven criteria offered in the Zoning Ordinance. This property has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places since 1975,it is also listed in the Maryland Historical Trust's Inventory,and it also meets the criteria that states that the historic resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period or method of construction or architecture.It is also an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.Mr.Anikis recommended approval of the map amendment request for the Historic Preservation Overlay to the Board of County Commissioners,as it is iogical,appropriate and consistent to the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Kercheval abstained.Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS -Workshop Meeting A Planning Commission workshop is scheduled for January 8,2004 at 1:00 p.m.,to continue the discussions and recommendations on the individual Comprehensive Rezoning requests. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,the meeting adjourned. r~~ Paula A.Lampton 0 Chairperson