HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Minutes33WASHINGTONCOUNTYPLANNINGCOMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-JANUARY 8,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingonMonday,January 8,2007,intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Sam Ecker,TerryReiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning DirectorMichaelC.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Jill Baker,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting ofDecember4,2006 as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESSOliveGarden(SP-06-070)Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Olive Garden located at the intersection ofMasseyandHalfwayBoulevards.The site is zoned PB -Planned Business.The developer is proposingtoconstructanOliveGardenrestaurantwithabuildingareaof7,400 square feet and 24-feet high that willbesituatedonatotalareaof2.03 acres of leased area currently owned by the Valley Mall.Access to the
.site would be from Valley Mall Road,which is a private right-of-way,and also access from the rear of the
building would exist at the Susquehanna Bank.Public water and sewer would serve the site.Hours of
operation are Monday through Sunday 10 a.m.to 10 p.m.The developer is proposing 30 full-time and
part-time employees.Parking spaces required is 87 spaces and 128 spaces are provided.The projected
daily use is 400 per day.Freight and delivery is one time per week.Solid waste will be provided by a
screened dumpster located to the rear of the restaurant.Proposed lighting and signage will be pole
mounted and building mounted.Landscaping will include cherry trees,arborvitae,magnolia,yew,
boxwood,wisteria,and hydrangea.Forest Conservation requirements for the entire mall were satisfied in
1998.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the 20-foot setback requirement from the
right-ot-way to the off-street parking area to an unspecified setback.
Discussion:Several members expressed their concern regarding potential traffic congestion problems
and safety issues.Mr.Steve Cvijanovich,a representative from Davis,Renn &Associates,consultant,
stated that they have worked closely with the Washington County Engineering Department regarding
traffic patterns in this area.Members also expressed concern that patrons of the restaurant may park in
the mall parking lot and walk across Valley Mall Road to the restaurant.It was suggested that striped
crosswalks should be installed and signs erected for pedestrian crossings.Commission members
recommended discussing this issue with Mr.Terry McGee in the Washington County Engineering
Department.
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously
approved.
Comment:A representative from Olive Garden stated that the hours of operation are 11 :00 a.m.to
11 :00 p.m.daily,not 10:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.as previously stated.
Westfields Elementary School (SP-06-071)
Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for the Westfields Elementary School located
along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike within the Westfields Subdivision.The Washington County
School Board is proposing to construct an 83,000-square foot,two-story elementary school on 13.6 acres
with a 745-student design capacity.The maximum building height will be 48-feet.Two access points are
proposed from Cambeltown Drive and Alloway Drive.A baseball field,basketball court and play area with
an alternate play area on the east side of the bUilding for kindergarten children are proposed.These
areas will be fenced and screened.Public water and sewer will serve the site.The number of estimated
employees is 70.The hours of operation are 7:00 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.with possible evening hours for
special events.Parking spaces provided are 115 spaces.Proposed freight and delivery is two per day.
Solid waste disposal will be provided by a screened dumpster.Storm water management will be provided
by an off-site regional structure that will serve the entire subdivision.Sidewalks will be installed along all
sides of the building and the entryway connecting with the street.Lighting will be bUilding and pole
mounted throughout the parking area.A school sign with 16-inch letters will be located on a brick fence
of the kindergarten play area.Landscaping will be located throughout the site.The Board of Zoning
Appeals granted a variance in March 2005 to change the minimum 150-foot front yard setback to a 50-
foot front yard setback.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be addressed in Section 5 of
the Preliminary/Final plat for the Westfields residential development.
34 Discussion:A multi-purpose area is proposed on the site.The sports fields may also be used ascommunityrecreationareas.Mr.Thompson stated that the Washington County Parks and RecreationBoardisworkingonagreementstodeterminehowtheseareascanbeusedafterhours.Mr.Anikis madeaninquiryregardingthelightinganditseffectsonneighboringresidentialproperties. The developer'srepresentativestatedthatalllightswouldhavefullcut-off and shoe box shields.Mr.Moser made aninquiryregardingthepick-up and drop-off of students within the development A representative from theBoardofEducationwillcheckonthisinquiryandgiveareporttothePlanningDepartmentMr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimouslyapproved.Blair Valley Tower (SP-06-039)Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for the Blair Valley Cell Tower located on thewestsideofPoleCatHollowRoad,west of Clear Spring.The property is zoned EC -EnvironmentalConservation.The developer is proposing to construct a 190-foot lattice tower with a panel antenna andequipmentpanelona1.5 acre leased area currently owned by the Washington County Sportsman'sClub.The owner of the tower will be the Shenandoah Mobile Company.The tower will be centeredwithina70x70-foot,8-foot fenced area.The setbacks are 190-feet all around.The proposed tower willbeusedforcommunications24-hours per day,7 days per week.An existing gravel road that connectswithPoleCatHollowRoadwillprovideaccess.There are no existing transmission lines.A sign will beplacedonthetowerandthefencesurroundingthetower.Lighting will be on the equipment pad.Noparkingisrequiredonthesite.Disturbance on the site is iess than 40,000-square feet;therefore,noForestConservationisrequiredonthissite.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimouslyapproved.Antietam Industrial Park,Lot 8 (SP-06-062)
.Ms.Baker presented for review and approval the site plan for Antietam Industrial Park,Lot 8 located near
the terminus of Oak Ridge Place,south of Oak Ridge Drive.The developer is proposing to construct a
7,750-square foot office building and a 13,340 square foot inventory/stockroom for a kitchen and bath
business on 2.11 acres.The site is zoned IT -Industrial Transitional.On-site septic and a private well
will serve the site,Hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p,m.,Monday through Friday.The
projected number of employees is nine.Parking required and provided will be 11 spaces,Storm water
management will be handled through an on-site pond along with a water quality area,Two building
mounted signs are proposed.Landscaping will be provided around the building and throughout the
parking area.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by the express procedure using the
payment-in-lieu option in the amount of $2,962.08.Approval from the Health Department is outstanding.
All other agency approvals have been received.
Discussion:Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding the County Historic Inventory Site #1-377 that was
referenced on the Staff Report.A representative from Hamilton Construction,developer,stated there is
no building currently on the site.Mr.Anikis requested that staff check into this issue and provide the
Commission with an update.
Mr,Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approval by the Health Department.
Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rosewood PUD,Phase III (PSP-04-002)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a request for age-restricted housing designation for Phase III,
Rosewood PUD,The PUD zoning on this property was approved in 1995 and the Final Deveiopment
Pian was approved by the Planning Commission in 1999.Phase I of the development is complete with a
total of 61 non age-restricted residential units and 42 elderly living units.Phase II was approved in
February 2006 by the Planning Commission for 287 age-restricted units,Phase III was approved by the
Planning Commission in June 2005,The developer is requesting approval for 116 age-restricted units in
Phase III that would include townhouses and handicapped accessible condominium units.When Phase II
was approved for age-restricted housing,modifications were made for appropriate amenities associated
with this phase.The original plans for Phase III included one tot lot.Mr.Lung recommended that this tot
lot remain,He also recommended including the following note on the plans for Phase III that states,
"Residential development shown on this site plan shall be age-restricted according to Federal regulations
restricting occupancy in these dwelling units to elderly persons,Such restrictions are predicated by a
declaration of covenants for elderly housing recorded in the land records of Washington County
(referencing the Liber/Folio).These restrictions allow for applicable exemptions from Article 5 Schools of
the Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the Building Excise Tax Ordinance for
Washington County.The elimination of this restriction tram any units shall require review and approval of
a revised site plan by the Planning Commission."This note has been reviewed by the County Attorney
and was used on the previously approved plans for Phase II.There are deed covenants that are
associated with the age-restriction that must be recorded.Mr.Lung recommends that the County
Attorney's office should review the deed covenants and approval of the request should be contingent
upon approval of the covenants by the County Attorney's office.
35Comments:Mr.Moser expressed his concern that the County does not have a way to monitor the age-restriction units.Mr.Kurtyka,attorney for the developer,stated that the developer has voluntarily offeredtheresultsfromtherequiredFederalsurveystotheCountyAttorney's office to assure compliance of theage-restricted units.Mr.Kerchevai and Mr.Thompson stated that the number 0f children in eachdevelopmentthroughouttheCountyistrack.ed by the Board of Education.Mr.Reiber stated that deedrestrictionsorothercriteriaina recorded deed couidn't be monitored;therefore,enforcement becomes anissuethatneedstobeaddressed.Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the age-restricted designation request for Phase Iii contingent uponthedeedcovenantapprovalbytheCountyAttorneyandsubjecttotherecommendednoteasstatedabovetobeplacedontherecordedpial.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion passed with Mr.Wiley,Ms.Parrish and Mr.Kercheval voting "Aye"and Mr.Moser and Mr.Ecker voting "Nay".Mr.Reiberabstained.UPCOMING MEETINGS1.Joint Rezoning Hearing,Monday,January 22,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Courthouse,Room #1,95 West Washington Street2.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,February 5,2007,7:00 p.m.,WashingtonCountyAdministrationAnnex,80 West Baltimore StreetADJOURNMENTMr.Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.So ordered.Respectfully Submitted,/L~.7'ikis,Chairman
36 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-February 5,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingon Monday,February 5,2007 intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Sam Ecker,TerryReiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning DirectorMichaelC.Thompson,Chief Planners Timothy A.Lung and Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners LisaKellyPietroandJillBaker,Associate Planner Sara Henke,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of January8,2007 as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.OLD BUSINESS-Antietam Industrial Park,Lot 8 (SP-06-062)Mr.Anikis noted that Ms.Baker included a memo regarding the historic structure referenced in the StaffReportpresentedforthissiteduringtheJanuary8,2007 meeting.According to the memo,the historicsitereferencedasi-377 is erroneously attached to this parcel in the Permit/Subdivision TrackingDatabaseusedbytheCounty.There are no historic sites located on this property .
. -Williamsview (PC-06-009)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approvai the revised cluster concept plan for Williamsview.A
preliminary consultation was held in October 2006 for the 211 lot residential subdivision known as
Williamsview,located on the Ebersole tract west of 1·81.The developer is proposing to use the "ciuster
provis'lons"as allowed in the Zoning Ordinance that allows a reduction in lot areas without increasing
density.The intent of the clustering concept requires that the area not used in lot areas be designated as
open space.The revised concept addresses several issues of concern noted during the December 4,
2006 Pianning Commission meeting as follows:the number of proposed cul-de-sacs,the arrangement of
open space areas,buffering of the adjoining properties with historic structures listed on the Historic Sites
Survey,more retention of existing forest,and providing a right·of-way for the possible future connection to
vacant property east of the site.[Planning Commission members also requested the concept plan for the
Srilner property for review simultaneously with this concept plan.A concept plan for 294 residential lots
was submated for the Sritner property;however,the developer has requested that plan be withdrawn as a
new plan using the clustering concept is being developed for review.]The revised concept plan for
Williamsview shows a reduction in the number of cul-de-sacs from 8 to 4 and including the two cul-de-
sacs at the end of the road abutting the Sritner property;open space areas have been consolidated into
larger areas;and 11.5 acres of the total 28 acres of existing forest is ~roposed for retention with the
additional 28.6 acres of forest to be planted on site along the western boundary of the'parcel and on
some of the lots and will provide the additional buffering requested by the Historic District Commission.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the revised plan for the number of cul-de-sacs and street
layout and they are satisfied wah the plan from a conceptual standpoint.The Planning staff expressed
their concern that some of the open space areas are surrounded by lots and inaccessible from the road.
The Planning Staff recommends closed section streets with sidewalks and pathway connections be
provided to the open space areas.If sidewalks are not being used,an interior pedestrian system should
be developed to allow a way to get from one side of the development to the other side of the development
and connect the open space areas and ultimately connect with the Sritner property,when developed.
Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding connections to adjoining properties and what
becomes of the cul-de-sacs when a connection is made to the adjoining properties.Mr.Lung stated that
the property within the cul·de-sacs would revert back to the owners of the lots located within the cul·de-
sac area.
Mr.Moser expressed his opinion that the streets in a development with this density should be closed
section with sidewalks.Mr.Moser made an inquiry regarding access to the open space areas.Mr.
Rutter,the developer's representative,stated that most people do not want access provided to those
areas due to privacy and safety issues.
Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the two storm water management ponds.The developer stated
that two ponds are necessary due to the topography of the area.
Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding the traffic issues on Sower Avenue and believes that traffic
studies should be based on the interconnectivity of the two proposed developments.Mr.Moser
concurred with Mr.Anikis's comment.Mr.Anikis also inqUired if there would be a Homeowner's
Association to maintain the open space areas and if there would be signs to designate the Forest
Conservat'lon Areas.Mr.Rutter stated that the Homeowner's Association would maintain these areas
through a fee simple strip of land used for access.
37Mr.Rutter requested comments from the members regarding walking paths and access to the openspaceareas.Ms.Parrish stated her opinion that designated pathways should be created from thesidewalkstotheopenspaceareas.She also noted there are no tot lots or recreation areas proposed forthecommunity.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the use of the clustering provisions.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS-VariancesEarlW.(Jr.)and Maria Brown (SV-07-001)Ms.Henke provided for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.8 of the SubdivisionOrdinancethatdoesnotallowlotswithoutpublicroadfrontage.The property is located along a right-of-way easement onto Weller Road and is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.The applicant isproposingtocreatefour(4)lots without pUblic road frontage.The proposed lots would access a privatelaneright-at-way to Dyer Road via other lands in Pennsylvania owned by the applicant.ThompsonTownshipinFultonCounty,Pennsylvania would agree to a right-of-way across Dyer Road.Hancock FireDepartmentprovidesfireserviceinthisarea.The Washington County Board of Education has stated thatcurrentlytherearechildrenpickeduponDyerRoadthatattendtheHancockschoolsdistrict.They havealsostatedthatchildrenwillattendschoolinthestatewheretheirparentspaytaxes.Discussion:Ms.Henke stated that Thompson Township could not make the private lane inPennsylvaniaapublicroadandputinacul-de-sac due to the amount of money involved in this process.The property owners of the four proposed lots would be responsible for maintenance of the private lane.Mr.Moser asked if the Hancock Fire Department has given any comments regarding this subdivision.Ms.Henke stated that she has not received any information or comments from them.Mr.Moserexpressedhisconcernregardingthestreetaddressesfortheselotsandbelievesthiscouldcausesafetyissuesforresidentswithregardtofireandemergencyservices.
Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the school bus service for these lots.Mr.Brown stated that the bus
currently enters Pennsylvania for a short distance and turns around on Dyer Road.These lots would
require the bus to go a little farther on Dyer Road.
Mr.Wiley asked the applicants to explain their hardship in making this variance request.The Browns
stated that the property is landlocked.Mr.Wiley expressed his concern regarding the shared right-of-way
and future maintenance issues.Mr.Moser expressed his concern that utility companies do not have the
right to utilize the right-of-ways to access the property.The Browns stated that they would assure utility
companies,etc.the right to utilize the right-of-way to access the properties.
Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding future maintenance of the shared right-Of-way and access for
fire and emergency vehicles.
Mr.Kercheval expressed his support of the request contingent upon a rnaintenance agreement between
the lot owners for the private lane and the right-at-ways deeded for the utility companies.
Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that more information is needed from Fulton County with regard to
access issues.
There was a brief discussion regarding Pennsylvania constructing a public road with a cul-de-sac for
these four lots.Mr.Brown stated that in prior discussions with Thompson Township in Pennsylvania,they
would not accept or maintain the road because there was no tax base housing on that road.
Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.The motion failed with
Mr.Moser and Mr.Wiley voting "Aye"and Mr.Kercheval,Ms.Parrish,Mr.Ecker,and Reiber voting "Nay".
Comments following the vote:Mr.Ecker stated that he would like more information regarding the
access to the lots.Mr.Reiber wants clarification,if possible,from Pennsylvania on their position
regarding the road issues.Mr.Anikis stated that the Commission rnembers would like a clarification at
the subdivision layout showing where the lanes would be,identifying the roads and more information from
Pennsylvania regarding what they will or will not accept.Mr.Moser would like written comments from the
Hancock Fire Department.Mr.Kercheval stated he would like to see maintenance agreements for the
property owners and rights-of-way for the utility companies and fire and rescue services.The lane should
be designed to be acceptable for emergency services.
By consensus,the Planning Commission tabled this issue until further documentation and information is
received.
-Preliminary Consultations
Hoffman Farm (PC-06-011)
Ms.Baker presented,on behalf of Ms.Wagner-Grillo,the preliminary consultation for Hoffman Farm.The
property is located along the north side of Ceartoss Pike within the Urban Growth Area and is zoned A -
Agriculture.The developer is proposing to develop 47 residential building lots on 50.84 acres.Ms.
Baker stated that the Engineering Department recommends redundant access for subdivisions with 25
lots or greater.The proposed subdivision has been designed with only one access and at this time,the
38 developer has not found a solution for a redundant access to the property.A recommendation would beneededfromthePlanningCommissionregardingthisissue.Discussion:Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the options the developer has explored to addresstheredundantaccessissue.Mr.Greg Barnes of Fox &Associates,Inc.,consultant for the developer,stated that the parcel is landlocked by an existing development and floodplains ..They have revised theconceptplantoeliminateonelotandcreateaspurtotheAlbinpropertyinanticipationoffuturedevelopmentthatcouldcreatethesecondaccess.Access through property owned by the HagerstownSoccerClubisnotpossiblebecausethereisastreamlocatedclosetothepropertyline.Mr.JasonDivelbiss,attorney for the developer,stated that the existing subdivisions are built out and,therefore,thisdeveloperdoesnothavetheabilitytopurchaseoneofthelotstoconstructanaccess.He also explainedthattheEngineeringDepartment's objective for the redundant access requirement is to alleviatecongestionproblemsandtoprovideanalternativeaccessifoneaccesspointwouldbeclosedduetoanaccidentorotheremergencysituation.Mr.Divelbiss believes that congestion problems would not be anissuesincetheproposedsubdivisionhasonly47lotsandhebelievesthathavingonlyoneaccesswouldbeaninconvenienceratherthanasafetyissueifoneaccessisblocked.Mr.Divelbiss also stated that re-mapping and actual field studies of the floodplain area would be completed.It is anticipated that somelotsmaybelostoncethefloodplainhasbeendelineated.Mr.Anikis suggested two alternatives thatwouldalleviatetheredundantaccessrequirement.The first would be to develop the parcel with one-acrelotsratherthantheproposedY2-acre lots.He also suggested developing only the first 25 lots anddeveloptheremaininglotswhentheadjoiningpropertiesaredevelopedandcouldprovideasecondaccess.There was a brief discussion regarding water and sewer connections through the City and County.TheseissueswereaddressedduringthePreliminaryConsultationandarepartoftheconsultationsummary.Mr.Moser made an inquiry regarding streets and sidewalks.He stated his opinion that any developmentwithintheUrbanGrowthareashouldprovideclosedsectionstreetsandsidewalks.Mr.Anikis recommended revising the proposed concept plan to show access to a property that haspotentialfordevelopment.By consensus,the Planning Commission members requested a revised
.concept plan to be presented at a future meeting.
Hopewell Manor Apartments Expansion (PC-06-010)
Ms.Pietro presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Hopewell Manor
Apartments Expansion located along the west side of Hopewell Road south of 1-70 and is zoned HI-2 -
Highway Interchange 2.The developer is proposing to expand their existing 8 residential building
complex to have a total of 16 residential buildings on 21 acres.Seven of the proposed buildings will have
16-units and the 81h new building will have 8 units.The developer is also proposing a new community
building with a swimming pool.Ms.Pietro stated that the Engineering Department provided the following
comments:a traffic impact study would be required;a detailed downstream drainage analysis would be
required for the proposed storm water management structures and before any access onto Old Hopewell
Road would be allowed,the developer will be required to approach the County Commissioners for
abandonment of the existing right-at-way.The City of Hagerstown stated that an annexation review
would be required for water service to the property and water mains would need to be extended.The
Department of Water Quality stated that there is currently allocation available at the treatment facility and
extension of the lines would be required.The Williamsport Volunteer Fire Company would provide
emergency services to the proposed development;however,the plat was inadvertently sent to the
Halfway Volunteer Fire Company.Mr.DeHaven from the Halfway Volunteer Fire Department reviewed
the plat and stated that the proposed layout provides very poor access for emergency services and does
not appear to meet the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code.Forest Conservation Ordinance
requirements must be addressed.Since the property is located in an HI-2 zoning district,the Planning
Commission will review the site plan for visual appearance and will consider design and arrangement of
buildings,signs,landscaping and lighting.If any adjacent properties contain buildings,there should be a
25-foot buffer yard between the buildings and lot lines.The buffer must be adequate evergreen plantings
or fencing.Ms.Pietro stated that the developer did not have an engineer present at the consultation.
Comments:Planning Commission members expressed their dissatisfaction with the design of the
concept plan.They noted that tot lots were not shown,the number of storm water management ponds
was excessive,and the design layout is not conducive for emergency vehicles access especially fire
trucks.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern that there is only one access for approximately 150 apartments.
Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that the apartments are in close proximity to the railroad.
-Site Plans
Western Maryland Parkway Office Complex (SP-06-030)
Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for the Western Maryland Parkway Office
Complex located along the east side of Western Maryland Parkway.Access to the property will be off of
Enterprise Lane.The property Is zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.The developer is proposing to
construct a 9,600 square foot office bUilding on a 3.2-acre parcel with no remaining lands.Public water
and sewer will serve the site.Lighting will be bUilding mounted.Parking spaces reqUired are 32 spaces
and 49 spaces are provided.An office building is proposed;however,the specific use has not been
determined.Projected hours of operation are 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.These hours could change
depending upon the type of office that would be located in the building.No business signs are proposed
at this time;however,future s'lgnage would be required to meet the specifications of the Zoning
Ordinance.An enclosed dumpster will be provided for solid waste disposal.Landscaping is proposed
around the building,throughout the parking islands,and around the perimeter of the site and includes red
maple,ornamental pear,spirea,holly,daylilies and ornamental grasses.Forest Conservation Ordinance
39requirementswereaddressedthroughthesubdivisionapprovedin2002andwerere-approved in 2006.Sidewalks and parking areas are available on all sides of the bUilding.The Department of Water QualityandHealthDepartmentapprovalsarepending.All other agency approvals have been received.Comment:Mr.Bill Pompeii of Associated Engineering Sciences,consultant,stated that the DepartmentofWaterQualitymustprovideallinformationnecessaryforthewateradequacyapplicationrequiredbytheHealthDepartment.Once this process has been completed,both agencies will be able to give theirapprovals.Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded byMr.Moser.Mr.Reiber abstained.Unanimously approved.Clarification:Mr.Thompson noted that the Health Department has a new poliCy that became effectiveJanuary1,2007.There is a form that must be completed,prior to Health Department approval,by theagenciesthatwillbeprovidingpublicwaterandsewerservicetoverifytherequestedusage,capacity ofthesystemthatwillbeused,and remaining capacity at the facility.Black Rock PUD Recreation Park (SP-06-028)Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for the Black Rock Recreation Center associatedwiththeBlackRockPUDlocatedalongthenorthsideofMt.Aetna Road.The Final Development Planforthe595-planned unit development was approved in 2005.A condition of the approval from thePlanningCommissionwasthattheamenitiesforthedevelopmentshouldbecompletedpriortothecompletionofthePhaseIresidentialsection.The Planning Department has received the preliminary platforPhaseIconsistingof167-lots.The recreation center wiil be located along the east side of SashaBoulevard.The recreation center will include a 12,285-square foot community building,a swimming poolanddeck,4 hard-surfaced tennis courts,1 grass tennis court,basketball courts,a tot lot and a picnicpavilion.There will also be a path system that will connect with the approved overall pedestrian plan.Parking spaces required are 53 spaces and 155 park'lng spaces will be provided.The plan currentlyshowsoneaccessoffofSashaBoulevard;however,a second access will be constructed when SashaBoulevardisextendedtoaproposedroundabout.The outdoor facilities and parking lot will be lit for
.nighttime use.A photometric plan has been submitted showing zero foot-candle light trespass onto
adjoining properties.Mr.Lung has requested that the specific light fixtures should be identified on the
plan.The Forest Conservation Plan has not been formally submitted;however,the developer is
proposing to meet the Forest Conservation requirements by providing 1.62-acres of forest conservation
planting areas along the west and south sides of the site.A screened planting area will also be provided
using evergreens planted double-spaced on the center with staggered rows around the tennis courts.
Storm water management will be provided by a regional facility.Public water and sewer will be provided
by the City of Hagerstown pending approval based on final determination of water and sewer allocation of
3,600 gallons per day.Health Department approval is pending the City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer
Department's approval.All other agency approvals have been received.
Discussion:There was abrief discussion regarding the elevation of the parking lot in relationship to the
existing homes.There was concern that there would be glare from car lights into the houses;however,
the elevation of the parking lot is lower than the houses so glare should not be a concern.
Mr.Lung stated that the recreation park would be privately owned for the use of the residents of the
development;however,there will also be outside memberships available.It is not intended to be turned
over to the Homeowner's Association.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern that the amenities are not
being open to the residents when amenities are part of a PUD requirement.Mr.Lung stated that other
PUD's have provided amenities above the standard tot lots;however,he believes that fees for these
amenities (such as swimming pools)are charged through the Homeowner's Association.Mr.Shaool,
developer,stated that the residents of the development would pay a reduced rate membership fee for use
of the swimming pool and identification would be required to enter the pool area.The recreation area will
not be gated and residents could use all of the amenities except the swimming pool without paying a fee.
Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals,an approved
Forest Conservation Plan and approved light fixtures being shown on the site plan.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Unanimously approved.
-Forest Conservation
Sandy Repp,Lot 2 (S-06-002)
Ms.Baker,on behalf of Ms.Wagner-Grillo,presented for review and approval a request for Forest
Conservation mitigation in the form of payment-in-Iieu of planting.A subdivision plat for Sandy Repp,
Lots 2 -5,is currently being reviewed by the Planning Department stafl.Lot 1 was previously approved
and recorded.Lots 3,4 and 5 are exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.The
applicant's request is for a 1.32-acre parcel without any existing forest.The applicant is requesting to use
payment-in-lieu in the amount of $1,149.98 to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement.Due
to the question of sensitive area on the site,this request requires approval of the Planning Commission.
According to Soil Conservation maps,there is a blue-dot intermittent stream shown along the property
line between Lots 2 and 3 and is pending field verification by the Washington County Soil Conservation
District.
Clarification:Prior to the meeting,Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding clarification of a note included
on the plan that states,"Stormwater management will be met by using rooftop and non-rooftop
disconnects".Ms.Baker contacted the Washington County Engineering Department for clarification.
There are two issues to deal with for storm water management,one is water quality and the other is water
quantity (the amount of runoff).In the case of a smaller subdivision such as this one,quantity is normally
40not an issue.The "disconnects"deal with the water quality issue such as dry wells,rain gardens,etc.thathelptodiffusethewateronyourproperty.The note is a general note used on small subdivisions,especially subdivisions that are less than 5 acres.If a developer requests a subdivision for anyadditionallots,the storm water management issues would be re-evaluated for water quality and waterquantity.Comments:Ms.Baker stated that the owner is seeking to put the remaining property in Ag Preservation.Discussion:Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding a drainage swale along the.road.Ms.Baker statedthereisanidentifiedstreamwithfloodplainthatdoesnotcrossovertheroad;therefore,there is adrainageswaleontheoppositesideoftheroad.She noted that the stream is not defined (does not haveachannel).Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the payment-in-Iieu in the amount of $1,149.98 to meet the ForestConservationOrdinancerequirements.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.OTHER BUSINESSDemolitionPermit#2006-09956Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation Demolition Permit #2006-09956 for propertylocatedat12037GreencastlePike.The structures located on this property are listed as WashingtonCountyHistoricInventorySite#WA-I-353.The property is zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.OnJanuary10,2007,the Historic District Commission reviewed the demolition permit application and basedonindividualmembersfamiliaritywiththesite,the owner's (Mr.Sherman Stinson)comments and thesurveyinformationprovided,HOC members stated their opposition to the proposed demolition and votedtorecommendagainstthedemolition.HOC members recommendation was based on the following:theybelievethestructuresareworthretainingontheproperty;as described in the inventory,it is a goodexampleofthetypicallocalvernaculararchitectureofthelate19thcentury;it is intact and in goodconditionandisrepresentativeoflocalbuildingtraditions;and the buildings are still serviceable.Inaddition,no information was provided regarding any attempt to retain or reuse the buildings in futuredevelopmentonthesiteandatthattime,a site plan was not presented showing future plans for the
.property.
Comments:Ms.Vel Byers,Mr.Stinson's realtor and representative of LL&R,purchasers of the property,
presented the following information.The purchaser is proposing to construct an 86,583 square foot
distribution center where the existing house is located.They are also proposing to construct a 9,000·
square foot maintenance building,a 5,000-square foot office building and a guardhouse.In addition,
LL&R is purchasing a second parcel for a second warehouse.The surrounding properties contain
several trucking terminals.Ms.Byers stated that the purchasers have received approval for their access
points from the State Highway Administration and have completed extensive environmental studies.
Mr.Anikis expressed his disappointment that the developer is not trying to retain and reuse the
structures.He recommended that the owner or purchaser try to donate parts of the barn to be reused.
Ms.Byers stated that they have been in contact with several organizations to dismantle and reuse the
barn.
Mr.Kercheval stated his opinion that this area of the County was chosen for commercial and industrial
uses and properties are zoned accordingly;however,he supports Mr.Anikis's recommendation for
dismantling and reuse of the barn,if possible.
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition permit.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.
The motion passed with Mr.Moser,Mr.Reiber,Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Ecker and Mr.Wiley voting "Aye"and
Ms.Parrish voting "Nay".
Powers Estates APFO Approval
Mr.Thompson presented for review and comment the "DRAFT"APFO Agreement for School Adequacy
Mitigation for Powers Estates.The agreement has not been finalized;however,all main issues are
incorporated in the Draft.The agreement would allow the developer to move ahead with a phasing
schedule as outlined in the agreement to address the school situation.The developer is also providing a
monetary contribution over and above the excise tax requirements for the development.The developer is
installing a larger sewer line through the area to address water and sewer issues in the area.
Additionally,the BOCC required the developer to donate a 5-acre site to the County for "a use to be
determined by the County Commissioners"in the future.If changes are not made to the mitigation
agreement and/or the preliminary plat,final plats would not need to be presented to the Planning
,Commission.However,if changes were made to the preliminary plat,Planning Commission approval
would be required on the final plat.
Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the Planning Commission's lack of involvement in
preparing the mitigation agreements.Planning Commission members expressed their frustration that
they have not been receiving updated school capacity and enrollment figures in order to make informative
decisions regarding development.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding how this agreement coincides
with school enrollment rates.Mr.Kercheval stated that future redistricting and the opening of the new
Maugansville School would determine how school enrollments would be affected.Other considerations
by the Board of County Commissioners in accepting the agreement are the installation of additional
infrastructure,the monetary contribution that the developer is proposing,and the proposed donation of a
five-acre site for the COUhty's use.Mr.Thompson stated that the Planning Commission is the authority
of the APFO.
41Mr.Jason Divelbiss,attorney for the developer,stated that the terms of the APFO state that the PlanningCommissiondeterminestheadequacyorinadequacyoftheschools.At the time when the final platsweresubmitted,the Board of Education determined that there is a deficiency at the elementary schoollevel,but the middle school and high school have adequate capacity.Because there was not adequatecapacityattheelementaryschoollevel,the Planning Commission could not grant approval of the finalplatwithoutanapprovedmitigationagreementfromthe'Board of County Commissioners.The Board ofCountyCommissionersacceptedtheproposedmitigationagreementinNovemberandnowthePlanningCommissionneedstogivetheirapprovaiofa"determination of adequacy".'However,in reality,theagreementisadeterminationthatthedevelopercanmoveforwarddespitetheinadequacyofcapacityattheelementaryschoollevel.Mr.Wiley expressed his concern that the Planning Commission members are not receiving enoughinformationanddataonschoolenrollments.All members agreed that they need additional informationbeforetheycouldmakeadecisionontheproposedMitigationAgreement.Mr.Thompson recommendedthattheAgreementshouldbetableduntilthePlanningCommissionWorkshopmeetingscheduledonFebruary19,2007.At that time,more information would be presented for the Commission as to their roleintheapprovalprocesswhenmitigationisproposed.Comment:Mr.Douglas Bachtell,developer,expressed his frustration regarding the delay in starting hissubdivision.He stated his opinion that over the past 20 years the County has neglected the schoolsystemsasawhole.He stated that he has worked in "good faith"with the Board of CountyCommissionerstoprovideadditionalfundingforschools,to construct additional sewer lines,and theyhavegivena5-acre site for the County to use as they deem appropriate (which is not required under theAPFO).By consensus,the Planning Commission members agreed to continue discussions regarding theMitigationAgreementattheirWorkshopmeetingonFebruary19th•Rosehill Manor Subdivision (PP-04-007)Mr.Thompson presented a request from Dan Ryan Builders for a one time 12-month extension for the
.Rosehill Manor preliminary piat.The property is located between Maryland Route 60 and Longmeadow
Road.
Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the extension request for the Rosehill Manor Preliminary Plat for one
year.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Planning Commission Workshop,Monday,February 19,2007,1:00 p.m.,Washington County
Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street
2.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,March 5,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County
Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street
ADJOURNMENT
Ms.Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.So ordered.
Respectfully submitted,
42 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-MARCH 5,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingon Monday,March 20,2007,intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Sam Ecker,TerryReiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning DirectorMichaelC.Thompson,Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker,Associate Planner Sara Henke,Land Preservation Planner Holly Thibault and Administrative AssistantDebraEckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting ofFebruary5,2007 as amended.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved.OLD BUSINESSHoffmanFarms (PC-06-011)Ms.Baker presented for review and comments a revised concept plan for Hoffman Farms located alongthenorthsideofCearfossPike.The developer is proposing 47 residential dwelling units on 50.84 acresandiszonedA -Agriculture.During the preliminary consultation,the County Engineering Department
stated that due to the number of proposed lots,a redundant access would be required.The developer
-has revised the concept plan to show a stub into Grandview Acres,LLC.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis recommended negotiations between Grandview Acres,LLC and Mr.Hoffman to
determine the best location for the stub between the two developments.Mr.Divelbiss,attorney for the
developer,stated that the stub-in location was determined by the location of floodplains and they would
be willing to agree that "to the extent possible",when it is necessary they would be willing to work with the
developer of Grandview Acres LLC to determine where the stub-in should be located.The developer will
work closely with Grandview Acres,LLC as the development moves forward.Mr.Reiber asked who
would maintain the main access point.Ms.Baker stated that the County would maintain the "actual
pavement".However,the County Engineering Department stated that the County would not maintain the
drainage ditches along elongated stretches of road where lots are not fronting it and maintenance would
be the responsibility of a Homeowner's Association.
NEW BUSINESS
•Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications
Ms.Thibault presented for review and approval Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications.The
Planning Commission must determine the following criteria:consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
that the properties are outside the Growth Area and that there are no planned water and sewer services
for the properties.The Ag Board previously approved the districts using the following criteria:the
property must contain a minimum of 50 acres and must stand alone or 20 acres contiguous with other
permanently protected lands;they must have an ag use assessment;a minimum of 50%Class I,II and III
soils classification.which have the highest crop yield and productivity.The following properties were
considered:
•Kriner Farm,LLC -Application #AD-06-018,Property located at 11065 Dam No.5 Road,Clear
Spring,268.4 acres
•Theodore Rosenberry -Application #AD-06-015,Property located at 12574 Indian Springs Road,
Clear Spring,104.52 acres
•Robert Martz -Application #AD-06-019,Property located at 11429 White Hall Road,Smithsburg,
88.87 acres
•Edwin E.David -Application #AD-06-001,Property located at 7007 Mariah Furnace Road,
Boonsboro,139.3 acres
•Rodney E.Dill -Application #AD-06-007,Property located at 19911 Mill Point Road,Boonsboro,
168.03 acres
Ms.Thibault stated that there are presently 21,000 acres of property in 10-year ag districts and 20,000
acres of permanently protected lands.
Ms.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the Agricultural Land Preservation District
applications as presented because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meet all other
necessary criteria.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved with Mr.Kercheval abstaining.
-VariancesWendyJ.Bergman Cunningham (SV-07-006)Ms.Henke presented for review and approval a variance request from Section 405.11.G.5 of theSubdivisionOrdinancetoallowapanhandleof1400-feet.The property is 9.63 acres in size located onMt.Aetna Road and is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.The remaining lands are 18.4 acres.The applicant"s claim for hardship is because they do not want to destroy the existing electric fence andtreeline.The applicant proposes to keep the remaining land in pasture.The Mt.Aetna Volunteer FireDepartmentsubmittedaletterstatingthattheyhavereviewedthepropertyand"find no problems at thistime".Comments were also submitted by the Division of Fire and Emergency Services as follows:1)"From a 9-1-1 viewpoint,once the address is assigned to this lot and driveway,they should be required todisplaytheaddressattheendofthedrivewayandalongtheroad."and 2)"The panhandle lot must bewideenoughtoaccommodatethelargerfireandemergencyvehiclesthatwouldbeusedintheeventofafireorEMSemergencyatthislocation."Ms.Henke stated that the subdivision plat must be submitted tothePlanningDepartmentforreviewandapprovalcontingentuponFireandEmergencyServicescomments,Health Department comments,and Engineering Department comments.Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked,if approved,could any further subdivision occur on this property?Ms.Henke stated no further subdivision could occur.There was a brief discussion regarding the location ofthefenceline.Comments:Mr.Moser stated that he does not approve of long panhandles due to safety issues.Mr.Wiley concurred with Mr.Moser's comment.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that she does not usuallyapproveoflongpanhandles;however,the Mt.Aetna Fire Department did not have any concerns.Therewasabriefdiscussionregardingthewidthofdrivewaysforrescue vehicles.Mr.Anikis expressed hisopinionthatthedrivewayshouldbeproperlymaintainedandwideenoughforemergencyvehicles(a 20-foot width would be desirable).Ms.Parrish made a motion to grant the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.The motion passed
.with Ms.Parrish,Mr.Ecker,Mr.Wiley,Mr.Reiber and Mr.Kercheval voting "Aye"and Mr.Moser voting
"Nay".
-Site Plans
Pavestone Company (SP-06-060)
Mr.Lung ,on behalf of Ms.Pietro,presented for review and approval the site plan for Pavestone
Company located along the east side of Hopewell Road.The developer is proposing to construct a
24,000-square foot plant addition and a 4,800-square foot office addition on a total of 35.5 acres of
property currently zoned IG -Industrial General.Public water and sewer currently exists and will serve
the site.There are currently 50 employees with 15 additional employees proposed.Parking spaces
required are 40 spaces and 40 spaces are provided.Hours of operation are 24 hours per day 7 days per
week.No new signage is proposed.A new screened dumpster is proposed and would be located next to
the plant addition.Approximate deliveries would be 45 to 50 semi-trailers per day.Building mounted
lights are proposed on the office building and plant addition.A variety of landscaping material will be
installed around the office building.The site is eligible for the "express procedure"to meet Forest
Conservation requirements with a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $29,185.20 for the entire 21 acre
area.Mr.Lung noted that the large storage yard located at the front of the property was installed without
site plan approval.The current site plan is attempting to bring the site into compliance.There are a few
scattered trees planted along Hopewell Road and Staff believes there should be a more concentrated
planting of trees to provide a buffer along Hopewell Road.Staff recommends providing additional
screening along the edges of the storm water management pond.Mr.Lung also recommended a
condition should be placed on the storage yard for storage of finished products only and not for storage of
waste products.Approval from the Health Department is pending.All other agency approvals have been
received.
Discussion:Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the storage of waste product on the site and
making storage of "finished material only"a condition of the approval process.There was a brief
discussion regarding other areas suitable for storage of rubble material.Mr.Lung stated that rubble
storage could be shown elsewhere on the site and his recommendation is only for the new storage areas
(labeled E and F on the plat).Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding air quality issues.Mr.Lung stated
that air quality issues are being addressed by the State Highway Administration in conjunction with 1-81.
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon an increased buffer zone and
replacement of dead trees along Hopewell Road,screening along the storm water management pond,
and a recommended identified storage area for finished products and an area for rubble materials.
Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.
Clarification:Staff will review and approve the designated storage areas outlined above.
Rampf Molds Industry (SP-07-002)
Mr.Lung,on behalf of Ms.Pietro,presented for review and approval the site plan for Rampf Molds
Industry located along the east side of Western Maryland Parkway at the southwest corner of West
Washington Street.This project has been given the "fast track"designation.The developer is proposing a
total expansion of 21 ,200-square feet on a 7 -acre parcel.The plan shows an expansion of 17,000-square
43
44 feet with an optional additional expansion of 4,200-square feet for the manufacturing facility.Dependinguponconstructionbids,the developer may reduce the total expansion to 17,000-square feet only.Publicwaterandsewercurrentlyservesthesiteandnoadditionalwaterorsewerageallocationwouldberequired.No additional lighting or signage is proposed.Proposed freight and delivery services are oneperday.There are currently 65 employees with a total of 90 employees proposed after the expansion.Hours of operation are 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.Monday through Friday.There are 62 existing parkingspacesand52spacesarerequired.Additional landscaping is proposed along the front and side of thesite.This site was developed prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance;therefore,Forest Conservation requirements would be required only on the newly disturbed area.The site iseligibleforthe"express procedure"to meet Forest Conservation requirements with a required plantingareaof1.08 acres or a payment-in-lieu of $4,704.48.Approvals are pending from the EngineeringDepartment,Health Department and the Soil Conservation District.A geo-technical report on the stormwatermanagementareaisrequiredforsubmittaltotheEngineeringDepartmentandSoilConservationDistrictfortheirreviewpriortoapproval.All other agency approvals have been received.Discussion:Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the number of parking spaces provided for 90employees.A representative from Rampf Molds stated that employees work two shifts.Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded byMr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.U.S.Cellular -Huyett North (SP-07-006)Mr.Lung,on behalf of Ms.Pietro,presented for review and approval the site plan for U.S.Cellular locatedalongthewestsideofSalemChurchRoadona166-acre tract of land owned by Robert and RhodaMartinandiszonedA(R)-Agricultural Rural.The developer is proposing a 199-foot galvanized,graymonopoletowerona10,000-square foot leased area.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a specialexceptionforthissiteintheFallof2006contingentuponthetowerbeingself-collapsing and the tree linealongtheeasternpropertylinemustremainforscreeningpurposes.No water or sewer facilities are
Jequired since this is an unmanned site.A 12'x 20'equipment shelter within a 75'x 75'fenced
compound.A 25-foot access easement for maintenance purposes will be provided.There will be no
lighting on the tower.The tower is designed for a total of four users.The Department of Public Works
has made a request to be a co-locator on the tower for county communications equipment.Mr.Kercheval
stated that the Department of Public Works would like to have standard language included on the plans
for all cell towers to include space for communication systems.The site 'IS exempt from Forest
Conservation Ordinance requirements since less than 40,000-square feet of disturbed area will be
involved.All agency approvals have been received.In order to insure that the existing tree line is not
removed,an easement must be established and recorded.A note should be added to the plan that the
cell tower must be self-collapsing as required by the Board of Zoning Appeals.A note would also be
required on the plan that the cell tower owner will be responsible for removal of the tower when the tower
is abandoned and no longer is in use.
Discussion:Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding the height of the cell tower and lighting for the tower.
Mr.Lung stated that the FAA does not require lighting if the tower is under 200-feet in height.Mr.
Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the number of users for the tower.A representative from U.S.
Cellular stated that a condition of approval the tower was to be designed for four or more carriers. There
was a brief discussion regarding the easement for the tree line.Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding
lighting requirements on the tower.Mr.Lung believes that the FAA would have jurisdiction regarding
lighting.
Comments:Mr.Kercheval stated that the Department of Public Works would require a 20-foot vertical
space within the facility or fenced yard for a communications building.Standard language should be
designed for use on plans for all cell towers.He also noted that if there were any kind of interference with
the tower and any of the County's communication systems,it would be the responsibility of the owner of
the tower to resolve the conflicts.Mr.Lung noted that a Zoning Ordinance text amendment might be
necessary.
Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon an acceptable negotiated easement
agreement and conditions as imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Department of Public
Works.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.
Hagerstown Community College (SP-07-007)
Mr.Lung,on behalf of Ms.Pietro,presented for review and approval the site plan for the Hagerstown
Community College located along the northwest side of Robinwood Drive.The College is proposing a
4,000 square foot addition to the west side of the Technical Innovation Center located adjacent to Scholar
Drive and east of the Athletic Recreation Center.The addition will be used for offices and wet labs to
support the companies located in the TIC.The project has been given a "fast-track"designation.The
hours of operation are Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.and Saturday 7:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.
Existing public water and sewer facilities will serve the site.Proposed routine deliveries are two small box
trucks per day.Solid waste would be collected inside the building and taken to a dumpster in the
Programs Building.The wet labs will not generate any biohazards.Any type of hazardous material will be
handled by an autoclave located inside the building.Fourteen parking spaces will be required for the
addition and will be added to the 54 spaces currently required at the TIC bUilding for a total of 68 spaces
that are needed.Ninety-four spaces will be provided.The existing loop road will be relocated behind the
Career Programs Building and will provide more parking.There will be four building-mounted,full cut-off
45typewallpacklightsprovidedontheaddition.Additional landscaping is proposed around the addition.The project is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because there is less than 40,OOO-squarefeetofdisturbedarea.Approvals are pending from the Health Department,Engineering Department,andtheCityofHagerstownSewerDepartment.All other agency approvals have been received.Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded byMr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.Martin's Food Market #444 (SP-06-063)Mr.Lung,on behalf at Ms.Wagner-Grillo,presented for review and approval the site plan for Martin'sFoodMarket#444 and a 6-unit retail strip center along with fuel islands located along North Pointe Drive.The site is approximately 9-acres on two parcels and is zoned PB -Planned Business.The Board ofZoningAppealsgrantedavariancefromvariousparkingandsetbackrequirementsinApril,2006.Theproposedsiteconsistsofthefoodmarketthatcontainsapproximately85,000-square feet,the six retailshopsthatareapproximately2,500-square feet each and six gas pumping islands with canopy.Parkingspacesrequiredare395spacesand397parkingspacesareprovided.The Zoning Ordinance requires a9'x 20'parking space;however,the BZA granted a variance to allow a limited number of 9'x 18'parkingspaceslocatedalongthefarsouthernendoftheparkinglot.Handicapped spaces will be provided.There are two loading areas for the facility.Three access points will serve the site including the existingright-in,right-out onto Pennsylvania Avenue,one entrance onto North Pointe Drive and one entrance ontoLongMeadowRoadatanexistingcurbcut.The design of all access points have been reviewed by theCountyandStateHighwayAdministrationhavebeencoordinatedwiththeCounty's Capifal ImprovementProjectforthere-building of Maugans Avenue and the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and LongMeadowRoad.The developer will be responsible for the installation of a traffic light at the North PointeDriveandUSRoute11intersection.Storm water management will be handled by an underground facilityundertheparkinglot.Proposed hours of operation are as follows:grocery store -24 hours per day 7daysperweek,fueling facility 6:00 a.m.to 11 :00 p.m.,7 days per week; retail strip 8:00 a.m.to 11 :00p.m.,7 days per week.Public water (estimated 7,100 gallons per day)and sewer (estimated 6,700
.gallons per day)will be provided by the City of Hagerstown.Two pylon signs are proposed,one at the
North Pointe Drive entrance and one at the Pennsylvania Avenue entrance and a building mounted sign
is proposed.Landscaping will be provided throughout the site and within the parking lot islands.An
additional 1.33 acres of Forest Conservation is required based on the new disturbed area and will be
handled under the "express procedure"with a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $5,793.48.The County
and State Highway's plan for Pennsylvania Avenue improvements propose sidewalks up to this property.
Mr.Lung recommended that the developer continue the sidewalk onto this site to tie into their proposed
pedestrian system.Approvals are pending from the Health Department,the Washington County
Engineering Department,City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department,Soil Conservation District
and State Highway Administration.All agency comments have been addressed,revisions made to the
plat and re-routed to the agencies for their approval.
Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked if the fuel tanker trucks would be able to navigate through the parking
lot?Mr.Robert Glimcher,developer,stated that they have worked with the County on improvements to
widen the radius turn for the trucks so a tanker can make the turn to exit onto Pennsylvania Avenue.
Trucks will enter the site from Long Meadow Road.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding the
connection between North Pointe Road and Long Meadow Road and believes that the multiple access
points appear to be full access points in a short distance.Mr.David Taylor of D.M.Bowman stated that
the County installed the curb cuts that currently exist on the site.Mr.Kercheval stated that there are full
left and right turns from 3 access points onto a four-lane road (Long Meadow Road).He also stated that,
"as my position as a Commissioner I would never guarantee that would be a full access point from here to
eternity because I don't know what we are going to have from traffic issues'~Mr.Kercheval has talked to
Mr.McGee,the County Engineer,how multiple points are going to be put onto a four-lane road. He also
noted there is a full-access point across the street as well as a road that enters into the development.Mr.
Glimcher believes that the multiple access points will alleviate some of the pressure.Mr.Taylor believes
that the installation of the light on North Pointe Drive will influence traffic to utilize that route because it will
be the easiest route for people to use.Mr.Glimcher stated that the only way to access the loading docks
in the rear of the facility is from Long Meadow Road;however,it is their intent for trucks to exit onto North
Pointe Drive.Mr.Kercheval reiterated his concern regarding the full left and right turns onto a four-lane
road and stated,"If the County someday says we want to run a median up through there and limit it to this
left lane,we want to be able to do that and expect that we're not going to be told we are going to sue the
County or need compensation before you shut that.I just want to make sure that you understand that
we're not guaranteeing that's always a left and right in;would be my position on behalf of the Planning
Commission".A brief discussion continued regarding the full left and right turns onto Long Meadow Road
and potential traffic problems that could be caused as the volume of traffic and development in this area
continues.Mr.Glimcher stated,"If a median does happen to be installed at some point in the future,we
could still operate and trucks could come out at North Pointe Orive'~
Mr.Anikis asked when the traffic light on North Pointe Drive would be installed?Mr.Glimcher stated that
the traffic light would be installed and operational prior to the opening of the new store.
Mr.Anikis stated he would like to require the installation of an operational of the traffic light concurrent
with the store opening.
Mr.Anikis asked why a traffic study was not being required as part of this development?Mr.Thompson
stated that a study was done to determine what improvements were needed based on current and
46 projected land use in the area prior to the improvements on Maugans Avenue and the intersection atPennsylvaniaAvenueandLongMeadowRoad.Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals and theinstallationofanoperationaltrafficlightonNorthPointeDrivepriortotheopeningofthestore.SecondedbyMr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.Fort Ritchie Communitv Center (SP-07-003)Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the site plan for Fort Ritchie Community Center located at thenorthwestcornerofLakesideDriveandCastleDriveintheformerFortRitchieMilitarybasenearCascade.The project has been given a "fast-track"designation.The proposed community center islocatedon2.90 acres and is zoned SED -Special Economic Development area.A 6,900-square footportionoftheexistinggymnasiumwillremainanda14,294-square foot addition will be added.Thecommunitycenterwillcontainagym,exercise areas,community rooms,activity areas,and snack barwithaseatingarea.Additional parking areas will be provided around the facility.Based on the squarefootage,54 parking spaces are required and 76 spaces will be provided including handicapped spaces.There will be 2 employees on the site.Storm water management will be handled though a new bio-retention area.As part of the base closure of Fort Ritchie,a study was completed to review possiblemitigationoftheeffectsoftheclosureontheCampRitchiehistoricdistrictandanagreementcalleda"Programmatic Agreement"was approved by the Department of the Army,the Maryland HistoricPreservationOffice,the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,and Pen Mar DevelopmentCorporation.Pen Mar Development is responsible for determining compliance with the "PA".ThegymnasiumisconsideredatemporaryWorldWarIIwoodcontributingelementandbasedonthe"PA",demolition of such elements are permitted.There is a provision in the "PA"that redevelopment mustcomplywithdesigngUidelines(that the design of the structure must be in keeping with the overall historiclookofthes·lte).The review for "PA"compliance will be by Pen Mar Development Corporation and will beon-going throughout the permit process.The Washington County Historic District Commission has norevieworapprovalresponsibility.The building and the site are being designed to meet Federal "Green
.BUilding"guidelines,which mean the building and the lighting,etc.should be designed in an energy
efficient manner and should provide for renewable resources.All agencies have reviewed the plan and
submitted their comments;however,the consultant must submit their revisions for review and approval.
One item that does need to be addressed is a concern by 911 and address assignment regarding street
names and addresses.Many of the old road names within the development conflict with existing road
names and in order to bring this development 'Into compliance with the 911 addressing system,the road
names must be evaluated in order to provide addresses for the new buildings.Staff strongly
recommends that the Planning Commission should urge COPT to submit an overall concept plan showing
the overall design of the site and ownership of the streets and infrastructure.Mr.Lung stated that COPT
would like to move forward quickly on site plan approvals for subsequent buildings and he believes that
the best way to facilitate these approvals is to present an overall plan for review and comment.
Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the naming of streets and numbering sequence for
addresses.Mr.An'lkis asked when an overall development plan would be available and how would that
affect the approval of this plan?Mr.Rich Rook,a representative of Pen Mar Development Corporation,
stated that Pen Mar is partnered with COPT in this development.He stated that when fire and
emergency services respond to Fort Ritchie,building numbers are used and would continue to be used
until the addressing issues are resolved.He noted that some streets within Fort Ritchie were named for
historical reasons.A representative from COPT stated that they are in the process of refining the overall
concept plan.Prior to requesting any further approvals or building permits,he stated that the overall
concept plan would be submitted.There was a brief discussion regarding meetings that have been held
between the Planning Staff,COPT and Emergency Services to address current and future concerns and
plans.The Maryland Historical Trust has reviewed the site plan and given their approval.
Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded by
Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.
Potomac Construction Industrial Ready Mix Plant (SP-07-005)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the site plan for the Potomac Construction Industrial Ready
Mix Plant located along the west side of Bottom Road.The developer is proposing to construct a ready
mix concrete plant within the permitted area of the Martin Marietta Pinesburg Quarry.The property is
zoned 1M -Industrial Mineral.The plant would be considered a principle permitted use in the 1M zoning
district.The approved Mining and Reclamation Plan showed a processing plant and stockpile storage
area in the vicinity of this site.Raw material for the ready mix plant would be hauled by truck on existing
haul roads from the quarry.The ready mix concrete would be hauled by truck from the existing entrance
on Bottom Road near the railroad crossing;therefore,there will be no significant increase in truck traffic.
The Maryland Department of the Environment has reviewed the plan and has indicated that an update to
the Mining and Reclamation Plan is not necessary.The County currently holds a bond for road damage
and road maintenance and will apply to this site.The owner,Martin Marietta,has indicated that they
understand that any damages that may be caused by trucks entering the County road from their facility
would be covered under their bond.Typical hours of operation are 6:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,Monday
through Saturday with an occasional 24 hours per day 7 days per week operation.The site plan complies
will all performance standards under Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to emissions,
control of dust,vibration,and noise.An MOE Air Quality permit would be required and would be obtained
at the permit stage.The site meets the 400-foot setback requirement from a residence per Section 15.5
C.The facility shall not be visible from adjacent public roads per Section 15.5F of the Zoning Ordinance.
There will be one plant operator on site in addition to a truck driver.There is a question of a handicappedparkingspaceatthefacilitythatneedstobeaddressedwiththeDepartmentofPermits&Inspections.The entire mining site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because it is a permitted miningoperation.Address assignment approval is pending.All other agency approvals have been received.Additional Comments:Mr.Lung stated that there needs to be some minor revisions to the wordingregardingthepertormancestandardsunderSection4.12 and the handicapped parking space issueneedstobeaddressed.Discussion:Mr.Kercheval inquired about the amount of the bond.A representative from PCI statedthathedoesnotknowtheamountofthebond;however,it is updated every few years.Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded byMr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.-Forest ConservationTerry&Madeline Yeakle (FS-07-002)Ms.Henke provided for review and approval a request for off-site forest retention to meet therequirementsoftheForestConservationOrdinance.The property is located on the south side ofHicksvilleRoad.The proposed off-site retention area is located on Ashton Road and is a portion of anestateofwhichMrs.Yeakle is a part.The two properties are approximately 7.8 miles from each other.The proposed location is considered a high priority area and is located near the U.S.Park Service andthePotomacRiver.If approved,the applicant has offered afforestation at a 2:1 ratio.Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the off-site forest retention request at a 2:1 ratio as proposed.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.OTHER BUSINESS
RZ·06·016 -Antietam Investments LLC and Sheldon Eby
Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the
Public Hearing for rezoning case RZ-06-016 for Antietam Investments LLC and Sheldon Eby.The
property is located at 17318,17320,17322 and 17326 Virginia Avenue approximately 350-feet east of the
intersection with Massey Boulevard and is currently zoned RU -Residential Urban.The applicant is
proposing a map amendment and zoning designation of BL -Business Local.
Mr.Goodrich summarized Staff's conclusions for the Commission,as detailed in the Staff Report and
Analysis,as follows:
o It is Staff's opinion that the applicant's neighborhood is too large in some directions and does not
include adjacent parcels in other directions.
o A clear statement of the neighborhood's character before or after the alleged changed was not
provided.
o There is clearly an effect on the landscape in this area from the Valley Mall and Cross Pointe
Shopping Center,even though the zoning that allows it has been in place since 1973.
•Traffic patterns have changed with the connection of Massey Boulevard to Virginia Avenue,but
there is no supporting data for the contention that it has increased or affects the rezoning site.
o In Staff's opinion,the Business Local zoning designation is not logical or appropriate due to the
residential development on adjacent parcels and others that were not included in the
neighborhood.
•The Business Local zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use plan map
designation.
Comments:Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that residential areas are being destroyed by slowly
increasing commercial areas and he agrees with Staff's conclusions.It is his opinion that the request
should be denied.
Mr.Moser expressed his opinion that "spot"zoning has led,in part,to the businesses that are currently
adjacent to the subject property that was originally platted as a residential neighborhood.Mr.Moser
agrees that there have been changes in the area;however,he does not believe there has been a
significant change.He agrees with Staff's conclusions and does not believe a case has been made to
rezone the property and stated his opinion that the request is not consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan.[Mr.Moser also expressed his opinion that rezoning applications should be
stopped until review of the Growth Area has been completed.]
Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the applicant's argument relative to the "change in character"of the
neighborhood.Mr.Goodrich stated that "change in character"can be subject to individual interpretation
and Staff believes that although changes have occurred a "change in character"of the neighborhood from
residential to business has not occurred.
Ms.Parrish stated that she also has concerns regarding "spot"zoning;however,by listening to comments
of residents in the area,she believes that the neighborhood has changed.She also believes that growth
needs to be contained within defined areas and the subject property is in an area that is growing.She
47
48 noted that during the public hearing there were no objections by neighbors in the area to the rezoningrequest.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application request to the Board ofCountyCommissionersbecausetheapplicanthasnotshownanysignificantchangesinthecharacteroftheneighborhoodandtherequestisnotconsistentwiththeCounty's Comprehensive Plan.Seconded byMr.Wiley.The motion failed with Mr.Moser and Mr.Wiley voting "Aye"and Ms.Parrish,Mr.Reiber andMr.Ecker voting "Nay".Mr.Kercheval abstained.Ms.Parrish made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning application request to the Board ofCountyCommissioners.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Comment before the vote:Mr.Reiber stated,for the record,that he does not like going against Staff'srecommendations;however,during the public hearing there was no opposition to the request and hebelievesthattheneighborhoodinthisareahaschanged.The vote to recommend approval was Ms.Parrish,Mr.Reiber and Mr.Ecker voting "Aye"and Mr.MoserandMr.Wiley voting "Nay".As Chairman,Mr.Anikis may vote to make a tie or break a tie;therefore,Mr.Anikis voted "Nay"for a final vote of 3 to 3.Therefore,Rezoning case RZ-06-016 will be forwarded to theBoardofCountyCommissionerswithoutarecommendationeitherfororagainsttherequest.RZ-06-017 -Bowman Cavetown,LLCMs.Baker presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the PublicHearingforrezoningcaseRZ-06-017 for Bowman Cavetown,LLC.The property is located at 11840MapleRoadatthesouthwestcornerofMarylandRoute66andMarylandRoute64intheSmithsburgGrowthAreaboundaryandiscurrentlyzonedRR-Residential Rural.The applicant is proposing a mapamendmentandzoningdesignationofBL-Business Local.
.Ms.Baker stated that the neighborhood was not reasonably defined.She noted that Maryland case law
generally supports the theory that the definition of a neighborhood should not be a rigid standard but
rather a flexible definition that allows variation between different conditions;however,the neighborhood
should be limifed to "the immediate environs of the subject property".Staff does not believe that
considering properties fhat are a mile away but not adjacent to the site is a reasonable definition of a
neighborhood.The applicant presented five points during their testimony to support their reasoning for a
"change in the character of the neighborhood"as follows:
1.The other fhree corners of the intersection have been developed commercially.
2.There has been a significant increase in the population of the election district since the
original zoning.
3.The upgrade signalization combined with the increased traffic flow has created a need for
more commercial uses.
4.Four different rezoning requests were outlined in their defined neighborhood that the
applicant felt contributed to the change.
5.Water and sewer services could reasonably be extended to the property.
The applicant also presented a change for a mistake in the original zoning of the property that they based
on two main points,as follows:
1.The property is located within an area where commercial growth and development should
have been perceived by the County.
2.The County should have anticipated,with the improvements of Maryland Route 64 and
the subsequent property takings within that area,a larger commercial area would be
needed.
Ms.Baker addressed the applicant's "change in the character of the neighborhood"and the "mistake in
original zoning"arguments in her Staff Report and Analysis.
Comments:Ms.Parrish stated her opinion that there has been a change in the character of the
neighborhood due to the increase in traffic and the existing businesses in the area.
Mr.Reiber asked that if the site were developed for a commercial use,what happens to the road structure
in the area of Paden Avenue and who would be responsible for any upgrades or changes that may be
needed.Mr.Thompson stated that all necessary traffic studies and road frontage requirements would be
required as part of the site plan approval process and the developer would be responsible to make the
necessary upgrades and changes to the roadways as directed by the State Highway Administration
Mr.Moser expressed his opinion that this is another example of "piecemeal"zoning in a residential area
where an existing house is situated on the property proposed for rezoning.He believes there are already
traffic problems and safety issues that need to be addressed in this area and if the property is developed
as a commercial site,the life of the residents in the area will dramatically change.Mr.Moser also stated
that the Town of Smithsburg has concerns regarding sewer capacity issues.
Mr.Anikis asked if the County's BL (Business Local)zoning designation is equivaient to the Smithsburg'sGeneralCommercialzoningdesignation.Mr.Thompson stated that it is consistent with Smithsburg'szoningdesignationandtherequestisconsistentwiththeTownofSmithsburg's Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning application request to the Board ofCountyCommissionersbasedonconsistencywiththeTownofSmithsburg's Comprehensive Plan zoningdesignation.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion failed with Mr.Reiber and Ms.Parrish voting "Aye"and Mr.Moser,Mr.Ecker and Mr.Wiley voting "Nay".Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application request to the Board ofCountyCommissionersbecauseitisnotconsistentwiththeCounty's Comprehensive Plan.Seconded byMr.Wiley.The motion passed with Mr.Moser,Mr.Wiley and Mr.Ecker voting "Aye"and Ms.Parrish andMr.Reiber voting "Nay".Discussion on Future RezoningsTherewasabriefdiscussionregarding a temporary moratorium on individual piecemeal requests dealingwithrezoningsboundarychangestotheUrbanfTowngrowthareasorchangestotheWaterandSewerMasterPlanuntiltheupdateoftheComprehensivePlaniscompleted.By consensus,PlanningCommissionmembersrequestedthatMr.Thompson prepare a letter to the Board of CountyCommissionersrequestingthemoratorium.The Commission suggested that language be included thatwouldallowanindividualpropertysubjecttoreviewaspartofurban/town growth areas to proceed with apiecemealrequestuponthegrantingofawaiverbytheBoardofCountyCommissioners.Mr.ReiberrecommendedthatallPlanningCommissionmembersshouldsigntheletter.UPCOMING MEETINGS1.Joint Rezoning Hearing,Monday,March 12,2007,Washington County Court House,95 WestWashingtonStreet,Court Room #1,Hagerstown
.2.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,April 2,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County
Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown
ADJOURNMENT
Ms.Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.So ordered.
Respectfully submitted,u-
49
50 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONWORKSHOPMEETING-February 19,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionandPlanningStaffheld a workshop meeting onMonday,February 19,2007 at 1:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,Conference Room #1,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland.Planning Commission members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Bernard Moser,TerryReiber,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staffmemberspresentwere:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker and Administrative Assistant Debra S.Eckard.Also present was:TerryMcGee,Director,Engineering Department,John Latimer,Chief,Department of EmergencyServices,and Andrew Wilkinson and Kirk Downey,County Attorneys Office.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.DISCUSSIONA.Powers Estates APFO AgreementThisitemwasacontinuationfromthe February 5,2007 Regular Planning Commission meeting.Mr.Thompson began this discussion by stating that the County Attorney's office has beenreviewingtheAPFOprocessandtheresponsibilitiesofthePlanningCommissionwhenmitigationisinvolvedwithadevelopment.Mr.Wilkinson of the County Attorney's office,stated thatSections3.1, 3.4,and 9.7 of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance are applicable to thePlanningCommission.He summarized the various sections as follows:Section 3.1 of the APFOsaysthattheOrdinancewillbeadministeredbythePlanningCommissionandallapplicationsor
documents relative to subdivision approval will be submitted to the Planning Commission;Section
3.4 says that new development not meeting the requirements of APFO shall not be approved by
the Planning Commission and if the plan does not meet APFO,it is the job of the Board of County
Commissioners to consider a mitigation plan;and Section 9.7 says that if a developer fails to
negotiate a mitigation agreement for APFO with the BOCC,the Planning Commission shall
disapprove the project.When reviewing and assessing all of the terms together,it is the opinion
of the County Attorney's office that the Planning Commission's role in mitigation of APFO is quite
minimal.Mr.Wilkinson further explained the process by saying that when a subdivision is
submitted and does not meet APFO,the developer must negotiate with the Board of County
Commissioners to produce a mitigation plan.When the mitigation plan is approved and signed
by the County Attorney's office,Mr.Thompson will report to the Planning Commission that APFO
requirements have been met and the Planning Commission may then move forward with the
approval process for development.
Mr.Anikis expressed concern that there is no tie between the mitigation agreement and actual
school capacity numbers and the impact on various schools.Mr.Wilkinson stated that during the
negotiation process for mitigation between the BOCC and the developer,actual school capacity
numbers are utilized.Mr.Anikis asked why the capacity numbers are not made part of the
mitigation plan.Mr.Wilkinson stated that for his purposes at the County Attorney's offices,he
does not need the actual agreement to state the exact number of students that would be
produced by a development.He needs to know how much the developer is going to pay,when it
will be paid and if the BOCC has approved the mitigation plan.Mr.Thompson stated that the
proposed phasing for the development is also required as part of the approval process.Mr.
Kercheval stated that a development technically fails the APFO until adequate public facilities
have been resolved.Mr.Anikis asked how students and schools in accordance with the
proposed timeframe would be absorbed into the school system.Mr.Kercheval stated that the
Washington County Board of Education would be responsible to determine a redistricting plan for
the area.Mr.Thompson stated that approximately 8 or 10 different schools could potentially be
impacted by this development.Mr.Thompson stated that during the preliminary plat process,the
Planning Commission relayed to the developer that school capacity issues were problematic in
this area.Therefore,the developer began working with the BOCC to develop a mitigation plan.
The Planning Commission's adopted policy states,'The Executive Director shall have the
authority to review and approve all final plats for which previous approval has been granted the
Preliminary Plat by the Planning Commission provided the Final Plat meets all subdivision
requirements and represents no substantial change from the approved Preliminary Plat".
Therefore,once APFO issues are settled,Staff can move forward with the approval of the final
plan as long as nothing changes.Mr.Wilkinson stated that the County Attorney's position is that
"a developer cannot get any final approval until APFO requirements are met either by mitigation
or outright".Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that the Planning Commission is not receiving the
correct data on which to base valid decisions.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the
information is there;however,the school board and the County do not have a unified method to
provide access to the information.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the County is suffering
from 20 years of neglect and should not impact the majority of today's development.There was a
brief discussion regarding a meeting between Mr.Thompson and the Board of Education's new
planner and information that should be provided to the Planning Commissio'n.Mr.Kercheval
would like to see a basic worksheet prepared by the Board of Education for each development.
He would also like the Board of Education to provide information regarding the process andpotentialfordeveloperstoprovidenewadditionstoschoolsinlieuofmonetarycontributions.Mr.Thompson stafed that the BOE has recommended a 2 +2 committee befween school boardmembersandmembersoftheBOCCtoworkonmitigationissues.Mr.Kercheval asked whodecidesifadevelopmentpassesorfailsroadadequacy.Mr.Wilkinson stated that the AdequatePublicFacilitiesOrdinancestatesthatthePlanningCommissiondeterminestheadequacyofpublicfacilities.He noted that the Planning Commission would rely on other agencies,such astheCountyEngineeringDepartment,to provide them accurate and up-to-date information onwhichtobasetheirdecision.Mr.Wilkinson stated that if anything under the APFO fails,theprojectisstoppedorthedeveloperwouldberequiredtoproduceamitigationagreementthatwouldbeapprovedbytheBOCC.Mr.McGee stated that the Engineering Department definesadequacyasspecifiedbytheCounty's Highway Adequacy Policy.Road adequacy is based onspecificlevelsofserviceandcriteriaveryspecificallydefinedintheHighwayAdequacyPolicy.Mr.Anikis asked if the Planning Commission could disagree with County EngineeringDepartment's determination of an adequate level of service for a specific roadway.Mr.WilkinsonstatedthattechnicallythePlanningCommissioncoulddisagreeandthedevelopercouldappealtheirdecision.There was a brief discussion regarding the differences in levels of services insideandoutsidetheUrbanGrowthAreaandissuesconcerningofthenumberofdrivewaysenteringcertainroadways.Mr.McGee stated that the County has developed policies that limit the numberofdrivewaysaccessingaroadway,the spacing of driveways along certain roads and realizingthatthemoredrivewaysyouhavethemoreyouareinterferingwiththeflowoftrafficandthemoreadverseitistopublicsafetyandefficienttrafficoperations.There was a brief discussionregardingthetimingofreceivinginformationinrelationtotrafficrelatedissuesandroadadequacy.B.Driveway Grades I Emergency AccessMr.McGee began the discussion by giving a brief overview for addressing standards fordriveways.Most standards only address the issue of immediate connection to the roadway for
getting vehicles off the road and onto the road as efficiently and safely as possible.This
connection area is commonly known as the "landing area".The "landing area"should be a
relatively flat area adjacent to the road surface where a vehicle can safely stop when approaching
the road or a vehicle can turn into this area without an abrupt grade to slow your vehicle down
and impede traffic.Transitioning from the area just beyond the "landing area"also needs to be
considered from an emergency vehicle standpoint.The grade of the driveway should include
consideration of drainage and a vehicle's ability to traverse the grades you are dealing with and
should be influenced by the type of construction materials being used for the driveway.Mr.
McGee stated that Washington County does not currently have an adopted standard for
driveways;however,the Engineering Department uses a maximum of a 15%grade or less.
Maximum roadway grades are set at a 15%grade (15-feet of elevation on a 100-foot run).The
maintenance of driveways with steep grades directly affects how well the driveway functions.
Immediate concerns for the County are drainage issues associated with steep driveways that
dump water onto the roadways and cause gravel and mud to wash out onto the road,icing
issues,etc.Storm water management and detailed grading plans are now required for long
driveways to address drainage and storm water management issues.Mr.McGee noted that the
Engineering Department is in the process of writing specific standards for driveways.
Mr.John Latimer,Director of Emergency Services,stated that his Department follows the
National Fire Protection Association standard for the protection of life and property from wildfires,
which deals with urban areas.The NFPA standards recommend unobstructed widths of 20-feet,
13.5 feet of vertical clearance,and a maximum 10%grade.Centerline distances,cul-de-sacs,
turnouts,turnarounds,and anything greater than 300-feet can be detrimental in establishing a
sustainable water supply when dealing with fire suppression.Mr.Latimer expressed his concern
for emergency personnel and equipment costs when dealing with less than desirable roadway
and driveway situations.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding safety issues for emergency personnel
and homeowners.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding the width and length of driveways
to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles.Mr.Kercheval suggested that a formal study
could be prepared taking into consideration grades,design,etc.and could serve as a pass or fail
system.Ms.Baker stated that we currently have a policy in the APFO regarding fire protection;
however,it only pertains to commercial development.A brief discussion followed regarding a
variety of standards for different situations in urban versus rural areas.Commission members
requested Staff to begin working on standards to be incorporated into Section 8 of the APFO for
review at a future workshop meeting.Mr.Moser expressed his concern regarding
recommendations that previously were made by fire departments and were ignored during the
approval process.
C.Zoning Procedures -Text Amendments
Mr.Thompson began the discussion regarding proposed changes to procedures for filing a
zoning text amendment.He distributed copies of the application and filing procedures that are
currently being used.Mr.Thompson recommended the following changes to the filing process:
•Completed application form and payment of appropriate fees
•Verification of ownership with a copy of a deed or copy of contract purchaser agreement
51
52 •Boundary description -metes and bounds description prepared by a licensed surveyorshowingwhatisbeingproposedintherequest• A list of adjoining property owners• A vicinity map showing the area within at least 1,ODD-feet of the growth area and Y2 mileinaruralareashowingalltheexistingzoningclassificationsandthedesignatedneighborhoodasproposedbytheapplicant• A written justification,providing the request is a reclassification,and explaining thechangeormistakeexplainingwhattheapplicantwantsto do and why it should berezonedMr.Thompson believes this information should be provided prior to the public hearing to betterpreparethePlanningCommissionmembersandBOCCtoaskquestionsduringthepublichearing.He also recommends provisions for the Zoning Administrator to reject an application if itisincomplete.Mr.Thompson noted there are additional items that will need to be addressed as acompletereviewisdone.Discussion:Ms.Anikis expressed his opinion that he does not want Staff to make theirrecommendationpriortothepublichearingbecauseadditionalinformationmightbepresentedbytheapplicantorhisrepresentativeandalsotherewouldbepubliccommenttoconsider.HesupportsStaff's recommendation to require more information prior to the public hearing.Mr.Kercheval suggested there might be the need to "table"an item depending upon the amount ofinformationpresentedduringthepublichearing.There was a brief discussion regarding theadditionalinformationthatshouldbeprovidedandchangestothepublichearingprocess.Mr.Anikis recommended that historic structures should be identified in the application packet.Healsorecommendedafreezeonrezoningrequestsduringtheurbanrezoningupdateprocess.Mr.Thompson stated that the Board of County Commissioners could temporarily stop rezoningrequestsduringtheprocessandprovideaspecialwaiverforarequesttobeconsideredindependentlyfromtheprocess.Mr.Thompson stated he would present the proposed changes
to the Board of County Commissioners and request their suggestions and comments.
D.Rural Village District Revisions
Mr.Thompson distributed copies of Article 5 -"RV"Rural Village District,as it is currently defined
in the Zoning Ordinance.He stated there are several definitions within this article that need
ciarification or changes.The inclusion of specific design criteria and restrictions could be
discussed.Mr.Thompson noted that changes to Priority Funding Areas are being discussed
during legislative hearings in Annapolis and the TDR consultant's preliminary report
recommended developing areas in and around the Rural Villages.Both of these factors could
have a major impact on proposed changes.
Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that our Rural Village regulations do not parallel
the State's and could prohibit the County from receiving funding for necessary utilities in these
areas.Mr.Anikis stated that Rural Villages were designed by the State of Maryland to help rural
counties to identify villages or towns that were on septic and well.The Smart Growth Act
identified areas for growth and areas that had well and septic.Once the areas were identified,the
Act stated that if there were a problem in the future with bad water and failing septic systems and
specific guidelines are met,the State would fund or help fund a community system.Washington
County identified approximately 50 areas that were known as Priority Funding Areas.The Act
discouraged building in and around these PFA's and encouraged building where infrastructure is
available.When the rural villages were created,additional acreage was included in the Rural
Villages to protect new development.The Smart Growth Act indicates,"limited peripheral
development that is contiguous to an existing community and does not increase the size of the
existing community or Village by more than 10%of the existing number of dwelling units".There
was a brief discussion relative to who would receive the 10%for new development and how the
Act could be interpreted in different ways.Mr.Thompson suggested a meeting with the State to
discuss questions and concerns and clarification of some of the language related to the Smart
Growth Act.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern about following the State's guidelines for
communities that might need help in the future with water and sewer services.
E.Family Member Exclusions
Mr.Thompson began the discussion regarding the creation of subdivision lots without road
frontage solely for family members as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.He noted that the
County is not able to enforce these provisions and lots are being sold to persons who are not
family members.Mr.Thompson believes the County should eliminate these prOVisions;however,
landowners could make an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant an exception.There
was a brief discussion regarding specific criteria that could be eliminated or added to the
provision such as a deeded right-of-way.Ms.Baker stated there are three instances when a
family member exemption is used:
1)Forest Conservation - 5 year exemption:If the owner tries to get out of the
exemption prior to the five year anniversary,the County can require mitigation;
2)Road Widths - 5 year exemption:If the owner tries to sell the property prior to
the five year anniversary,the County can require the owner to widen the road.
3)Lots without road frontage -10 year exemption:If the owner tries to sell thepropertypriortothetenyearanniversary,the County has no way to mitigateforimprovements.Planning Commission members requested additional information prior to making any decisions toeliminateorretainthefamilymemberexemptions.Other BusinessMr.Anikis provided a brief overview regarding information he received from Dave Barnhart of theHealthDepartmentregardingfailedwellsandsepticsystems.He reported there were 106permittedsepticrepairsand17wellreplacementsin2006.Mr.Anikis would like to see a chartrepresentingtheareaswherethesefailureshaveoccurred.The Health Department identified twoareaswherecontaminatedwellswerereported,one in Boonsboro and one in Cearloss.Mr.Kercheval stated that the reasons for failures should be indicated since there are many variablesthatcouldcauseasystemtofail.ADJOURNMENTMr.Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:15 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Soordered.Respectfully submitted,~LLGeJrgeA'nikis,Chairman 53
54 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-APRIL 2,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeeting on Monday,April 2,2007,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,BO West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Timothy A.Lung and Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly Pietro,Associate Planner Sara Henke,and AdministrativeAssistantDebraEckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 5,2007 Regular PlanningCommissionmeetingaspresented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS-VARIANCESGeorgeLashley (SV-07-007)Ms.Henke presented for review and approval a variance request from Section 405.11.G.5 of the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow a panhandle length of 1250-feet.The property is located on
Broadfording Church Road and is zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.Mr.Lashley currently owns
two parcels of land that were created prior to the adoption of regulations for stand alone simplified
parcels and panhandle lengths.The 20-acre parcel was created with a panhandle of 1250-feet
long and 60-feet wide right-of-way.The existing 10-acre parcel was created without road
frontage.Both lots were previously approved "not for development".A Development Plan is
required and must be submitted to the Planning Commission,as required by the Subdivision
Ordinance,when developing the simplified lot.In order to provide public road frontage to the both
parcels,the owner is proposing to split the existing 60-foot panhandle into two panhandles to
serve each lot.Due to limited road frontage,no further subdivision would be allowed unless the
owner would build a street within the 60-foot panhandle.
Discussion:Mr.Moser asked what the owner's claim of hardship is for approval of the variance.
Ms.Henke stated that the owner's claim for hardship is that he cannot do anything with thE)
parcels because they are designated "not for development".Mr.Moser expressed his opinion
that a monetary gain from the sale of the property does not constitute a hardship and the lots
were created "not for development".He also expressed his concern regarding the length of the
panhandle with regard to safety issues.Mr.Reiber concurred with Mr.Moser's opinions.Mr.
Kercheval expressed his opinion that a mistake was made when the lots were originally
designated "not for development"and that the parcel has road frontage and the owner should be
allowed to develop the property.Ms.Parrish concurrE)d with Mr.Moser and Mr.Reiber's
comments.
Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the variance request.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion
passed with Mr.Moser,Ms.Parrish,Mr.Reiber and Mr.Wiley voting "Aye"and Mr.Ecker and Mr.
Kercheval voting "Nay".
-SITE PLANS
Agape Pet Service (SP-07-004)
Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Agape Pet Service.The property is
located along the west side of Shepherdstown Pike between Keedysville and Boonsboro and is
zoned P -Preservation.The developer is proposing to construct a 3,300-square foot pet
crematory and a 1,BOO-square foot dwelling on approximately 41-acres of property.Individual
well and septic would serve the site.The number of employees would be four.Parking spaces
required and provided is 5 spaces.The parking area would be paved and one handicapped
space would be provided.Lighting will be building mounted.Solid waste will be collected inside
and picked up by a private hauler.A special exception was granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals in May 2006 to allow for the establishment of the animal crematory with the following
conditions:the building shall be screened and have a 300-foot setback from the road,the Forest
Conservation requirements shall be met on-site,and any signs identifying the business shall not
be illuminated.The developer has complied with all of the conditions.The site has existing forest
that will be retained to screen the site and to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.
Approval from the State Highway Administration is pending.All other agency approvals have
been received.
Discussion:Mr.Moser asked how the owner proposes to dispose of the ashes from the petcrematory.Mr.Peter Anderson,owner,was present and stated that the remains would be spreadthroughoutthe41-acre parcel.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.Public Safety Communications System Tower (SP-07-010)Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed emergency servicescommunicationtowerandequipmentshelterlocatedonpropertyownedbyWashingtonCountyinthe70/81 Industrial Park.The property is located.along the north side of Elliott Parkway on landsoftheDepartmentofWaterQualityandiszonedIG-Industrial General.Since this is agovernmentproject,it is not required to go through the standard review and approval process;however,it is County policy that all County projects follow the same review and approval processasprivateprojects.This project is part of the Countywide public safety communication system.There will be several towers and facilities located throughout the County.The tower is consideredanessentialpublicutilityuseandisnotbeingreviewedunderthezoningprovisionsforcommercialcommunicationsequipment.The proposed self-supporting lattice type tower wouldbe330-feet high.Several equipment pads are proposed for the equipment shelters.The entirefacilitywouldbefencedandwouldtie-in with the existing fencing.The area around the tower andtheequipmentshelterswouldbegravel.An entrance for maintenance would be provided at thebackandwouldtieintotheexistingparkinglotfortheDepartmentofWaterQuality.An area forfutureexpansionhasbeenreservedonthesite.Evergreen plantings will provide a buffer of theequipmentsheltersoffofElliottParkway.There would be no employees on-site.The tower willbelitasrequiredbytheFAA.All agency approvals have been received.Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked if the location of the future equipment expansion site could berelocated.Mr.Kroboth,Director of Public Works,stated that the County has entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the State of Maryland who operates several radio systems
for agencies such as the DNR,Maryland State Police,SHA and EMS.By entering into the MOU,
the State will pay 60 to 75%of the site development costs for all projects in the County,thereby
saving the County approximately $2 million.As a condition of the MOU,the State requested
sufficient space at this particular site for a 12'x 18'shelter that must be located within 30-feet of
the tower and building setback lines must be observed.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern for
future expansion of the Department of Water Quality's building.Mr.Kroboth stated that a future
building expansion area is provided and it is unlikely,based on the design of the building,that any
future expansion would occur in the area of the equipment pad.
Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Moser.
Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr.Lung provided the following comments regarding the update of the Water and Sewerage
Pian.The .County's Comprehensive Plan update and the Water and Sewer Task Force findings
have been completed.Staff has met several times with MOE to discuss the progress and how to
address the State's new guidelines regarding capacity management,etc.The Maryland
Department of Planning has not been able to provide an example of an updated Plan that has
met with their approval.Many of the municipalities are updating their Comprehensive Plans
which has also delayed progress.However,Staff is continuing to work on the Plan and believes
the update should be completed by the end of this year knowing that House Bill 1141
requirements are pending and further updates would be required after all provisions of the Bill
become effective.
-WS-07-001 Town of Smithsburg
Mr.Lung presented for review and recommendation a Text Amendment to the Water and
Sewerage Plan for the Town of Smithsburg.Mr.Lung stated that the main objective of the
Amendment was to increase the capacity of a proposed water storage tank.The Town provided
additional information for the Water and Sewerage Plan update which is noted in the Staff Report.
The Town made changes to the sewer element and referenced changes that need to be provided
by the County;however,the County made their changes in a Text Amendment last year.Mr.
Lung recommended to the Town that the sewer element should be eliminated from their request
and the Town has agreed to do so.Additional information will be needed to complete the Town's
portion of the update.
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners based on consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan as it applies to the
stand pipe or storage.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval
abstained.
-WS-07-002 City of Hagerstown
Mr.Lung presented for review and recommendation a Text Amendment to the Water and
Sewerage Plan for the City of Hagerstown Department of Utilities.Mr.Lung stated that the City
of Hagerstown wanted to incorporate their new Comprehensive Plan by reference;however,the
55
56 Maryland Department of Planning objected to this and the City has agreed to eliminate thislanguage.The Amendment consists of a listing of the City's Capital projects that need to beincludedinthePlaninordertoreceivefundingandpermitsfromtheStateofMaryland.Additional update information will be needed to complete the City's portion of the Plan.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the Board of CountyCommissionerstoincludetheCapitalImprovementProjectsbasedonconsistencywiththeCounty's Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kerchevalabstained.-Demolition Permit #2007-00885Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation Demolition Permit #2007-00885 forpropertylocatedat7505OidNationalPike.The property is identified in the Washington CountyHistoricSitesSurveyasWA-II-049 and is zoned A -Agriculture.The Historic DistrictCommissionreviewedthedemolitionapplicationatitsmeetingonMarch14,2007.The HDCvotedunanimouslytoopposethedemolitionanditistheiropinionthatthestructureismucholderthantheengineer's 1DO-year estimate.The barn is an intact and representative example ofWashingtonCounty's disappearing mid-19th century architecture and iocal build'lng tradiflons.Retention and reuse of the existing barn with its related dwelling on the same site would retain avisibleandtangiblelinktothecommunity's history and agricultural traditions for current and futureresidents.Discussion:There was a discrepancy as to the location of the property being within the Town ofBoonsboroorwithintheCounty.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that the engineer's reportshouldhaverecommendedwaystostabilizethebarnandhisconcernthatthereportstated,"thebarnhasnovalueforadaptivereuseoranyuseoroccupancy".Mr.Reiber asked if the materiaiswouldbereused.Mr.Goodrich stated that the owner has not made any arrangements forsomeonetotakethematerials,but he believes the owner would consider letting someone have
them.Mr.Anikis recommended that the owner should contact the Antietam Battlefield for reuse
of the materials.
Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend in favor of the demolition based on the Engineer's
report.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.The demolition application will move forward with no
recommendation from the Planning Commission due to a tie vote as follows:Mr.Reiber,Mr.
Ecker and Mr.Kercheval voting "Aye",Ms.Parrish,Mr.Wiley and Mr.Anikis voting "Nay'and Mr.
Moser abstained.
Note:The location of the parcel with relation to the Town/County boundary will be investigated.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,May 7,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington
County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street
2.Maryland Dept.of Planning -Mr.Thompson will try to schedule a presentation on Rurai
Villages with the Maryland Dept.of Planning for the next Workshop scheduled on May
21,2007.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.So
ordered.
Respectfully submitted,
Q~~4
George An1kis,Chairman
57WASHINGTONCOUNTYPLANNINGCOMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-May 7,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionheldItsregularmeetingon Monday,May 7,2007,in theWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Bernard Moser,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint WileyandEx-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Pianners Lisa A.Kelly and Misty Wagner-Grillo,Planner Sara Henke,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 19,2007 Planning CommissionWorkshopmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved.Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 2,2007 regular Planning Commissionmeetingasamendment.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.OLD BUSINESSEarlW.,Jr.and Maria Brown (SV-07-001)Ms.Henke provided for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision
Ordinance that does not allow lots without pubiic road frontage.The property is a total of 71.77 acres and
.is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.The applicant is proposing to create a total of 6 lots without
publiC road frontage.There are two existing dwellings located along a right-of-way easement onto Weller
Road and the four additional proposed lots would access a public road via an existing right-of-way across
other lands owned by the Browns located in Pennsyivanla.Thompson Township,the adjacent
Pennsylvania Township,has given permission to use Dyer Road for ingress and egress.A proposed
turnaround for emergency vehicles would be constructed at the end of the proposed lane.
Discussion:Ms.Henke stated that the first 1.1-mile of Weller Road is adequate and the remaining .6-
mile portion of Weller Road is inadequate.She stated that the Engineering Department requires a width
of 18-feet for adequate roadways.Mr.Anikis asked if the Hancock Fire Company has any objections
regarding the use of Weller Road for emergency services.Mr.Brown,applicant,stated that the Fire
Department has trouble using the access across Deerfield Lane onto Weller Road;therefore,the Fire
Department would access all lots using Dyer Road and is requ'lring all lots to be given addresses on Dyer
Road.The improved lane that accesses all lots would be used for emergency services and the existing
home on Weller Road would need to change their address to Dyer Road.The six property owners would
be responsible to maintain the proposed lane and turnaround in accordance with a Private Road
Maintenance Agreement.
Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the variance based on the report from the Hancock Fire
Company for the proposed 4 lots contingent upon the two existing houses obtaining new addresses on
Dyer Road,the turnaround being constructed as proposed,and a private road maintenance agreement
would be in effect for all six properties.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.The motion passed with Mr.Kercheval,
Mr.Wiley,Mr.Reiber and Mr.Ecker voting "Aye"and Mr.Moser voting "Nay".
NEW BUSINESS
-VARIANCES
Michael R.Ivosevich (SV-07-011)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.B.11 of the Subdivision
Ordinance that does not allow lots without public road frontage.The property is located north of Route
494 and east of St.Paul Road and is zoned A -Agricuiture.In August 2005 the Planning Commission
granted Mr.lvosevich a variance request for a stand-alone simplified parcel,known as Lot 19A,for future
development.The applicant is requesting a variance for Lot 19A to create a panhandle through Lot 19,
owned by the applicant,to access Fairview Road;however,due to the location of the applicant's garage,
a portion of the panhandle wouid be reduced from the required 25-foot width to 17-feet wide.Currently,
lots 18 and 19 share a driveway because the Washington County Highway Plan requires a 300-foot
separation between driveways.Therefore,Lot 19 would lose their access to Lot 19A;thus Lot 19 cannot
have their own access and would be considered a lot without road frontage and would have a deeded
access easement over Lot 19A's panhandle.
Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding lots 18,19 and 19A sharing one access.Mr.Lung
noted that the State Highway Administration has a maximum width requirement for an apron on a private
entrance.There was a brief discussion regarding the width of the panhandle.Mr.Ivosevich stated that
the panhandle width would be reduced only at one corner of the garage and remaining length of the
panhandle would be the required 25-foot width.
58 Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the variance to reduce the width of the panhandle from 25-feet to17-feet at the garage with the remaining panhandle to be 25-feet wide and to allow a lot without publicroadfrontage.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.-SUBDIVISIONSWestfieldsSection 5,Preliminary Plat (pP-07-001)Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat for Section 5,Westfields located alongthewestsideofSharpsburgPike.The developer is proposing to create 69 single-family residential lotsonatotalof25.6 acres.The property is zoned A -Agriculture with an approved cluster development.The site average is approximately 2.7 lots per acre with 209-acres of remaining lands.Public water andsewerwillservethesite.Section 5 will have newly constructed public streets.Storm water managementpondsarelocatedtotherearofthelots.Forest conservation requirements would be met by plantingapproximately2-acres of trees and retention of 4.9-acres of existing forest for a total of 6.95-acres of on-site forest.All agency verbal approvals have been received.Discussion:Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the phasing schedule for the proposed amenitieswithinWestfields.Mr.Jeremy Holder,developer representing Ausherman Homes,presented a phasingscheduletotheCommissionmembers.The following amenities have been completed:the communityentrancegarden,the gazebo,the passive recreational area comprised of walkways and open space,improvements to the Westenberger cemetery area,and the tot lot facility located on the 6.2-acrecommunityrecreationalarea.Since the school mitigation agreement has been resolved with the County,346 lots will be allowed to be recorded at the end of 2007 and a phasing schedule for construction hasbeenestablished,as follows:a maximum of 100 units in 2008,a maximum of 100 units in 2009,andbeginningin2010amaximumof60unitsperyearwillbepermitteduntiltheprojectiscompleted.Thefollowingamenitiesarelocatedonthe62-acre Community Recreational Area and will be completed priortotheissuanceofthe250'h building permit:one unlit tennis court/multi-purpose court,one unlit basketballcourt,pool site grading,parking and landscaping that will not interfere with the pool and bathhouseconstruction,and approximately 1,300 linear feet of pathway that connects Westenberger Cemetery
.through the amenities area and into the front of the community.The following amenities located on the
6.2-acre Community Recreational Area will be completed so that a U &0 is obtained by May 31"of the
year following the issuance of the 300'h building permit:a 58'x 84'pool with bathhouse and community
meeting space including completion of the remaining landscaping and pathways.The remaining
amenities will be constructed when adjacent roadway and home construction has sufficiently progressed
to allow for the intended use and for routine maintenance of the amenity without potential damages
resulting from adjacent construction activity as follows:the tot lot facility located in Section 4,the tot lot
facility located in future lots on the south end of the property and approximately 3,000 linear feet of 5-foot
asphalt pathway providing access to open spaces and connecting the community and school site from
east to west.
Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Section 5,Westfields with the Amenities
Phasing Schedule as presented and approval of the Forest Conservation requirements as presented.
Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.
-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS
Williamsview -Britner Property (PC-06-012)
Mr.Lung presented for review and comment the Preliminary ConSUltation for Williamsview (Britner)
located within the Urban Growth Area along the south side of Sterling Road and east side of Edward
Doub Road.The property is zoned A -Agriculture.The developer is proposing 294 single-family
residential lots on 193,46-acres and is requesting the use of the cluster subdivision provisions of Division
VIII,Section 22.81 of the Zoning Ordinance.By using the clustering provisions,the minimum lot size
would be 14,000-square feet.A Forest Stand Delineation was completed on the property and shows
existing forest on the site in the southeast and northeast corners and on the opposite side of Edward
Doub Road totaling 14.8-acres.Public water and sewer would serve the site.A total of 46-acres of open
space area is proposed primarily at the rear of the lots with provisions for pedestrian access between the
open space areas.A single access is proposed off of Sterling Road.All proposed lots would be served
by an internal,serpentine road network with three cul-de-sacs and two mini-roundabouts for traffic
calming.The road network is designed to tie into the adjoining section of Williamsview on the Ebersole
property.The lots located near the entrance of Sterling Road have been reconfigured to address the
Washington County Engineering Department's comments regarding driveways close to the entrance.
According to the site data on the concept plan,32.1-acres of Forest Conservation planting is required and
is proposed within the open space areas and along the east and west property lines for buffering to
address concerns noted by the Historic District Commission for historic sites located within close
proximity to the proposed development.The Planning and Engineering Departments recommended
linking the road network to adjoining properties via right-of-ways,where appropriate.The Engineering
Department recommended a second access onto Edward Doub Road and reiterated the need for a traffic
impact study to determine the impact on the existing road network serving this development.During the
consultation,the developer introduced a plan for channelizing traffic coming out of the development at
Sterling Road that would restrict access to Bower Avenue.Representatives from approving agencies
were not aware of this proposal prior to the consultation and were not prepared to comment.However,
the initial response from the Engineering Department and the Halfway Volunteer Fire Department was
negative.Further review of this proposal is needed prior to any recommendations.The Planning Staff
does not believe that the open space area shown on the west side of Edward Doub Road should be used
in calCUlating lot averages for clustering because it has no direct benefit to the development;however,it
could be used for calculating Forest Conservation requirements.The Engineering DepartmentrecommendedconsolidatingthetwostormwatermanagementareasbetweentheEbersoleportionandtheBritnerportionofthedevelopment,where appropriate.According to information received from theWashingtonCountyBoardofEducationandcalculationsbythePlanningDepartment,all schools thatservetheproposeddevelopmentareovercapacity.The Planning Staff recommended sidewalks andconnectivitywithintheopenspacearea.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is requesting that the Planning Commission grant approval of the useoftheclusteringprovisionsoftheZoningOrdinancewithaminimumpermittedlotsizeof14,000-squarefeetandminimumbuildingsetbacksof30-foot front yard,10-foot side yard,and 40-foot rear yard.ThestandardrequirementsintheAgriculturalzoningdistrictwithpublicutilitiesare20,000-square footminimumlotareawitha40-foot front yard,15-foot side yard and 50-foot rear yard setbacks.This requestfallsbetweenResidentialSuburbanandResidentialRuralstandardsandStaffhasnoobjectiontotherequestforclusteringcontingentuponthefollowingcaveats:the property on the west side of EdwardDoubRoadshouldnotbeusedforlotdensityaveragingpurposes,and,depending upon the type of streetsectiontobeusedwithinthedevelopment,the developer should provide adequate off-street parking toeliminatetheneedforon-street parking that could create problems for fire and rescue services.Comments:Mr.Moser expressed his concern regarding the placement of the storm water managementpondonthewestsideofDoubRoadthatitshouldbeadequatelyscreenedfromadjoiningproperties.Healsoexpressedhisopinionthatopensectionstreetswithswaleswouldnotbeappropriateinthistypeofdevelopmentandadequateoff-street parking should be provided to address safety issues for emergencyservices.Mr.Lung stated that in a similar development that used the clustering provisions,Staffrecommendedthatthedeveloperreducetherearyardsetbackandincreasethefrontyardsetbackinordertoallowforlongerdrivewaysandmoreoff-street parking areas.Mr.Moser expressed his opinionthatstreetlightsshouldbeconsideredinadevelopmentofthisdensity.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding the Engineering Department's comment that Bower Avenuewouldbeconsidereda"main road"connecting Sterling Road and Route 11.Mr.Thompson stated that
.Bower Avenue has been designated as a major collector on the County's Transportation Plan for several
years.Mr.Moser expressed his opinion that the proposed left-turn only from Sterling Road to Bower
Avenue is not feasible.
Mr.Thompson stated that the Storm Water Act of 2007 passed by the Legislature strongly discourages
closed section streets and regulations are being developed for open section streets.
Mr.Kercheval expressed his support regarding Staff's comments concerning off-street parking and the
use of closed section streets to address safety issues for emergency vehicular access specifically on
main streets.He also stated his opinion that a traffic study should be done.A study would indicate the
areas where traffic is being generated and if a community-wide solution were recommended,the cost
could be paid for by multiple developments.
Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding possible problems caused by the location of the storm water
management ponds.Mr.Lung stated that there was a brief discussion during the consultation regarding
the size of pipe that should be used.The developer's representative stated that the placement of the
pond is at the lowest point on the site and water would naturally drain to that area to collect all of the
water.There would be specific regulations that would need to be followed.
Mr.Moser made an inquiry regarding any sensitive areas on the site.Mr.Renn,developer's engineer,
stated that there are no defined channels on the property.Mr.Lung stated that a sensitive area analysis
would be required with the submittal of the Preliminary Plat to be reviewed by the Washington County Soil
Conservation District.Additional information would also be required such as soil types and vegetation in
the area.
Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the clustering provision as requested,to exclude the property on the
west side of Edward Doub Road from the open space calculations,to provide adequate off-street parking
and to address Staff's comments as set forth in the Preliminary Consultation summary.Seconded by Mr.
Wiley.Unanimously approved.
-FOREST CONSERVATION
Packaging Services,Inc.
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the request from Packaging Services,Inc.to remove a forest
conservation/forest retention area and mitigate the difference with payment-in-lieu.Mr.Lung briefly
reviewed the history associated with this request.Packaging Services,Inc.is located on Elliott Parkway
in the 70/81 Industrial Park north of Williamsport.Following the adoption of the Forest Conservation
Ordinance,CHIEF developed the industrial park.CHIEF developed a master Forest Conservation Plan
to meet all Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for their properties throughout the County.
Forest Conservation areas were established on this property and modified throughout the years and
include a 1.2-acre area and a 2.9-acre area on an adjoining lot.Packaging Services made a request to
remove the Forest Conservation area at which time Staff requested background information relative to the
effect of the overall Forest Conservation Plan.At that time,PSI was in the process of a factory expansion
and the development of a site plan for a larger truck parking area behind the expansion.During the fall of
2006,Staff visited the site and noticed a large dirt stockpile area that appeared to be encroaching the
Forest Conservation Area that was not fenced or had any signage to indicate the easement.Staff
requested PSI to stake out the Forest Conservation Area that clearly showed an encroachment in two
59
60 areas of the Forest Conservation Area.A notice of violation and correction was sent to the developerwhopromptlyrespondedtoStaff.PSI understands they are responsible for paying the non-compliancefeeof$.30 per square foot for the encroachment in the previously designated area (totaling $1,254.00).They are requesting to remove the existing forest retention area and mitigate by payment-in-lieu at $.10persquarefootfor1.2 acres (totaling $5,228.00).The remainder of the site is used for the existingbusinessandthedeveloperbelievesthatoff-site planting in sensitive areas would better serve theenvironment.Discussion:There was a brief discussion with regard to when and why the stockpile was placed in theForestConservationArea.Mr.Merle Saville,Keller Engineers,stated that the stockpile is much largerthananticipatedduetobadsoilsencounteredduringtheconstructionoftheexpansion.Mr.JasonSlocum,Keller Engineers,stated that the Washington County Soil Conservation District reviewed andapprovedtheplacementofthestockpileonJune6,2006.Mr.Moser expressed his concern that theForestConservationAreawasnotappropriatelymarkedanddoesnotwantthesamemistaketooccurontheforestareathatisbeingretained.In a letter to PSI dated March 28,2007,the corrective measuresneededwerestatedasfollows:"Within 10 days,removal of material from the forest easement andinstallationofRetentionsigns along the area boundary".Mr.Anikis asked if the stockpile has beenremoved.Mr.Saville stated that nothing has been done at this time because they are awaiting aresolutiontotherequestbeforethePlanningCommissionthisevening.Mr.Thompson stated thatPackagingServiceswasimmediatelyincontactwiththePlanningDepartmentfollowingreceiptofthelettertobeginworkingonaresolutiontotheproblem.Mr.Reiber made a motion to grant Packaging Services Inc.'s request for payment-in-lieu in the amount of$5,228.00 and that the non-compliance fee in the amount of $1,254.00 be paid in full.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Comment before the vote:Mr.Moser believes that the motion should include a ten-day deadline forremovalofthestockpileandmarkingtheForestRetentionArea.Mr.Reiber believes that Staff should beresponsiblefortheenforcementofthecorrectivemeasuresneededtoresolvecomplianceissues.
Mr.Reiber's motion was unanimously approved.
William Price Subdivision (S-06-181)
Ms.Henke presented for comments and recommendation a request from the local Agricultural Land
Preservation Advisory Board for the William Price subdivision.The property is located at 14722
Broadfording Road near Clear Spring.Mr.Price is proposing to subdivide three parcels of land that are
not included in AgriCUltural Preservation District area.Mr.Price is proposing to place an easement on
1.02-acres of forestland that is located within the AgriCUltural District to meet the Forest Conservation
Ordinance requirement for the proposed subdivision.Mr.Price entered into the 10-year Agricultural
Preservation District on October 11,1990 and signed a 10-year commitment for no development for any
purposes other than those beneficial to the farm operation.Mr.Price has completed the 10-year
commitment and wishes to remain in the Agricultural Preservation District.
Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the request to the local AgriCUltural Land
Preservation Advisory Board for the William Price subdivision.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Unanimously
approved.
Washington County Public Schools
Mr.Thompson presented for review and approval a request from the Washington County Public Schools
for a waiver from the requirement under the Forest Resource Ordinance to post a bond for the installation
and maintenance for planting at the new Maugansville Elementary School project.Staff has reviewed the
contracts between the WCPS and their contractor to ensure the contractor's responsibilities are met and
comply with the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Staff is recommending the waiver
for this project only and should not be considered a blanket waiver for future projects.
Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the County government is allowing County agencies
not to comply with the same regulations that private citizens or businesses must comply with.Mr.
Kercheval stated that the County must follow the same procedures,codes,inspections,and criteria as
everyone else.However,in this case,the County would essentially be bonding themselves and going
back to themselves to get the money;therefore,a surety bond does not seem appropriate.
Mr.Wiley made a motion to grant the waiver as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.The motion passed
with Mr.Wiley,Mr.Ecker and Mr.Moser voting "Aye"and Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Reiber abstained.
-OTHER BUSINESS
City of Hagerstown -Norfolk Southern Railway Property Annexation (A07-02)
Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners the
proposed annexation of the Norfolk Southern Railway property on the west side of Downsville Pike into
the City of Hagerstown.The site is approximately 95-acres.The applicant is proposing to deveiop the
property for the off-loading and storage of new motor vehicles,a rail to truck transfer point.The proposed
property is to be zoned IG -Industrial General,upon annexation into the City,and is designated as PI -
Planned Industrial under the County Zoning Ordinance.The proposed facility is a permitted use under
the proposed City zoning classification.Staff believes the requested zoning is consistent with the existing
County zoning;however,there are several Issues that should be directed to the Board of CountyCommissionersandtheCity.The adopted 2002 Washington County Comprehensive Pian hasdesignatedthepropertyforindustrialdevelopment;however,the adjacent land to the west is designatedforlow-density residential development and is currently zoned RU -Residential Urban.Access to thepropertywillbeviaOakRidgeDriveacrossfromaresidentialneighborhood.Therefore,Staffrecommendsthatthefollowingissuesshouldbeaddressedaspartoftheapprovaiprocess:1)Screeningshouldbeprovidedaiongthewesternandsouthernboundariesofthepropertytoprotecttheintegrityoftheresidentialneighborhoods;2)Lighting shouid be directed within the faciiity and not spillover in theadjoiningpropertiesnotdesignatedforindustriaiuse;and 3)A traffic study should be required as well astheaccesstothepropertyandapprovedbytheCountyEngineer.Comments:Mr.Kerchevai stated that he would like a note added to the plans that states,"AnynecessaryimprovementstoexistingmunicipalpublicroadsshallbecompletedatthedirectionoftheCityEngineeratthedeveloper's expense.Any necessary improvements to County roads will requirecoordinationwiththeCountyandwouldbeatthedeveloper's expense".Mr.Kercheval requested acomparisonoftheCityversusCountysetbackrequirementsforthiszoningdesignation.Mr.Anikis madeaninquiryregardingfencingandabufferalongtheresidentialpropertiesonMollerAvenueandthehoursofoperation.He recommended a limitation on the hours of operation due to the close proximity to theresidentialproperties.Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners "express approval"fortheannexationrequestwiththerecommendationsfromStaffandasdiscussedduringthePlanningCommissionmeeting.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval abstained.Proposed Six Year Capital Improvements Plan (2008-2013)Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners theproposedSixYearCapitalImprovementsPlanforFY2008-2013.Mr.Thompson briefly discussedseveralimportantitemsthatareincludedintheCIPsuchas:funding for Maugansville,Westfields andPangbornelementaryschoolsaswellastheconstructionoffiveadditionalnewschoolsandupgradesto
.existing schools;major roads improvement projects that include Edgewood/Route 40 and
Massey/Halfway intersections and improvements to Maugans Avenue,Longmeadow Road and
Robinwood Drive;and the institution of a ranking system for the review of projects and set the priorities.
Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Six Year Capital Improvements Plan
as presented based on consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.
Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval abstained.
Mr.Thompson introduced new staff member Chris Cochrane who will be working with the long-term
planning section of the Planning Department.
There was a brief discussion regarding public comments during Planning Commission meetings on
different types of plats.It was recommended that comments should be submitted in writing prior to the
meetings and a time limit for each person's comments should be established.This may be a future item
for a Planning Commission Workshop meeting.
George Lashley (SV-07-007)
Mr.Thompson presented a request from Mr.Bill Wantz,attorney for Mr.George Lashley,to reconsider a
variance request to allow a panhandle length of 1250-feet that was presented to the Planning
Commission on April 2,2007.The Planning Commission denied the request by a 4-2 vote.By
consensus,the Planning Commission made their decision not to reconsider the request and the applicant
can proceed to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,June 4,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County
Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1
2.Joint Rezoning Hearing,Monday,June 11,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Courthouse,95
West Washington Street,Court Room #1,Hagerstown
3.Joint Meeting with the City of Hagerstown Planning Commission,Wednesday,May 30,2007,
7:00 p.m.,City Hall
4.After a brief discussion,by consensus,the Planning Commission will reschedule their Workshop
meeting to Wednesday,May 30,2007,4:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80
West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1,Hagerstown
-ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.So ordered.
Respectfully submitted,
(j~~iLJ..::
Geo~e Ani~is,Chairman'
61
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONWORKSHOPMEETING-May 30,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionandPlanningStaff held a workshop meeting onWednesday,May 30,2007 at 4:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,ConferenceRoom#1,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland.Planning Commission members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Bernard Moser,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:PlanningDirectorMichaelC.Thompson,Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy A.Lung,Pianner ChrisCochraneandAdministrativeAssistantDebraS.Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorgeAnikis called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.DISCUSSIONUrbanGrowth Area UpdateMr.Thompson announced that the Board of County Commissioners has selected a committee for theUrbanGrowthAreaComprehensiveRezoning.There will be a total of 13 members plus a non-votingchairman.The Committee will implement specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with theGrowthAreazoning;however,the intent is not to redefine the Urban Growth Area boundaries.Staffbelievesitwouldbemoreappropriatetore-evaluate the boundaries during the update of theComprehensivePlannextyear.Mr.Anikis asked if the City's plans for their Growth Area would be thestartingpointfortheCounty's updated growth area.Mr.Thompson noted that Staff plans to update asmuchaspossibletheoverallplaninordertoincorporatetheurbangrowthareaupdate.He also notedthatpiecemealrezoningshouldbeincorporatedintotheperiodicupdateprocess.There was a
discussion regarding the Planning Commission's request to the Board of County Commissioners to
temporarily "put on hold"rezoning requests until the UGA Update is complete.Mr.Thompson stated that
the UGA committee would be responsible for the following tasks:review the recommendations of the
Staff regarding proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and the designations of properties within the
Growth Area,review of subdivision zoning,the APFO Ordinance and other Ordinances to identify the land
use related obstacles to affordable housing,identifying opportunities to streamline the regulations as
incentives for development within the Growth Area and to potentially review the TDR program (depending
upon decisions made by the Board of County Commissioners).Mr.Anikis requested that senior housing
development should be reviewed by the committee.There was a discussion regarding potential problems
with regard to senior housing,collection of the excise tax and enforcement issues.Meetings dates and
times are being discussed and will be made available to the Planning Commission members.There was
a brief discussion regarding the media that would be used to inform the pUblic of the meetings and the
areas that would be affected.Mr.Moser asked how the growth areas around the municipalities would be
handled.Mr.Thompson stated that better coordination between the County's Plan and the municipalities'
plans would be required and updates are going to be needed to the municipalities'plans.Ms.Parrish
asked what the BOCC's expectations are for the Committee.Mr.Kercheval stated that his expectation for
the Committee is to gather more community input and put it into a more regimented setting.Each
Committee member would be assigned a specific group and should actively gather information from that
group and would be the contact person for citizens having concerns regarding specific issues (I.e.Fire &
Emergency Services).Some of the UGA boundaries could be redefined based on the limited sewer in
the Hagerstown Urban Area.At this time,there is a deficit,as far as taps,that you could build out and it
is minimal;however,if there are certain areas that could be pUlled out to help close the gap in available
taps versus maximum density,suggestions could be made to adjust the boundary line.The EDC is trying
to identify the types of businesses for the long-term future of the community and land conducive to such
businesses might be inside the Urban Growth Area.Areas such as those could possibly be "pulled out"
to help with this type of development.Mr.Thompson stated that Staff's goai for the Committee is to work
on zoning recommendations and establishing zoning within the growth areas.Ms.Parrish and Mr.Anikis
expressed their opinion that the Committee needs to have a defined set of guidelines and information that
is expected.Mr.Goodrich stated that a recommended list of tasks were included when the list of
candidates was submitted to the BOCC.Specific goals and deadlines will be given to the Committee.
Mr.Kercheval stated that the following candidates were chosen for the UGA Committee,as follows:Dick
Phoebus,Chairman (non-voting);Dennis Miller,City Planning;Mike Armel,Water &Sewer Board;
Donovan Corum,Planning;Henryetta Livelsberger,education;Jerry Ditto;John Shank;Harry Reynolds,
business and engineering;Jeff Cline,Williamsport councilman;Ron Leggett,Farm Bureau;Nancy Allen,
realtors;Bob Garver,business;Linda Irvin-Craig,non-profit;and Debi Turpin,Home Builders Association.
Mr.Kercheval gave a generalized description on the criteria used to choose each member.Updates will
be given to the Planning Commission on a regular basis.
Joint Meeting with the City of Hagerstown
Mr.Thompson stated that the joint meeting with the City of Hagerstown will be held at 7:00 p.m.this
evening at City Hall.He distributed information provided by the City for the Agenda.The City will present
their 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update.Mr.Thompson reported that a public hearing has been set for
July 25'h and the document has been sent to the State of Maryland for their review and approval.The
City has incorporated the new Water Resources Element that is required by the State.
There was a discussion regarding the City and County's growth areas and how they may work together.
The extension of water and sewer issues and annexation issues were discussed.
The second item on the City's Agenda is APFO issues.The City expressed concern regarding schoolcapacitytestingthattheybelievetheBoardofEducationisnotadministeringenrollmentprojectionsaccordingtoAPFOguideiines.Mr.Thompson beiieves this issue should be discussed with the Board ofCountyCommissioners.Mr.Kercheval also noted the County and Board of Education are working on thisissueintheir2+2 meetings.He expressed his opinion that the joint meetings are a good idea;however,the Agenda should be established prior to the day of the meetings.Planning Commission GoalsMr.Thompson stated that Staff has been working to set goals for the Department as a whole andindividuallyfortheupcomingfiscalyear.He requested input from the Commission for goals and priorityissuestheywouldliketoaddressduringtheupcomingyear.Mr.Anikis stated he would likerecommendationsfromStaffforapprovalordenialofplans,where practical,that come before thePlanningCommissionandthereasonsfortheirrecommendation.Mr.Thompson stated that he hasdiscussedseveraiissueswiththeCountyAttorney's office.The County Attorney's office is currentlyreviewingthepublichearingsandamendmentapplicationprocesses.Mr.Kercheval expressed hisconcernfordecisionsbeinglegallychallengedinrezoningcases.He beiieves that Staff could point outthedeveloper's arguments for or against their case.Findings of fact are pointed out by the CountyAttorney's office for the BOCC to consider when making their decisions.There was further discussionregardingStaff's presentation of materials and facts and the role that the County Attorney's OfficeassumesinpresentingfindingsoffactstotheBOCC.Mr.Moser stated he believes one of the goals fortheCommissionandStaffshouldbetoreviewthewholerezoningprocess.He expressed his concernthatrezoningrequestsaremadeeachquarteranditisdifficulttomakelong-range plans for the County.Mr.Kercheval stated he wouid like more structured guidelines and specific criteria to prove a change ormistake.He believes there is too much room for interpretation to determine if the proposed requestwouldbesuitablefortheareainquestion.Mr.Anikis stated his opinion that the applicant should bepresentingpubliclythe documentation that he has submitted with his application.There was a discussionregardingpublictestimonyandtherebuttalprocess.Ms.Parrish stated that she would iike Staff to
.summarize their presentations during the Planning Commission meetings rather than stating,"everything
is in the report and I have no further comments".She also stated when plans have been changed after
the Agenda packets have been mailed,a new plan should be mailed prior to the meeting.Mr.Anikis
noted there are occasional grammar and spelling errors on the Staff Reports that are sent with site plans,
subdivision plats and variances.He also noted that some plans are missing the vicinity map and
suggested that Staff should make sure that the vicinity map is included for each project.Mr.Lung stated
that some plans contain multiple sheets,some of which are not pertinent for the Planning Commission's
decision on that particular project.Therefore,Staff determines the appropriate sheets to send in the
Agenda packets.The vicinity map might be on a sheet that Staff believes is not pertinent and was simply
overlooked.Mr.Thompson stated that Staff is working with consultants and agencies to have approvals
of projects prior to bringing them before the Planning Commission."Fast-Track"projects are being routed
to approving agencies more quickly to receive their comments in a more timely manner.
Mr.Thompson stated the following are departmental goals for FY 2008:the Urban Growth Area
rezoning,finalize the Water and Sewer Plan Update,Excise Tax update,and updates to the Subdivision
Ordinance.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding cell towers approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.He
noted that the applicant,under FCC guidelines,is responsible for contacting the Maryland Historical Trust
to determine the impact on historical structures.According to Mr.Martirano of the County Attorney's
office,the Trust has 30 days to comment on the project and if a response is not received within the 30-
day time period,the assumption is made that the Trust does not have an issue with the request.Mr.
Anikis expressed his concern that the MHT has not received and reviewed the request and believes that
someone from the BZA should be responsible for confirming that the information has been received.He
also has concerns that the Historic District Commission is not receiving these requests.Mr.Thompson
stated he would check into this issue.
Mr.Kercheval noted that there seems to be a new trend to start churches in storefront spaces until they
can establish themselves and obtain the funds to build a permanent structure.There is a church located
in a small shopping center in Maugansville that has been there for several years.Recently the shopping
center was sold and the new owner discovered that churches are not a "permitted use"for storefronts in
accordance with the current Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Kercheval stated his opinion that churches should be
a "permitted use"in a retail/commercial zoning designation.Mr.Thompson stated he is currently working
with the Church to resolve this issue.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:10p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
'£,-
62 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-June 4,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeeting on Monday,June 4,2007,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Sarn Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMs.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7,2007 Regular PlanningCommissionmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS-VARIANCESLynnKendle(SV-07-013)Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a variance for Lynn B.Kendle for property locatedalongthenorthwestsideofRubleRoad.The applicant is requesting a variance from SubdivisionOrdinanceSection405.11.G.5 to create a panhandle length of 780-feet.The majority of Mr.
Kendle's property is In an Ag Preservation District and he has received permission from the Ag
Preservation Board to exclude some acreage for an immediate family member lot for his son.
Access to the lot from Ruble Road would require a panhandle of 780-feet in length.The
Engineering Department stated that prior to approval they would need to look at the sight
distance and road width requirements.
Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the existing Forest Conservation Area in
relation to this lot.A portion of the existing Forest Conservation Area is located on the proposed
lot and would be relocated to a qualifying area.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the variance as presented contingent
upon approval from the Washington County Engineering Department.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.
Unanimously approved.
Brian E.Rowe (SV-07-014)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a variance for Brian E.Rowe for property located
along the east side of Macafee Hill Road in Cascade.The applicant is requesting a variance from
Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.2.A to allow access spacing of less than 300-feet.Macafee
Hill Road is considered a major collector and requires access spacing of 300-feet or more.Mr.
Rowe is proposing to subdivide two lots with the remainder.The proposed driveway for Lot 2 to
the existing driveway for Lot 1 is approximately 160-feet and the existing driveway for Lot 1 to the
proposed driveway for the remaining lands proposed driveway is approximately 70-feet.The
State Highway Administration has no objection to the request.The Washington County
Engineering Department stated that trees would obstruct sight distance;however,the SHA
maintains Macafee Hill Road.
Discussion:Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the comment on the Staff Report
concerning a common driveway.Mr.Holsinger of R.Lee Royer and Associates,consultant for
the applicant,stated that the applicant prefers separate access points for each lot;however,a
common driveway with an access easement would be acceptable.He stated that the State
Highway Administration has no objection to the request.The applicant wouid remove existing
trees,if necessary,to provide adequate sight distance for the driveways.
Motion:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the variance as presented.Seconded by Mr.
Reiber.
Discussion before the vote:Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding right-of-way issues for
the future widening of Macafee Hill Road.Mr.Lung stated that the standard dedication for a
collector highway would be required.
Vote:Mr.Moser's motion was unanimously approved.
Eddie's Properties LLC (SV-07-017)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a variance for Eddie's Properties LLC for property
located along the Greencastle Pike at the end of Rock Hill Road.The applicant is requesting a
variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.B to allow a reduction in public ro.adfrontagefrom25-feet to 15.6-feet.In 1984,the lot was created as a stand-alone simplified parcel.When Lot 2 was approved in 2006,research indicated that the property has frontage on a StateHighwayAdministrationright-of-way.Mr.Lung interjected and stated that he previously workedonthisprojectandthatRockHillRoadismaintainedbytheCounty;however,it ends in an areawheretheSHAownstheright-of-way.The subject lot was created when stand-alone simplifiedparcels"not for development"were allowed.The owner now wants to develop the property andmustmeetcurrentregulationsfordevelopment.A right-of-way is "called out"in the deed for thispropertyandwouldmostlikelybeusedforingressandegresstothisparcel.Staff's concern isthecurrentHI-2 -Highway Interchange 2 zoning designation on this parcel allows for manydifferenttypesofusesincludingapartmentcomplexes.A higher intensity development other thanasingle-family dwelling would most likely create access issues;therefore,the applicant hasagreedtoputastipulationontheplatthatwouldonlyallowasingle-family dwelling on this lot.Any other proposed development on the property would be required to seek PlanningCommissionapproval.Comment:Mr.Fred Frederick,the applicant's consultant,stated that the right-of-way is wellestablishedandisownedbyarelativeinfeesimple.Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the restriction on the plat for a single-familydwellingonly.A request could be made in the future for other types of development;however,right-of-way issues would be reviewed again at that time.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concernregardingthewordingofthenoteontheplatthatsays,'1urther evaluation will be required undertheAPFO".Mr.Kercheval noted that the APFO addresses certain road requirements and askedifthiswouldincludethe25-foot right-of-way requirement.Mr.Lung stated that if the single-familydwellingwereconvertedtosomethingdifferent,such as a multi-family dwelling,that would requireahigherstandardintermsoftheAPFOfromaroadadequacystandpoint.Mr.Frederick notedthattheAPFOrequirementswouldmakeitverydifficultforothertypesofdevelopmentunlesstheownerwouldspendalotofmoneytomakethenecessaryroadimprovements.Mr.Kercheval
recommended that the County Attorney's office should review and approve the wording for Note
13 on the plat.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the variance contingent upon the
County Attorney's review and approval of Note 13 on the plat.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.
Unanimously approved .
•SUBDIVISIONS
Blooming Meadows (PP·06·009)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat for Blooming Meadows located
along the west side of Old National Pike north of its intersection with Cool Hollow Road.The
property is apprOXimately 88-acres and is zoned A -Agriculture.The developer is proposing to
create 21 single-family lots ranging in size from 1 to 9-acres with 22"d lot being the remaining
lands.Individual well and septic would serve the lots.Two new public streets are proposed and
would serve all lots including Lot 1 which would access the interior street.Lot 21 contains 5.7-
acres with an eXisting farmhouse known as "Rocky Knolls"that is listed on the County's Historic
Inventory Sites Survey that would be retained on the site.Flood plains are located on the lots
adjacent to the Antietam Creek.The developer is proposing to meet Forest Conservation
Ordinance requirements by retaining 16-acres of existing forest and planting 2.6-acres .of trees in
the high priority areas located along the Antietam Creek.An easement would be set-aside on Lot
2 for access to the existing cemetery and would be noted on the plat.No further subdivision
would be allowed on the site because the site would not meet the new A(R)-Agricultural Rural
zoning requirements.All agency approvals have been received.
Discussion:Mr.Moser noted that when the Preliminary Consultation for this development
(previously known as an extension of "The Pines"subdivision)was brought before the Planning
Commission,the access was proposed through Jeswood Drive and the Pianning Commission
recommended a second entrance into the development.Mr.Brad Fulton,owner,and Mr.Mike
Hicks from Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the owner's consultant,were present at the meeting.
Mr.Hicks stated that the proposed development is on a separate parcel of land.Mr.Fulton
explained that a second entrance into The Pines was required by the Engineering Department
because the subdivision was proposed to be iarger than 25 lots.Upon further review of the
topography of the site,the steep ravine would have made it very difficult to construct a road
through the entire development proposed for two separate parcels of land;therefore,the owner
created 10 single-family lots in the development known as The Pines and is proposing a new
development on the second parcel.The owner has obtained an entrance permit from the State
Highway Administration for a separate entrance for the proposed development known as
Blooming Meadows.Mr.Moser and Ms.Parrish expressed their opinion that the proposed
development is an extension of The Pines.Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and
Associates,stated that there is an "environmental feature"that separates the two parcels and the
developments should be considered as two separate projects,both meeting all State and County
regulations.Mr.Reiber stated his opinion that the "intent"of the project may be in two different
phases and may have two different names,but it is an extension of "The Pines".Mr.Kercheval
made an inquiry regarding the width of the panhandies.Ms.Kelly noted the panhandles are 100-
feet wide.There was a brief discussion regarding the extension of the cul-de-sac in order to
63
64 minimize the length of the panhandles.Mr.Anikis asked who would be responsible formaintenanceoftheproposedeasementtothecemetery.Mr.Hicks stated that the homeownerswouldowntheeasementandwouldberesponsibleforitsmaintenance.Mr.Anikisrecommendedinstallingafencearoundthecemetery.Motion:Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the Preliminary Plat due to the lack of a secondaccessintothedevelopment.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Clarification before the vote:Mr.Reiber asked Mr.Hicks if it is possible to extend JeswoodDrivethroughbothparcels.Mr.Hicks stated that it is possible;however,there is a floodplainissue,sensitive soils and stream buffers established by the Soil Conservation District located intheareainquestion.Mr.Frederick stated that land would need to be purchased from existinghomeownerstoprovideadequateright-of-way.Vote:Mr.Moser's motion ended in a tie vote with Mr.Moser,Ms.Parrish and Mr.Reiber voting"Aye"and Mr.Wiley,Mr.Ecker and Mr.Kercheval voting "Nay".Comments:Mr.Anikis recommended that the developer revise the plans to extend the cul-de-sac to minimize the length of the panhandles.There was a brief discussion to determine thelengthofthecul-de-sac.Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Wiley recommended extending the cul-de-sac onWhitethornCourtjustpasttheForestConservationEasementareaforbetteraccesstoLots6,7,8 and 9 and give Staff the authority to approve the revision as discussed.Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent uponStaff's approval of the revised cul-de-sac length on Whitethorn Court and to approve the ForestConservationPlanaspresentedonthecurrentplat.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.The motion passedwithMr.Kercheval,Mr.Ecker,Mr.Wiley and Mr.Anikis voting "Aye"and Mr.Moser,Mr.ReiberandMs.Parrish voting "Nay".
Lyles/Grove Tract (PP-06-007)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat for the Lyles/Grove Tract,
recently named Cobble Hill Estates,located along the south side of College Road just west of
Maryland Route 65.The developer is proposing to create 66 lots for semi-detached dwellings on
66-acres located within the Urban Growth Area and zoned RR -Residential Rural.A semi-
detached dwelling is a two-family dwelling with a party wall in it,each half being on its own lot.
The Planning Commission approved the use of the clustering provision of the Zoning Ordinance
during the Preliminary Consultation review process.The clustering provision allows the reduction
of lot sizes as long as the density is not increased.The lot sizes are based on RS -Residential
Suburban zoning standards that permit a minimum lot size of 6,250-square feet for a semi-
detached dwelling.The proposed lots range in size from 6,285-square feet to 15,933-square
feet.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the rear yard setback requirement
from 40-feet to 30-feet.The developer is proposing to provide a buffer between the rear of Lots 1
through 29 and the adjoining St.James development using Leyland Cypress
Comments:Mr.Kercheval recommended that Staff should make sure that adequate screening
is provided between the two developments.Mr.Lung stated he would request the developer to
show the proposed screening on the plats.Mr.Thompson noted that the rear yard setback
variance was requested due to comments made by the Planning Commission,during the
Preliminary Consultation review process,regarding off-street parking.
The approved cluster plan shows 4.35-acres of open space provided in addition to the 1.56-acre
storm water management area.Sidewalks and a walking path in the large open space area are
proposed.Staff recommends that the sidewalk along Wisteria Lane where it ends at Morning
Glory Lane should be extended to College Road (approximately 150 to 175-feet).Currently there
is no sidewalk along College Road;however,Staff believes that as the County upgrades its
roads,access would be required and the extension would provide better connectivity and access
for possible public transportation in the future.The open space areas would be owned and
maintained by a Homeowners Association.The development is being designed as an age-
restricted development per HUD guidelines and finalization and approval of the HOA and age-
restriction documents would be required prior to final plat approval.All lots would front and
access an internal road network with two access points on College Road.Streets would be a
closed section design utilizing a rolled or mountable curb section.The Washington County
Engineering Department has approved a reduced street width that would reduce the pavement
area and runoff and allows for a wider separation between sidewalks and the actual travel lanes.
Discussion:There was a discussion regarding on-street parking,the width of the roadways,and
access for emergency services with narrower streets.
Mr.Lung stated that each unit would have a one-car garage and driveways large enough to
accommodate two vehicles.Each dwelling unit would have a post-mounted light at the street.
Public water prOVided by the City of Hagerstown and public sewer provided by the Washington
County Department of Water Quality would serve the site.The proposed usage is 13,200 gallons
or 66 EDU's per day.LP gas service would be provided to this development as part of the St.
James North system.Each unit would have LP gas capabilities;however,homeowners would
not be required to be connected to the system.Forest Conservation requirements would be metbyretaining0.78-acres of existing forest and the planting of 2.68-acres of forest.An additional.77 -acres is needed to meet all Forest Conservation requirements and the deveioper isrequestingtheuseofpayment-in-lieu.All agencies have reviewed the plan and have issuedcommentsorconditionaiapprovals.Unconditional approvais by the agencies would be issueduponcompletionoftheirreviewoftherequestedrevisions.Staff needs to complete their reviewoftheForestConservationPlan.If the developer meets all HUD guidelines for an age-restricteddevelopment,a final plat may be submitted.Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked why the remaining .77-acre of forest conservation was notincludedonsiteintheareamarkedopenspace#3.Mr.Tony Taylor of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,stated that this open space area is reserved for a spilling basin for a largewatershedlocatedinSt.James Village.There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed LPgassystem.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding traffic issues at the intersections of MarylandRoute65andCollegeRoadandMarylandRoute65andLylesRoad.Mr.Lung stated that theStateHighwayAdministrationrequestedtrafficnumbersforasignalwarrantanalysis.Therequestedfiguressubmittedalongwiththetrafficgenerationproposedfromthisdevelopmentdidnotwarrantasignalattheselocations.Mr.Taylor stated that left and right turning lanes fromCollegeRoadontoMarylandRoute65arebeingstriped.There was a discussion regarding thefencingaroundtheForestConservationeasementareaandconcernforpedestrianscrossinghomeowner's yards.The fencing for the easement area is not intended to be permanent andwouldberemovedaftertwoyears.There was a discussion regarding the additional .77 -acreForestConservationrequirementandthepayment-in-lieu.Mr.Lung stated that the developerownspropertyonothersideofCollegeRoadwhereworkinastreambufferfortheSoilConservationDistrictisproposed.He suggested that additional planting may be done in this areaasoff-site planting for the proposed development.By consensus,the Planning Commissionmembersagreedthatpayment-in-lieu for residential development is unacceptable;however,off-site planting in an area in close proximity to the development wouid be acceptable.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon
the extension of the sidewalk from Morning Glory Lane to College Road,adequate buffering
between Lots 1 through 29 and the adjoining lots of St.James Village,conditional approvals from
outstanding agencies,and Staff's approval of the Forest Conservation Plan with the additional
.77-acre of off-site planting in close proximity to the development in the vicinity of Maryland Route
65 at College Road to St.James School.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved.
Cinetic Landis Grinding Corporation (P5P-07-002)(5-07-058)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the designated "Fast-Track"preliminary pial/site plan
and final subdivision plat for Cinetic Landis Grinding Corporation located in the Hunter's Green/
Newgate/Hopewell Valley Industrial Park west of Hopewell Road and north of Halfway Boulevard
Extended.The developer is proposing to create a new 27.85-acre lot from several parcels owned
by the Hagerstown-Washington County Industrial Foundation and the Antietam Investment
Group.The property is primarily zoned IG -Industrial General with a small portion along the
west side of the property zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.The owner is proposing to
construct a buiiding that would contain an 84,700-square foot manufacturing area,12,000-square
foot office area,and a 1,254-square foot utility room and provisions for a 21,000-square foot
expansion.The proposed use is light manufacturing and assembly of precision grinding
equipment.A total of 150 employees are proposed and hours of operation wouid be 7:00 a.m.to
4:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.The building has a maximum height of 35-feet.Parking
spaces required is 160 spaces and 210 spaces are provided.Total impervious site area is 23-
percent.Truck loading docks and truck parking areas are located to the rear of the building.No
outside storage of materials is proposed.Dumpsters would be provided at the rear of the building
for wood and metal waste and trash.Cinetic Landis has a corporate recycling program for all of
these materials.Pole and building mounted lights are proposed on the site;however,details from
the lighting consultant regarding the light fixtures and a photometric plan to show no glare or spill
over onto adjacent properties or streets is pending.A variety of landscaping is proposed across
the front of the building and in the island areas in the parking lot.A staggered row of 37 8-foot
Austrian pines planted 10-foot on center is proposed to screen the adjacent residential lot.The
lot located to the east of the site contains a structure listed on the Historic Sites Survey.Public
water provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer provided by the Washington County
Department of Water Quality serves the site.Projected flow is 2,400-gallons per day.The site
must comply with the Washington County Forest Conservation Ordinance.The Forest Stand
Delineation prepared for the site shows approximately 1 .66-acres of forest to be cleared on the
new lot and a Forest Conservation requirement of 3.27 -acres.The FSD shows forest on the
remaining lands including forest within a 1OO-year floodplain.The developer is proposing to meet
Forest Conservation requirements by retaining the forest located within the 100-year floodplain
and payment-in-Iieu for additional mitigation.The County's Comprehensive Plan proposes a
"greenway"through the Hopewell Valley Economic Development area and the developer has
agreed to dedicate an easement through the 1OO-year floodplain.Approvals have been received
from the Washington County Engineering Department,Department of Water Quality and Soil
Conservation District.Approvals are pending from the Washington County Health Department
and the City of Hagerstown Water Department.The pre-annexation agreement with the City of
Hagerstown has been reviewed and revisions requested.The Historic District Commission will
review the piat on June 6,2007 and issue their comments on the proposed development.
65
66 Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the Site Plan and Subdivision Platcontingentuponapprovalofadetailedlightingplanshowingnoglareorspilloveronadjacentproperties,all outstanding agency approvals,addressing any comments received from theHistoricDistrictCommission,and recalculation of the Forest Conservation worksheet to accountfortheretentionofforestinthefloodplainarea.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved .•Forest ConservationE.B.Limited PartnershipMs.Kelly presented for review and approval a request to mitigate .99-acres using payment-in-lieu.The request is being made for property located along Western Maryland Parkway at the siteofParkerPlastics.When the site plan for this property was originally approved,the developer setasideaForestRetentionareatomeetForestConservationOrdinancerequirements.InDecember2005,the deveioper was found to be in violation of the Forest Conservation OrdinancebecausetheForestRetentionareaonthissitehadbeenremoved.In March 2006,the PlanningCommissionrequiredthedeveloper,Mr.Richard McCleary,to replant the .99-acres of ForestRetentionarea,to pay the non-compliance fee of $.30 per square foot for the forest that had beenremoved,and,at the discretion of the developer,plant an additional .99-acres of forest off-site ormake the payment-in-lieu.The developer has paid the non-compliance fee and the payment-in-lieu for the off-site planting.The developer is now requesting approval from the PlanningCommissiontomakethepayment-in-lieu for the .99-acres of on-site planting.A letter fromFrederick,Seibert &Associates,the deveioper's consultant,noted that the area at thenortheasterncornerofthepropertyisbeingrequestedbyoneofthetenantstobeconvertedintoadditionalparkingandtheareaatthenorthwestcornercouldremainasaproposedplantingarea;however,the area was all reconstructed as part of constructing the stormwater managementpondandsinceitisnotvirginsoil,it may be difficult to get trees to grow in that area.Discussion:Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant for the developer,
stated that the developer wouid like to make a change to the request.Mr.McCleary purchased
an additional 20-acres of land adjoining this site that contains existing forest.An FSD was
prepared and approved for the additional acreage and meets all criteria for Forest Conservation
requirements.Therefore,Mr.McCleary is requesting retention of forest on the additional acreage
to meet his obligation for the site in question.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the on-site retention to meet Forest
Conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Mr.Reiber abstained.Unanimously
approved.
At 9:00 p.m.,the Chairman called for a recess.The meeting resumed at 9:05 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
RZ-07-001 and CP-07-001 -Kent Oliver
Mr.Goodrich summarized the Staff Report and Recommendation for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include 120 +/-acres in the Urban Growth Area and a
Zoning Map Amendment for approximately 60-acres of the same parcel located adjacent to 1-70
north of Beaver Creek Road.Mr.Goodrich noted that one change is needed in the Staff Report
on Page 19,first paragraph,first sentence as follows,"Expansion of the growth area by 60
acres",should be changed to "120 acres".The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a proposal to
include within the Growth Area boundary the 120 acres of the Oliver parcel and to assign the
western half a commercial land use designation in the Land Use Plan and the eastern half a
Community Facilities land use designation.The applicant is also requesting rezoning of the
western half of the property to Highway Interchange.The eastern half is proposed to keep its
Agricultural (Rural)zoning designation.The third component of the application is an offer to
dedicate the eastern half of the parcel as a school site;however,the Staff Report does not
analyze the acceptance or rejection of the offer.There Is some anaiysis of the possibility of a
school being situated on the property;however,it is Staff's opinion that the offer for the school
site is an inappropriate part of the application.Mr.Goodrich stated that the applicant's attorney,
Mr.Jason Divelbiss,presented a well thought-out plan to remedy many of the limitations of the
site for development.However,Mr.Goodrich believes that the problems are not really soived
because there are many factors,either unknown or at the discretion of others,that need to be
addressed in order to implement the plan.Staff also believes that the change in the Growth Area
would not benefit the community as a whole.The effects of changing the Growth Area boundary
could result in significant development on the property.The effects of the development would
reach far beyond the 120-acres proposed for inclusion.A benefit to inciuding the property in the
Growth Area wouid be the extension of public services to the area at the deveioper's expense;
however,Staff cannot recommend inclusion in the Growth Area for this benefit alone.The
applicant proposed that the rezoning should be approved because the assignment of the
Agricultural (Rural)designation was based on the mistaken assumptions that there were no
viable options for providing water and sewer service and there was no permanent access to the
property.Mr.Goodrich stated that these two items were facts at the time the Agricultural zoning
was applied to the property and the Urban Growth Area boundary was set.They were not
debatable or open to judgment at the time.He noted that individual property analyses are not
performed to determine if problems or limitations can be soived to develop a property whenassigningzoningdesignationsorgrowthareaboundaries.Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber made several inquiries regarding verification ofadjacentparcelslocatedwithintheUrbanGrowthAreaandtheoriginalrecommendationtokeepthisparceloutsidetheUGA.Mr.Goodrich stated that Mr.Oliver owns a parcel of land adjacenttothesubjectpropertythatislocatedwithintheUrbanGrowthAreaandhepreviouslymadearequesttohavethesubjectpropertyincludedintheUGAthatwasdenied.Mr.Goodrich statedthatseveralissuescontributedtothedecisiontokeepthesubjectparcelintheruralarea,suchas:the lack of public utilities to the site,the lack of public road frontage,the size of the parcel,there was agricultural activity on the property at the time,there was significant forest cover on thepropertyandthereisanhistoricstructurelocatedontheproperty.Mr.Moser expressed his reservations for expanding the growth area until issues are addressedregardingthelackofsewercapacity.He noted that the zoning densities in the existing GrowthAreafarexceedtheavailablecapacity.Mr.Moser commended Mr.Divelbiss for his presentationontheextensionofsewerservice,although he does not believe that the proposal for extendingservicefromFunkstownisaviableoption.Mr.Moser expressed concern regarding traffic issues,the road network,and the impact on the community as a whole.He believes a regional shoppingcenterwouldhaveanegativeimpactoneffortstorevitalizetheHagerstowndowntownarea.HebelievestherewouldbeasignificantnegativeimpactonsurroundingpropertiessuchasFieldstoneAcresandthepropertythatiscurrentlyplacedinAgPreservationaswellaspropertiesalongBeaverCreekandWhiteHallRoads.Mr.Moser expressed his opinion that putting a highschoolsiteinaruralareagoesagainstgoodplanningpractices.Even though a new school isneeded,he believes a school site within the current Urban Growth Area would better serve theneedsofWashingtonCounty.Mr.Kercheval stated that he does not vote on rezoning applications until they come before theBoardofCountyCommissioners;however,he did make the follOWing statements."RegardingtheFunkstownissue,I think that had to do with the Funkstown plant.They have a certain
amount of loading and if you pay to upgrade their plant to lower the quality or the capacity of the
plant to get to a cleaner level you could take that balance loading and bubble it into a different
plant to get the base and the developer pays for the upgrade to take that plant to a more efficient
level.That is what It had to do with not with capacity,not necessarily the gallons per day.The
comment made by Mr.Goodrich about the Commissioner's disapproving this,as one of the
Commissioners who denied this at the time,I didn't think reflected what we talked about.We
talked about the sewer issues and stuff,but one of the things I said,and I know was brought up
by some of the others,was we're right in the middle of a water and sewer study,there is a lot of
questions out there,we didn't have any kind of site plans or anything to look at and it was
probably premature to be enlarging the Growth Area at this point in time with those things
outstanding.It kind of read Mr.Goodrich's comments to say that we took things and said this
doesn't belong because it didn't have sewer,and I didn't think that was reflective of the group
who denied it."
Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that commercial development is going to occur outside the
downtown revitalization area and he does not believe that is a viable reason to deny the
applicant's request.He also believes that planning for additional schools shouid have been
addressed many years ago and he does not like the "helter-skelter"approach that the school
board is taking at this time.However,the proposed site couid well serve the Smithsburg,
Boonsboro,South Hagerstown and North Hagerstown area students.Mr.Wiley believes that
considering the applicant's request prior to the Comprehensive Urban Growth Area Rezoning is a
mistake and would be better addressed at that time.
Mr.Parrish expressed her opinion that Mr.Divelbiss made some good arguments in terms of how
to make this property work within the Urban Growth Area and even though the property is
adjacent to the Growth Area,she believes this property is not structured for development at this
time.Ms.Parrish does not believe that the argument for a mistake in the original zoning was
made.The property is surrounded by farmland,it is located in a rural area,it does not have the
necessary access,and there is no sewer service in this area.She stated her opinion that school
sites should be located within the Urban Growth Area because this area has already been
defined for the County's growth.
Mr.Ecker stated he concurs with Ms.Parrish's comments that a mistake was not made in the
original zoning of the property;but,he also agrees with comments made by Mr.Divelbiss during
the public hearing.He believes that there will be residential and Highway Interchange properties
next to each other and he would like to "see something worked out".Mr.Ecker believes that
buffers could be used to separate the Highway Interchange and residential properties and that
there is potential for a school site in this area.
Mr.Anikis stated his opinion that the county residents are not being deprived of shopping options
in this county with the Valley Mall,Prime Outlets and the Center of Hagerstown all easily
accessible within several exits west of the Route 40 and 1-70 interchange.Additionally there are
three small shopping centers and strip malls within minutes of this interchange.In 2004 this
County had over 3.55 million square feet of usable retail space.According to the Convention and
Visitor's Bureau in a pUblic press release in early 2005 based on 2004 data,"The Hagerstown-
Washington County region ranks 17'"of 300 regions nationwide in retail space per capita in the
67
68 country."Mr.Anikis beiieves it would be more difficult to attact business to the downtown area,Longmeadow area and the old Ames shopping center if we continue to eniarge the opportunitiesforretaildevelopmentontheperipheryoftheCity.Currently,the southeastern sector of theRoute40and1-70 interchange has roughly 98 acres of undeveloped iand in the HighwayInterchangezoning.If that number is accurate,that computes to 4.3-milllon square feet of land;and,if only 25%of the area were developed for retail use that would be 1 million square feet ofretailspaceinthatquadrantwhichwouldbea33%increase over the 3.5 miliion square feet ofretailareawecurrentlyhaveintheCounty.Mr.Anikis does not believe a mistake was madewhenthe2005rezoningrequestwasdenied.He believes a recommendation to approve thisrequestwouldposeaseriousthreattothequalityoflifeandimpacttotheBeaverCreekRuralarea.Mr.Anikis concurred with Mr.Wiley's comments that addressing these issues during theupdateoftheUrbanAreaRezoningwouidbetterservetheCounty.Regarding the school site,Mr.Anikis expressed a great concern for road improvements that would be necessary on BeaverCreekandWhiteHallRoadsandthecostoftheseimprovementstotheCounty.He suggestedthatduringtheUrbanAreaRezoning,the Engineering Department and the School Board shouldbeinvolvedtoaddresstheseissues,the costs that would be involved for the County and itsresidentsandtheimpactontheCountyasawhole.Mr.Anikis noted that the State of Marylandhasnorequirementsregardingtheacreagerequiredforaschoolsiteoranyothertypeofguidelinesforschoolsites.He questions the requirement in our County's Zoning Ordinance thatrequires60acresasaminimumforahighschoolsite.Mr.Anikis quoted the following commentsfromanarticlecalledJohnnvCan't Walk to School."Even before Maryland enacted smart growthlegislationin1997,the State's pubiic school construction program was already promoting smartgrowthprinciples.Consider for example Maryland's criteria for evaluating local applications forStatefinancialassistance:projects should not encourage sprawl development,projects shouldnotbelocatedinAgPreservationareasunlessotheroptionsarenotviable,and the project'sdevelopmentwould have no negative effect on future growth and development in the area.Projects should be served by existing or planned water,sewer and other public infrastructure."Hedoesnotbelievethataschoolsiteinthisareapassesanyofthosetests.A school site wouldhaveathleticfields,games on weekends with a lot of bright lights and noise,and a significant
amount of traffic on inadequate roads that can't handle it.Mr.Anlkis noted that Montgomery
County's guidelines require 30 usable acres for a high school site.He stated that the School
Board currently owns land adjacent to the Eastern Elementary School where there is
approximately 29 usable acres,even though there is a 100-year floodplain on the property,and
existing infrastructure to the site.In summary,Mr.Anikis does not believe that rezoning this
property or expanding the Urban Growth Area would be a benefit to the majority of the residents
of Washington County.
Mr.Wiley noted,that according to a chart distributed by the Planning Department,Clear Spring,
North Hagerstown and South Hagerstown High Schools are the only schools in the County with
more than 60 acres of land and Smithsburg and Boonsboro High Schools have 40 acres of land.
Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that school issues have been neglected for many years and
today the County is faced with trying to address the issues that are not going to go away.With
regard to retail space,Mr.Reiber believes there is a lot of space utilized by retail development;
however,the County benefits economically from retail services through tax revenue and
employment opportunities Retail development requires larger parcels and older center cities
such as downtown Hagerstown,Smithsburg and Boonsboro do not have the structures and the
floor space that major retailers need.Mr.Reiber stated that the County and its growth areas are
changing and consideration needs to be given to these changes.
Mr.Wiley concurred with Mr.Reiber's comments that the County and its growth areas are
changing.He reiterated his belief that this is the wrong time to be considering a request that
could have a significant impact on the upcoming urban rezoning that the County is beginning very
soon.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend denial of CP-07 -001 to the Board of
County Commissioners based on insufficient proof that a mistake was made in the BOCC's 2005
decision,the negative impact on adjacent rural properties,lack of adequate roads,apparent lack
of infrastructure and the lack of sewer capacity.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion passed
with Mr.Moser,Mr.Wiley,Mr.Ecker,and Ms.Parrish voting "Aye"and Mr.Reiber voting "Nay".
Mr.Kercheval abstained.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend denial of RZ-07-001 to the Board of
County Commissioners based on insufficient proof that a mistake was made in the original zoning
of the property,the request is not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan,and the lack
of infrastructure to serve the property.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion passed with Mr.
Moser,Mr.Wiley,Mr.Ecker and Ms.Parrish voting "Aye"and Mr.Reiber voting "Nay".Mr.
Kercheval abstained.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Joint Rezoning Hearing,Monday,June 11,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court
House,Room 1,95 West Washington Street
2.RegUlar Planning Commission Meeting,Monday,July 9,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington
County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1
3
~
'"Ol
3og
:::l
S-
Ol
.Q,oc
3
5'
'"3
'"~
e5
9l.
~
o
~
"0
~
Eoc:
:II
Zs:m
~
70 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-JULY 9,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingon Monday,July 9,2007,in theWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baitimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint WileyandEx-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners Lisa A.Kelly and Jill Baker,Planner SaraEdelman,and Permits Processor Misti Brandenburg.CALL TO ORDERVice-Chairman Terry Reiber called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.MINUTESMs.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 4,2007 Regular Planning Commissionmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimousiyapproved.ANNOUNCEMENTSMr.Thompson announced the following upcoming meetings:•Public Hearing for the City of Hagerstown's Comprehensive Plan,July 25,2007,7:00 pm.,CityCouncilChambers•Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee meeting,July 26,2007,9:30 a.m.,Washington CountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street
·Mr.Thompson announced that the Excise Tax Task Force has been selected by the Board of County
Commissioners and will be holding their first meeting in the near future.
Mr.Thompson began a brief discussion regarding a large power transmission line being proposed in the
southern portion of Washington County by Allegheny Power.
(Mr.Anikis arrived at 5:15 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS
-VARIANCES
Daniel and Denise Wood (SV-07-018)
Ms.Edelman presented for review and approval a variance for property located along 21614 Black Rock
Road.The applicant is requesting a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.GA to create a
3-tier stacking of lots.The property contains a total of 5.5-acres with 3.25-acres located within a Rural
Village zone and the remainder is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.The applicant is proposing
to subdivide Parcei 217.Ms.Edelman provided a brief history regarding this property.Parcel 401 was
subdivided in 1994 into Lots 1,2 and 3 with the remainder being Parcel 217.If Parcel 217 were
subdivided,a 3-tier lot arrangement would be created from the original lot.Staff has no objection to the
variance request based on the perc test locations approved by the Health Department that to allow for a
standard subdivision and it is located in two zoning districts making it difficult to comply with zoning.The
applicant's claim of hardship is based on percolation tests and septic area locations which dictate the
proposed configuration of the lots resulting in a 3-tier stack.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the variance.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.
Unanimously approved.
-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS
Dale and Burma Miles,Lots 12,13 and 14 (PC-07-002)
Ms.Edelman presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for Dale and Burma Miles
located along the east side of St.Paul Road.The applicant is proposing to subdivide three lots on 3.79-
acres zoned A(R)-Agriculture Rural.The total remaining acreage of the property is 132-acres and could
potentially be subdivided into 24 lots.Ms.Edelman stated that three key issues were addressed during
the preliminary consultation.First,there is a 50-foot wide strip of land located between existing Lot 9 and
proposed Lot 12 Staff is recommending be reserved for a possible future street.In a letter from
Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the owner's consultant,the owner is requesting a waiver from the 50-foot
agricultural buffer along the side yards of Lots 9 and 12.The second issue was the sharing of driveways
for two of the proposed lots.The Engineering and Planning departments recommended a shared
driveway to minimize the number of access points on St.Paul Road.The last issue of concern deals with
Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.In accordance with the Forest Conservation Ordinance,
since four subdivisions have already occurred on the property using the Express Procedure to meet
Forest Conservation requirements,the property does not qualify again for use of the Express Procedure.
The Planning Commission may grant an exception to this requirement at the appiicant's request.The
71applicantisrequestingtheuseofpayment-in-lieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Ms.Edelman stated that the property contains priority areas including a small stream.She presentedphotographsshowingexistingtreecoveronthesite.Staff does not support the request for use ofExpressProcedures.Discussion:Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,the owner's consultant,noted thatapproximately.75-acre of forest would be required to meet the Ordinance's requirements.Mr.Lungstatedthattheestablishmentofaforestedbufferbetweenlanduses(active agriculture and residential)isconsideredapriorityarea.Mr.Kercheval noted that the Planning Commission does not typically acceptthepayment-in"lieu for residential developments.Mr.Kercheval asked why the owner is requesting a waiver from the 50-foot rear and side yard setbackrequirementthatisusedtobuffertheresidentialpropertiesfromtheagriculturalproperties.Mr.Schreiberstatedthattherearyardsetbackisnotaproblem;however,the 50-foot strip of land to St.Paul Road isnotlargeenoughforfarmmachinerytoturnaroundandisusedonlyforaccess.The right side is used aspasturewithanexistinggraveldrivewayadjacenttoitandisnotownedbytheapplicant.Mr.Lung statedthatStaffrecommendsthatthe50-foot strip of land should be established as a right-of-way for thepossibleconstructionofafuturestreet.Until a street is constructed,the 50-foot strip could be used as asharedentrance.Comments:Mr.Kercheval concurred with Staff's recommendation for a shared access point on St.PaulRoad.He believes that a forest buffer along the back of the lots would interfere with septic reserve areas.Ms.Edelman recommended a forest easement or plantings on part of the remaining lands.Mr.Wileyconcurred.Recommendation:Mr.Kercheval made the following recommendations with regard to the preliminaryconsultation:the 50-foot strip of land should be reserved for a possible future street with access to Lot 12fromthatright-of-way,a shared access for Lots 13 and 14,a reduced side yard as a buffer to 30-feet for
Lot 14,and on-site forest conservation on the remaining lands.
-SUBDIVISIONS
Gary and Elaine Wolfe,Lot 4 (S-07-022)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the proposed preliminary/final subdivision plat for Gary and
Elaine Wolfe.The property is located along the eastern side of Roberts Road near the Allegany County
line.The owners are proposing to create a 3.2-acre lot for their daughter.All agency approvals have
been received.Staff has reviewed the plat and finds that It meets the intent of Section 405.11.8.1 of the
Subdivision Ordinance for an immediate family member.The proposed lot is adjacent to the existing
private road or right-of-way owned by the applicant and serves an existing house on the property and two
additional lots that were previously subdivided.The property is assessed as Agriculture and the
proposed lot meets the Environmental Conservation zoning requirements.The private driveway is
contained solely within the boundaries of the Wolff's property.The Wolff's have approximately 7.5 feet of
frontage on McFarland Road (future right-of-way),a public road.The Ordinance does not specify how
many feet the developer's lot of record must have on a public road and is not listed as a requirement to
convey an immediate family lot.The Wolff's property reaches the appropriate centerline of Roberts Road,
which Is a private road.The survey indicates that half of the paved portion of Roberts Road is owned by
the Wolff's for several hundred feet from where it connects with McFarland Road and the other half of the
paved portion of Roberts Road is located on property owned by Joseph and Joan McJllton.In order to
access the property of the Wolff's,vehicular traffic must cross the McJilton property.The McJiIlon's are
opposed to the proposed lot because they do not want additional traffic on Roberts Road and this portion
of their property.Letters have been received from three adjacent property owners in opposition to the new
access and its impact on Roberts Road.Due to the controversy regarding this request,the plat is being
presented to the Planning Commission,which according to the County's Subdivision Ordinance may
approve/disapprove immediate family member subdivisions.
Discussion:Mr.Thompson stated that he recommended that the Planning Commission should review
the request since the entire access to the proposed lot is not within the owner's property.Mr.Gary
Rohrer,Director of Special Projects,was present at the meeting and proVided the following information
for the Commission.In accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the Subdivision
Ordinance,the Department of Public Works has been opposed to any further development along Roberts
Road because it is a private road.The County maintains,to a limited degree,approximately .54-mlle of
Roberts Road.Roberts Road,at Its narrowest point is approximately 13-feet wide,and at its widest point
is approximately 17-feet wide.The County prefers a minimum road width of 18-feet.The condition of
Roberts Road is not conducive to encourage additional vehicular traffic or emergency vehicles.He stated
that Roberts Road Is not a County owned roadway.The County receives a minimal amount of Highway-
User revenue for absolute minimum maintenance;however,due to the controversy,the Highway
Department has been given a directive to do no more maintenance on Roberts Road.The County does
plow .54-mile of the roadway in the winter.
Comments:Mr.Anikis expressed his concern for the sight distance on this road and does not believe an
access from McFarland Road is possible due to the streambed and steep slopes in this area.He also
expressed his opinion that the intent of the immediate family member section of the Subdivision
Ordinance was created to help keep farming operations within the family by allowing farmers to build
homes for a son or daughter to heip with the day to day farming operations.He believes that this section
of the Ordinance is being taken advantage of and those who need it are being penalized.Mr.Anikls also
72 noted that the design principles and standards in accordance with Article 4 of the Ordinance states,"NolandshouldbesubdividediflandisconsideredbytheCommissiontobeunsuitablefortheuseproposedbyreasonoffloodingorimproperdrainage,topography,or other features harmful to the health,safety,and welfare of future residents and the community as a whole."He expressed his opinion that thisrequestisharmfultothehealthandsafetyofthecommunity.Mr.Kercheval stated his opinion that Roberts Road is a private road owned by two different parties andunlessthereisanagreementbybothpartiestoaccesstheproposedlot,he does not believe the Countyshouldapprovethesubdivision.It noted that a previous legal challenge proved that Roberts Road was aprivateroadandthattheCountydoesnothavetherighttoapproveanysubdivisiononthisroad.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the appiicant's consultant,was present at the meetingandprovidedthefollowinginformation.In 1991,the County requested 1,300-feet of road dedication fromCranberryCourtsubdivision.He presented a simplified plat showing Roberts Road as a local road and asecondsimplifiedplatfrom1999showingRobertsRoadwith25-feet of dedication to the County from thecenterlineoftheroad.He also presented a decision from the Board of Zoning Appeals where theappellantisrequestingavariancefromtheAPFO,cited by the Commission,in its denial of approval of aonelotsubdivisionbasedontheinadequacyofroadwidthundertheAPFO.Therefore,he believes thattheCountythoughttheAPFOwasapplicableortherewouldnothavebeenanissueandanappealfiledwiththeBZA.He also presented a copy of the published County Road Width Manual showing RobertsRoadwithwidthsupto8/10-of a mile as well as traffic counts at McFarland Road (49 trips per day).Inaddition,he presented the Functional Road Classification for the County as established by theComprehensivePlanshowingRobertsRoadasalocalroad.In his opinion,these documents prove thatRobertsRoadisaCountyownedroad.Mr.Kercheval stated that the circuit court case has establishedthatRobertsRoadisaprivateroad.He noted that the County had made the assumption,until this courtcase,that the County did own Roberts Road.Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to deny the preliminary/final subdivision plat becauseRobertsRoadisaprivateroad,it is inadequate,and this decision is based on Section 405.11.8.1 of the
.Subdivision Ordinance.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.
-SITE PLANS
Pilot Travel Center (SP-07-028)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the site plan for the proposed Pilot Travel Center located
along the southeast corner of Hopewell Road and Halfway Boulevard.The developer Is proposing to
construct a Pilot Travel Center consisting of a McDonald's/Subway restaurant,8 gas dispensers,and a
Pilot Travel Center convenience store that will include showering facilities.The truck refueling area will
consist of a canopy fueling area with 10 dispensers.An existing two-story office and terminal sales trailer
will be removed.The leased area is 10.4-acres and is zoned HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1.The site is
owned by Donald M.Bowman and consists of a total of 29.6 acres.The total building area will be 11,334-
square feet with a building height of 23.5-feet.The site will be served by public water from the City of
Hagerstown and public sewer by Washington County.Access to the Pilot convenience store will be by
way of a combined access onto Halfway Boulevard for car traffic only.Tractor-trailers will access the
refueling area from Hopewell Road.A concrete sidewalk would connect the refueling area with the
convenience store.The hours of operation will be 24 hours per day 7 days per week consisting of 3 -8-
hour shifts.Projected employees are a total of 60 with a maximum of 22 employees per shift.Parking
spaces required are 70 auto spaces and 72 spaces would be provided.Parking spaces required for
trucks is 40 spaces and 91 spaces would be provided.Projected daily use is 1,500 trucks per day.
Freight and delivery would consist of fuel deliveries approximately 3 to 4 times per week and other
deliveries would be daily by trUCk.A dumpster would be located adjacent to the convenience store and
enclosed by an 8-foot high vinyl fence.Signage will include one 3D-foot high sign at the entrance and
bUilding mounted signs.Directional signs will be placed at all entrances.Lighting will consist of pole-
mounted lights throughout the parking lots and building mounted on the canopy area and the travel center
bUilding.A 10 x 40-foot loading/unloading area would be provided.Landscaping will include shrubs
around the convenience store and on the islands throughout the parking iot and would include burning
bush,spirea,and black-eyed susans.An appeal was granted in February 1997 by the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a special exception to establish a traveler's plaza in an HI-1 zoning district.Forest
Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by payment-in-lieu for 11.7-acres.Any further
development of the site may require access through some of the Pilot parking area.Staff is concerned
about the configuration at this access which may present problems depending on the type of
development that may occur on this site.Approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department is
pending because the developer has decided to install a sprinkler system;therefore,the City is requiring
updated plans.All other agency approvals have been received.
Discussion:Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding adequate right-of-way for the County if
Hopewell Road would need to be widened.Mr.Johnson of Davis,Renn &Associates,the developer's
consultant,stated that additional right-of-way was purchased by the County several years ago and the
Engineering Department did not require any additional right-of-way as part of the approval process for this
site.There was a brief discussion regarding the traffic pattern for motorists exiting the site.
Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.
Reiber.Unanimously approved.
'h!t q I Jodi[)lMY'Li ~(lomm·m1<f.Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the payment-in-lieu for 11.7-acres to meet theForestConservationOrdinancerequirements.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.OTHER BUSINESSRZ-07-003 -Donald Tollefson and Harold WalterMs.Baker presented for review and recommendation RZ-07-003 for Donald Tollefson and Harold Waiter.The applicant is requesting a change in zoning for 40-acres located aiong the east side of Orchard RidgeRoad,north of Millstone Circle near Hancock from EC -Environmental Conservation to RB-N -RuralBusinessNewfloatingzone.The public hearing was held on June 12,2007.Ms.Baker summarized thecriteriaasoutlinedintheCounty's Zoning Ordinance that the Planning Commission should address whenmakingtheirrecommendationforrezoningpropertytotheRuralBusinessNewfloatingzone.The ZoningOrdinancestates,"After the public hearing,the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation totheBoardofCountyCommissionersbasedonthefollowing:1)The proposed district will accomplish thepurposeoftheRuralBusinessNewDistrict;2)The proposed site development meets criteria identified inSection5F.3;3)The roads providing access to the site are appropriate for serving the business relatedtrafficgeneratedbytheproposedRuralBusinesslanduse;4)Adequate sight distance along roads canbeprovidedatproposedpointsofaccesstothesite;5)The proposed landscaped areas can provideadequatebUfferingoftheproposedRuralBusinessiandusefromeXistinglandusesinthevicinity;and 6)The proposed land use is not of a scale intensity or character that would be incompatible with theadjacentlandusesorstructures.Comments:Mr.Anikis stated that he made a site visit and does not believe that the road is adequate forincreasedtrafficgeneratedbytheproposedcampground.The sight distance appears to be inadequateduetothetopographyofthesiteforingressandegress.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding thewidthoftheentrancefortraveltrailersenteringandexistingthesitesimuitaneously.He expressedconcernregardingsafetyissuesforhuntingonthepropertyincloseproximitytocampsites.Mr.Anikisalsoexpressedconcernfortheadjacentpropertywithregardtodisturbanceandpropertyvalue.Mr.Anikis stated his opinion that the location is a good area for a campground.
Mr.Thompson noted that during the public hearing,there was a discussion regarding traffic volumes
projected by the Engineering Department that could affect sight distance issues.Mr.Reiber expressed
his opinion that the road shouid be wide enough to accommodate the traffic generated by the
campground.There was more discussion relative to the traffic volume proposed for the campground.
Ms.Baker noted that the applicant did not present any documentation to support their belief that the trips
generated per day would be less than the number of trips projected by the Engineering Department.
Mr.Parrish expressed her opinion that a campground is a good idea for this particular location.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request from EC -
Environmental Conservation to RB-N -Rural Business New floating zone to the Board of County
Commissioners.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion passed with Mr.Reiber,Ms.Parrish and Mr.
Wiley voting "Aye"and Mr.Ecker voting "Nay".Mr.Kercheval abstained.
Clarification:Mr.Kercheval asked Ms.Baker for clarification of comments within the Staff Report
regarding the proposed housing units.Ms.Baker stated that during the public hearing,the property
owner,Mr.Tollefson,stated that "park models"would be used on the site;however,exhibits submitted
with the rezoning application pictured "mini-cabins"that would be removed during the off-season.After
researching the definition of a "park model"(a structure that is placed on a foundation and anchored),Ms.
Baker noted her concern that the owners do not have a clear understanding of the County's zoning
regulations and building code requirements.There was a discussion regarding the "park models"being
used as permanent housing.There are regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that deal with the length of a
"stay".
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr.Anikis began a discussion regarding the change of time for Planning Commission meetings with short
agendas.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the definition of a "short"agenda needs to be defined.
Mr.Wiley expressed his concern with regard to consistency of meeting times for the public.By
consensus,the Planning Commission decided that all meetings should begin at 7:00 p.m.unless the
agenda contains only 1 or 2 items and can be finished in less than 1 hour.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,August 6,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County
Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1,Hagerstown
ADJOURNMENT
Ms.Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.So ordered.
Respectfully submitted,
Q-Uh(Pd ILls .
73
74 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-AUGUST 6,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingon Monday,August 6,2007,intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baitimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Sam Ecker,Clint WileyandEx-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Misty Wagner-Grillo,Planner Sara Edelman,Environmental and Parks Pianner Bill Stachoviak,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.Mr.Thompson announced the following changes to the Agenda.The variance for Herbert Campbell (SV-07-002)has been postponed until further notice.A site plan for Antietam Storage Solutions (SP-07-034),a designated "fast-track"project has been added to this evening's Agenda.MINUTESMs.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 30,2007 Planning Commission Workshopmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved.Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 9,2007 Regular Planning Commissionmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS
-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS
John A.Horst,Lots 6-11 (PC-07-003)
Ms.Edelman presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation for John A.Horst,Lots 6-11.
The property is located along the east side of Ashton Road and the north side of Big Pool Road and is
zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.The developer is proposing to subdivide six lots on 119-acres.The total
subdivision potential for the future of this parcel is 28 lots.Four lots were previously approved.No future
plans are known at this time.The Planning Staff and Engineering Department recommend the use of
common entrances and shared driveways.The area between Lots 6 and 7 is 200-feet,that could be
used as a road to accommodate future plans for the remaining lands.The State Highway Administration
would require all lots to access Ashton Road.The Engineering Department stated that sight distance
must be maintained between Route 56 and Lot 11.A sight distance worksheet would be required when
the Preliminary Plat is submitted.The Health Department requested all house and well locations to be
shown on the Preliminary Plat.Lot 11 must have a sand-mound system.The Washington County
Engineering Department expressed concerns regarding storm water management issues.The road must
be a minimum of 18-feet in width to address all storm water management.The front yards should contain
adequate area to address storm water management concerns.An APFO mitigation agreement for
schools would be required.
Discussion:There was a discussion regarding the APFO mitigation for schools.Mr.Kercheval stated
that any subdivision over 5 lots is subject to APFO school mitigation based on school capacity at final plat
approval.Mr.Moser expressed his concern regarding lots fronting on Maryiand Route 56 and
recommended that an interior road network should serve future lots on the remaining lands.
No action required.
-SITE PLANS
Jeff Hurd (SP-07-024)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for Jeff Hurd for property located on
Camden Road in Williamsport.The owner is proposing a moderate volume mineral extraction operation
for shale on 44.13-acres.The property is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.A special exception
was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 17,2007 to allow a moderate volume mineral
extraction for shale.The disturbed area is less than one acre.During the appeal case,Mr.Hurd stated
that the extraction yield is not really shale,but is more like fill dirt.A memo dated July 12,2007 from the
MOE's Minerals,Oil and Gas Division stated they have all the required information from Mr.Hurd and are
waiting on site plan approvai to issue a permit.All agency approvals have been received.The 1M -
Industrial Mineral section of the Zoning Ordinance was used by Staff when reviewing the stte plan.A
minimum 8-foot high fence is required;however,Mr.Hurd is requesting a waiver from this requirement.
Photographs were provided by Mr.Adam Hager of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant.Ms.
Wagner-Grillo presented a list of conditions recommended by Mr.Haberkorn,Mr.Hurd's neighbor.
Comments:Mr.Moser expressed his concern regarding the waiver of the fence due to safety issues.Mr.
Anikis shares Mr.Moser's concern.Mr.Anikis stated that the Planning Commission cannot address Mr.
Haberkorn's list of conditions unless there is a violation of the 1M zoning district requirements.
75Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked if the driveway gets watered down to reduce the amount of dust.Mr.Hurdstatedthathedoeswaterdownthedriveway,as necessary.Mr.Anikis asked if the County would beliableifanaccidentoccurredbecausethePlanningCommissionwaivedthefencerequirement.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated she made an inquiry to the County Attorney's office regarding this issue and shewastoldtheCounty could not be held liable.There was a discussion regarding the depth of theexcavatedarea.Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to waive the fence requirement if a 4:1 slope is maintainedaspresentedonthesiteplan.Discussion:Members discussed the slope and how It wouid be maintained and enforcement issues.Several members expressed their concern regarding safety issues.Vote:Mr.Ecker's motion failed due to the lack of a second to the motion.Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to deny the 8-foot high fencing requirement waiver.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Discussion:Mr.Kercheval noted that required fencing around storm water management ponds is lessthan8-feet in height.Members discussed adjusting the height of the fence.Amended Motion:Ms.Parrish amended her motion to deny the 8-foot high fencing requirement and torequirea6-foot high fence.Seconded by Mr.Moser.The motion passed with Ms.Parrish,Mr.Moser,Mr.Wiley and Mr.Ecker voting "Aye"and Mr.Kercheval voting "Nay".Rehoboth United Methodist Church (SP-07-011)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for the Rehoboth United Methodist
Church.The property is located at the southeast corner of Route 68 and Downsville Pike and is zoned
A(R)-Agricultural Rural.The applicant is proposing a 44,000-square foot church and day care center on
105.04-acres.There will be 15 full-time and part-time employees.The hours of operation will be 6:30
a.m.to 10:00 p.m.daily with services being held on Sundays from 7:30 a.m.to 12:30 p.m.and
Wednesdays from 5:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m.A 300-square foot sign is proposed.Pole-mounted lighting is
proposed.An appeal was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception to establish a
day care facility in a proposed church.Landscaping will be provided around the drop-off area.Private
water and pUblic sewer by the Washington County Department of Water Quality would serve the site.
Parking required is 120 spaces and parking provided will be 263 spaces.The Williamsport Fire and
Rescue Departments would serve the site.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements would be met
by a mixture of on-site retention of 1.09-acres and planting of 1.30-acres.The Church has future plans
for development of this site.Their consultant,Fox &Associates,Inc.,has calculated that they will need to
set aside 25%of the property to be forested.The Church is requesting a waiver from the entire
requirement of 23.92-acres of forest mitigation to a proposed 4.89-acres.
Comments:Mr.Moser expressed his concern regarding the waiver from the Forest Conservation
requirement because of the intense development previously proposed for the site.He also expressed
concern regarding the size of the proposed sign.Mr.Kercheval asked if the Planning Commission has
the ability to waive the Forest Conservation requirements.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated that Article 15 of the
Forest Conservation Ordinance allows a variance from the requirements.Mr.Anikis stated he could not
find any provisions in the Ordinance that allows the Planning Commission to grant a waiver of the
requirements.Mr.Moser recommended tabling the Forest Conservation requirement for the remainder of
the property until a pian is submitted for the proposed development of the entire site.Mr.Anikis
expressed his concern regarding the size of the proposed sign.He noted that other churches within ciose
proximity to the proposed church have much smaller,tastefully designed signs probabiy iess than 35-
square feet in size.Mr.Anikis recommended reconsideration of the size of the proposed sign.He also
recommended a site plan showing all proposed development for the site.Mr.Barnes of Fox &
Associates,Inc.,consultant,stated there is approximately only 5 to 6 acres of forest currentiy on the site.
The Church's vision was to create an open space complex for family-oriented activities.He stated that
there are wetland areas and stream buffers located on the property that would be planted for protection.
Mr.Kercheval does not believe the Forest Conservation requirement should be waived and the Church
should explore off-site retention or the payment-in-lieu options as described in the Forest Conservation
Ordinance and recommended tabling this issue.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented with the Forest
Conservation Plan for on-site retention of 1.09 acres and planting of 1.30 acres and to table the request
to waive the 23.92 acres of Forest Conservation mitigation requirements until future plans are submitted
for the remaining iands.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.
Valley Assembly of God (SP-07-033)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo (on behalf of Ms.Lisa Kelly)presented for review and approval a site plan for Valley
Assembly of God located on the north side of York Road just west of the intersection of Halfway
Boulevard.The applicant is proposing to construct an 11 ,000 square foot addition to an existing church
76 on 2.53 acres zoned RU -Residential Urban.The proposed addition would be used as a multi-purposerooin":Existing access to the Church is from York Road and no new access is planned.Public water andsewerWouldservethesite.Hours of operation will be Sunday from 9:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon and 6:00p.m.to 8:00 p.m.and Wednesdays from 7:00 p.m.to 9:00 p.m.Required parking is 80 spaces and 85spaceswouldbeprovided.Lighting would be building-mounted.There is an existing dumpster.Dailydeliveriesareproposed.Seating capacity is 400 seats.There is no new landscaping proposed.The siteisexemptfromForestConservationrequirementsbecauselessthan40,000 square feet of area would bedisturbed.Storm water management is provided by bio-retention areas and has previously beenapproved.All agencies approvals have been received.Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded byMr.Moser.Unanimously approved.Antietam Storage Solutions (SP·07-034)Mr.Thompson (on behalf of Ms.Lisa Kelly)presented for review and approval the designated "fast-track"site plan for Antietam Storage Solutions located along the eastern side of Industrial Lane,east ofGovernorLaneBoulevard.The site is 12.8-acres and is zoned PI -Planned Industrial.The site consistsofamainbuildingIncludinganofficeandwarehouse,storage for boats and RV's,document storage,aflexwarehousebuilding,and future build-out area.The applicant has been working with the County toimprovetheendofthecul-de-sac.Final approval from the addressing department and calculations forwaterandsewerallocationsfromtheHealthDepartmentarepending.All other agency approvals havebeenreceived.Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agencyapprovals.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved .•FOREST CONSERVATION
.Jon Henson (SP·OS·OS6)
Mr.Thompson (on behalf of Ms.Lisa Kelly)presented for review and approval a revised Forest
Conservation Plan for property located at 14032 Fairview Road.Mr.ThOmpson noted that the original
Forest Conservation Plan met and exceeded all the requirements of the Forest Conservation
requirements at the time it was approved.During a site visit in May 2007 by Mr.Bill Stachoviak,
Washington County Environmental Planner,It was discovered that 1.60 acres of trees planted were non-
native and were not as specified on the approved Forest Conservation Plan plant list and the .68 acres of
forest proposed for retention had been cleared.A certified letter was sent to Mr.Henson listing the
violations and specifying the corrective measures that must be taken within 30 days that included:
payment of penalty for removing trees in the amount of $8,886.00;posting of required signage;extension
of surety bond for two more years;and submittal of an amended Forest Conservation Plan showing the
existing trees planted and a list of native trees for replacement at the destroyed retention area.
Frederick,Seibert &Associates,Mr.Henson's consultant,contacted the Planning Department
immediately to resolve the issue.A revised Forest Conservation Plan showing the amended afforestation
area with the non-native trees and the proposed clearing area of .68 acres;however,no response has
been received from Mr.Henson regarding the violation letter and the terms he intends to meet.Mr.
Thompson explained that the planted trees are mature and Staff is not recommending removal of the
trees;however,Staff wants to be assured that the trees would be maintained on the site.Staff is
requesting approval of the revised Forest Conservation Plan that complies with the Ordinance,and the
fine to be assessed for non-compliance of the original approved plan.
,
Discussion:Mr.Stachoviak stated that the .68 acres of retention area shown on the original plan was
classified as Class III or low priority forest.Mr.Moser asked if the owner gave any reason why the forest
was cleared.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates stated that the cleared area was a rock
outcropping filled with trees and underbrush and the owners discovered a lot of snakes in the area and
cleared the forest for safety reasons.He also stated that the retention area was calculated using the
entire 11-acre parcel,not only the 3 acres of disturbed area.Mr.Stachoviak stated that all plantings were
done without notification to the Planning Department,as required.
Comments:Mr.Moser expressed his concern that the owner did not adhere to the approved plan and
that changes could have been made in advance.Mr.Kercheval believes that by planting more trees than
reqUired,the owner is helping the County from an environmental standpoint.Mr.Anikis expressed his
concern that the owner did not follow the approved plan.Mr.Thompson expressed his concern that the
Forest Conservation Plan was changed without Staff's knowledge and approval and believes the non-
compliance fee could be modified but should not be waived in its entirety.Mr.Anikis concurred with Mr.
Thompson's comments and shared his concern that the owner was not present at the meeting to explain
h'ts actions.Ms.Parrish noted that the owner planted more trees than required;however,there should be
a modified payment of the non-compliance fee for the violation.Mr.Wiley concurred with Ms.Parrish's
comments.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the revised Forest Conservation Plan as
submitted.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.
Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to modify the penalty from $8,886.00 to $1,000.00,to
require an extension of the surety bond for an additional two years,and posting of the required signage.
77SecondedbyMr.Moser.The motion passed with Ms.Parrish,Mr.Moser,Mr.Ecker and Mr.Wiley voting"Aye"and Mr.Kercheval voting "Nay".Proposed Text Amendments to the Forest Conservation OrdinanceMr.Stachoviak presented for review several of the proposed Text Amendments to the ForestConservationOrdinancethatwillbepresentedatpublichearingonSeptember17,2007.The firstproposedchangeistoSection3.2 (the exemption section)to be amended as foliows:The declaration ofintentfortransfertoanon-family member is extended from five years to ten years,for consistency withtheSubdivisionOrdinance.Declarations of intent for residential construction,agricultural activities,andtimberharvestingarealsoproposedforextensionfrom5yearsto10yearsforconsistency.A change inArticle3and16regardingthefeefornon-compliance is proposed.The fee has not changed since theOrdinancewasadopted14yearsago.The non-compliance fee is proposed to be changed from $.30 persquarefootto$1.00 per square foot.This is proposed to have more deterrence effect and is consistentwiththeFrederickCountyFROnon-compliance fee.Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed $1.00 per square foot fee.Mr.Thompson noted that Frederick County's Ordinance aliows a fee up to $1.00 per square foot;however,he believes that a flat rate would be more consistent and easier to enforce.Mr.Kercheval believes the$1.00 per square foot might be an excessive amount.Mr.Ecker concurred with Mr.Kercheval'scomment.By consensus,the Planning Commission requested wording in the Ordinance that allows themtomodifythefeeonacase-by-case basis.Mr.Stachoviak stated the Forest Conservation Technical Manual provides guidance and criteria for threelevelsofForestStandDelineations-Fuli,Intermediate and Simplified.The County's Ordinance does notrecognizethethreelevelsofdelineationandhascausedconflictandconfusionwhentheconsultantssubmitplans.Therefore,Staff is proposing a change to the Ordinance stating,"Intermediate delineationsareNOTrecognized"and provides specific requirements for the Fuli and Simplified delineations.Article11dealswiththepaymentinlieuofplantingandhasnotbeenchangedsincetheFCOwasadopted14
.years ago.Staff is proposing the payment-in-lieu fee to be changed from $.10 per square foot to $.30 per
square foot to increase money in the Forest Conservation Fund.
Discussion:Mr.Kercheval requested a cost breakdown to determine the money that has been
coliected,the cost for planting,how much is being spent per square foot,etc.He expressed his concern
that most of the payment-in-lieu funds are received from commercial development and this would add to
the cost for economic development in the County.Mr.Thompson stated that Mr.Weibley of the Soil
Conservation District expressed his concern that the County does not have the funds to purchase
easements.Mr.Stachoviak also noted that maintenance of the easements increases the cost.
To help streamline administration,Article 11 is also proposed to be changed so that after a certain period,
unused Forest Conservation Funds are no longer required to be returned.The surety article is proposed
to be amended by requiring a 15%contingency be added to the surety amount to encourage quality
planting and improved maintenance during the 2-year period.Ali of the changes have been reviewed by
the DNR Regional and State Forest Conservation Program Coordinators and they have found ali
proposed changes to be acceptable.Mr.Thompson noted that ali the proposed changes have been sent
to consultants and the County Attorney's Office for their review and comments.
UGA Advisory Committee
Mr.Thompson announced that the UGA Advisory Committee met for the first time on August 26,2007.
Subcommittees are being formed for the foliowing areas:Housing,TDR's and Incentives.Two public
information meetings have been scheduied on August 16,2007,7:00 p.m.at the Hagerstown Community
Co liege and on August 28,2007,7:00 p.m.at the Wiliiamsport High School.Discussions would focus on
zoning issues.The next meeting of the UGA Advisory Committee is scheduled for Thursday,August 9,
2007 at 9:00 a.m..Meeting minutes wili be forwarded to the Planning Commission as they become
available.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Regular Planning Commission meeting,Monday,September 10,2007,7:00 p.m.,
Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1
2.Joint Rezoning Hearing,Monday,September 17,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court
House,Room 1,95 W.Washington Street
ADJOURNMENT
Ms.Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.
Respectfuliy submitted,
/}iLL-U&!1AL ~
Geofge An-tkis,Chairman
78 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-SEPTEMBER 10,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingonMonday,September 10,2007,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anlkis,Linda Parrish,Bernard Moser,Terry Reiber,ClintWileyandEx-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners Misty Wagner-Grillo and Lisa A.Kelly,Planner Sara Edelman,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.Mr.Thompson announced the following change to the Agenda.A third annexation request from the TownofSmithsburghasbeenaddedtothisevening's Agenda.MINUTESMr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6,2007 Regular Planning Commissionmeetingaspresented.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Mr.Reiber abstained.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS-VARIANCESJamesEdward Artz,Lot 4 (S-07-071)
.Ms.Edelman presented for review and approval a variance from the 50-foot Agricultural Land use
setback for property located along the east side of Bakersville Road.Section 5A.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires a 50-foot agricultural land use setback from adjacent parcels;however,the Planning
Commission may modify the requirement at the applicant's request.The 50-foot agricultural use setback
waiver would pertain to the southern side yard lot line beside the existing gravel lane.The applicant is
requesting that the 50-foot setback be waived in favor of the customary 15-foot side yard setback.Staff
has no objection to the request.
Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked the width of the existing farm lane.Mr.Artz's son was present at the
meeting and stated that the farm lane is approximately 12 to 15 feet in width.Mr.Anikis asked what the
owner plans for the remaining lands.Mr.Artz stated there are no plans to develop the property.The
reason for the request is to eliminate "dead space"between property lines.Mr.Kercheval asked if a 25-
foot setback would allow sufficient space for the proposed house.After reviewing the plans,he believes
that a 25-foot setback would allow for an adequate buffer and would provide adequate space even for a
large house on the property.Mr.Artz stated they would be agreeable to the 25-foot setback If the house
can stili be situated on the lot.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to reduce the required 50-foot agricultural land use
setback to a 25-foot side yard setback on the south side of the lot.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.
Unanimously approved.
William Reams (S-05-107)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance from the 2-year plat recordation
requirement of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance.In October 2005,the Planning
Department approved a preliminary/final plat for William Reams for property located along Geeting Road
in Keedysville.In a ietter from Fox &Associates,Inc.,Mr.Reams'consultant,the plat was not recorded
because the owner had issues with a pending sale and did not want to change the tax structures on the
previously approved Lot 1.He continues to work with a potential buyer and is requesting a one year
extension to record the approved plat.Staff recommends approval of the one year plat recordation
extension.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the one-year plat recordation extension.
Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.
Patty Blair (SV-07-022)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.G of the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow 6 panhandles within an original parcel and 3 panhandles greater than
400-feet in length.The property is located along the east side of Big Pool Road (Maryland Route 56)at
the intersection of Gehr Road and is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.Proposed Lot 1 would
contain a panhandle 430-feet in length;proposed Lot 2 would contain a panhandle 490-feet in length;
proposed Lot 6 would contain a panhandle 440-feet in length;and the remainder would contain a
panhandle 425-feet in length.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding parking and spillover onto Big Pool Road.He
also asked how many participants would be using the proposed paintball fields at one time.Ms.Blair
stated if the panhandle variance is granted,parking would be allowed along the panhandle for the 50+acres and a parking lot between the paint ball fields and the panhandle is proposed.Ms.Wagner-Grillostatedthatasiteplanwouidberequiredshowingtheproposedparking.Ms.Parrish asked if there is anyconcernregardingthepaintenteringthewaterresources.Ms.Blair stated that several studies have beendoneandfoundthatthepaintisbiodegradableandenvironmentallysafe.The ponds would be netted tokeeppaintballsfromenteringthepondsandspecificsiteswouldbeestablishedforpaintballusage.Mr.Moser asked for Staff opinions.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated there are several issues that would need to beaddressedpriortosubmittalofthesiteplan;however,Staff would recommend approval of the variancesrequested.Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the variance for the 6 panhandles within theoriginalparcelandtoapprovethepanhandlesgreaterthan400-feet in length.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.The motion passed with Mr.Kercheval,Mr.Reiber,Mr.Wiley and Ms.Parrish voting "Aye"and Mr.Moservoting"Nay".Clarification:Mr.Reiber asked if the Planning Commission would receive further reports on this project.Mr.Wagner-Grillo stated that Staff would approve the subdivision plat;however,the site plan would bepresentedtothePlanningCommissionforapproval.-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONSPattyBlair(PC-07-004)Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for Patty Blair forpropertylocatedalongtheeastsideofBigPoolRoad(Maryland Route 56)at the intersection of GehrRoad.A large portion of the property is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation and a 3.12-acre portionzonedRB-E -Rural Business Existing.The owner is proposing to subdivide 5 residential lots and 1existingbusinesslotthatpreviouslycontainedatree-farm business in the existing house.The owner isproposingpaintballandairballfieldsthatwouldbeoperatedontheexistingRB-E parcel and theremaininglandswhicharezonedEC.A recreation facility is not a permitted use in the EC district;
.therefore a special exception would be required from the Board of Zoning Appeals.Two concept plans
were presented at the preliminary consultation.The first plan proposed a cul-de-sac to serve Lots 5,6,
the business and the remaining lands.The second plan proposed a multiple panhandle configuration.
Following the consultation,Ms.Blair chose the panhandle concept due to financial reasons and no
agencies had any objections to the panhandle configuration.Representatives from the Washington
County Health Department,Engineering Department and Permits and Inspections Department were
present at the consultation and presented their comments.The State Highway Administration presented
verbal comments to the Planning Department staff prior to the consultation.
Comment:Mr.Kercheval stated that parking issues need to be addressed and buffering between the
residential and commercial areas (paint ball fields)is recommended.
-SITE PLANS
Homewood at Williamsport (SP-07-036)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Homewood at Williamsport located
along the southwest corner of US Route 11 and Governor Lane Boulevard.The developer is proposing
to demolish the existing 65,616 square foot administration building and existing nursing home and
construct a new 71,957 square-foot nursing home building.The existing facility contains 126 independent
living cottages,109 assisted/independent living apartments and 123 nursing home beds.The existing
building containing 123 nursing home beds is proposed for demolition.The new proposed building would
contain 80 nursing home beds.The City of Hagerstown will provide water service and the Washington
County Department of Water Quality will provide sewer service.An existing storm water management
pond would serve the facility.An on-site dumpster and compacter will provide solid waste disposal.The
Halfway Fire Department and Williamsport Ambulance would serve the facility.Parking spaces required
is 478 spaces and 486 spaces would be provided.The existing sign will be relocated and lighting will be
pole and building-mounted.A mixture of landscaping is proposed along US Route 11,the parking areas
and along the new nursing home building.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements would be met
using the "express procedure".Payment in the amount of $4,094.60 would be deposited in the
Washington County Forest Conservation Fund.All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Ms.
Parrish.Unanimously approved.
Golden Corral (SP-07-030)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Golden Corral restaurant located on an
out-parcel at the Valley Mall on the north side of Cole Road.The parcel is zoned PB -Planned Business.
The developer is proposing to construct an 11,600-square foot restaurant on 2.26 acre out-parcel.
Access to the site would be by two interior travel lanes within the Valley Mall complex.There will be a
lease agreement between the Valley Mall and the developer.The site will be served by water from the
City of Hagerstown and sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality.The hours of
operation will be 11:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.Monday through Friday and 7:30 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.Saturday
and Sunday.The average daily customer rate is estimated to be approximately 1 ,000 customers per day.
Parking required is 100 spaces and 170 spaces are provided.Parking for the restaurant will not affect
parking spaces required for the Valley Mail.Lighting will be provided by 33-foot poie mounted lights
throughout the parking area and small building mounted lights will also be used.There will be two
79
80 building mounted signs along the front of the restaurant and a free-standing sign will be located at theeastern-most entrance off of Cole Road.An enclosed dumpster will be provided for solid waste disposallocatedadjacenttothebUilding.Freight and delivery will be one tractor-trailer three times per weekduringthea.m.hours.A loading and unloading area will be provided adjacent to the dumpster.Landscaping will be provided along the perimeter of the building and parking area.The PlanningCommissionapprovedthepayment-in-lieu for this site in July 1998 in order to meet the ForestConservationrequirements.In 1998,the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance on all parkingspacesfortheValleyMallfromtherequired20-foot width to an 18-foot width and access aisles from 25-feet to 24-feet.In 1999,the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the required 20-footsetbackrequirementfromapublicstreetright-of-way to off-street parking areas in the Planned Businessdistrict.Approvals are pending from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the WashingtonCountyHealthDepartment.All other agency approvals have been received.Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding the amount of traffic being generated byadditionalbusinessesintheValleyMallarea.Mr.Kercheval explained that an agreement was made withtheValleyMalldevelopermanyyearsagoregardingfutureroadimprovementsthatmightbeneededandaspecifiedamountofmoneywasgiventotheCountyfortheseimprovements.The agreement alsoincludedtheundevelopedout-parcels.Mr.Lung stated that an overall concept plan has been developedthatshowstheout-parcels and was modified when Hekbel developed the Target complex.The TargetcomplexpredicatedtherebuildingofColeRoadandthefundingfortheMasseyBoulevard improvements.Mr.Kercheval stated that a traffic study was done for this area and it showed that the roads in the areacouldhandlethetraffic.Mr.Anikis recommended a crosswalk between the Country Inn and the restaurant.Mr.Reichenbaugh,ofAssociatedEngineeringSciences,the developer's consultant,stated they would review the plan and trytoincorporateasidewalkandcrosswalk.He also stated that the City of Hagerstown Water Departmenthasapprovedthepre-annexation agreement for the restaurant.Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan with the addition of the sidewalk
'and crosswalk for pedestrian traffic.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Town of Smithsburg Annexation -Smith property
Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the Town of
Smithsburg for the John Smith property (2.38 acres)located along the east side of Stevenson Road.The
property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and the applicant proposes to subdivide the
property into two sing ie-family lots.The applicant is requesting SR (Suburban Residential)zoning upon
annexation under the Town of Smithsburg Zoning Ordinance which allows for single-family dwellings with
a minimum iot size of 15,000-square feet.The property is currently zoned RR (Rural Residential)under
the WaShington County Zoning Ordinance which allows for duplexes and semi-detached units and a
minimum lot size of 20,000-square feet.Staff believes the requested zoning to be consistent with the
eXisting County zoning and "express approval"is not necessary.Mr.Thompson requested concurrence
of the Planning Commission and a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the
request is consistent with the County zoning.Planning Commission members concurred with Staff's
recommendation and findings.
Town of Smithsburg Annexation -Cloverly property
Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the Town of
Smithsburg for the Cloverly property (62.27 acres)located aiong the east side of Maryland Route 64,
north of Maryland Route 77.The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling along with
a barn and outbuildings and the appiicant proposes to subdivide the property in accordance with the
designated Town zoning upon annexation.The proposed annexation provides right-of-way to extend the
road from the Town to the SUbject site.In 2005,the property was the subject of a series of requests
including a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation,a request to change the zoning of the
property,and an amendment to the Water and Sewer Master Plan to provide service to the site to be
developed as a residential community.These requests were made after an annexation agreement with
the Town of Smithsburg could not be reached.The Town of Smithsburg was opposed to these requests
due to several unresolved issues between the Town and the developer including an annexation
agreement.The applicant withdrew their requests prior to the Board of County Commissioners taking any
action.The Town and the developer have agreed to an annexation agreement.
With the passage of House Biil 1141 in 2006,the standard for annexation review has changed.The
emphasis for review has shifted from the Comprehensive Pian to the zoning of the property as follows:
"no municipality annexing land may for a period of five years following an annexation permit development
of annexed land for land uses substantially different than the use authorized,or at a substantially higher,
not to exceed 50%density than could be granted for the proposed development,in accordance with the
zoning classification of the county applicable at the time of the annexation without the express approval of
the Board of County Commissioners or county council of the county in which the municipality is located."
It is Staff's position that the proposed deveiopment of the property would exceed the 50%density
increase since the majority of property is currently zoned EC -Environmental Conservation and A(R}-
Agricultural Rural under the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.The applicant is requesting TR
(Town Residential)zoning upon annexation under the Town of Smithsburg Zoning Ordinance.The
applicant is proposing 70+units in this deveiopment,which equates to less than one acre per unit.It is
Staff's opinion that the request is not consistent with the Washington County Comprehensive Plan orzoningclassifications.Mr.Thompson stated that a recommendation of deniai would not preclude theannexationoftheproperty;however,it would preclude the property from being deveioped at a densityotherwhatisallowedundertheCounty's zoning for a period of five years.It is Staff's opinion that theBoardofCountyCommissionersmustgrant"express approval"for the development to move forward atthistime.Discussion:Mr.Kercheval clarified that the Town of Smithsburg,in 2005,did not want this property tobedevelopedwithoutanannexationagreement.At that time,the BOCC's approach was to support theTown's position.Mr.Moser questioned the annexation of the State road to make the parcel contiguous totheTown.Mr.Anikis questioned the statement in the "Annexation Plan of the Town of Smithsburg"thatstates,"Both the Washington County,Maryland and the Town's Comprehensive Plans place the landproposedtobeannexedintheTown's growth area;both of said jurisdictions also place the landproposedto be annexed in low density residential development in their respective zoning ordinances."He noted that the County's Plan designates part of the property as Environmental Conservation whichpermitsadensityof1:20;therefore,this statement is clearly wrong.Mr.Thompson believes thisstatementmaybeduetoadifferencebetweentheCounty's Comprehensive Plan and the Town'sComprehensivePian.Mr.Anikis also questioned the statement,"The subject annexation propertyalreadyfrontsontwopublicroads";however,he ask if the property does front on Maryland Route 64.Mr.Thompson believes the property fronts the State right-of-way along Maryland Route 64.He stated therehavebeendiscussionswiththeStateHighwayAdministrationtogainaccesstothatroad.Mr.Lungstatedthatthepreviousowner's of the property had sold access rights to the State HighwayAdministration.There is an existing residential access that has not been approved as a public street.Mr.Thompson stated that a public hearing is scheduled for September 26 th ;however,the Town Council andBoardofCountyCommissionersaremeetingonSeptember25thtodiscusstheproposedannexations.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding sewer issues in the Town.Mr.Moser questioned theState's position on the annexation request.Mr.Thompson stated he has not received any commentsfromtheState.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that it is difficult to make a recommendation without atrueunderstandingofwhattheTownofSmithsburgwantsforitscommunity.Mr.Anikis stated his opinion
that the request has not been thought through clearly.There was a brief discussion regarding the State's
authority for annexation requests.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners
"express approval"for the annexation of the Cloverly property into the Town of Smithsburg.
Amended Motion:Mr.Reiber amended his motion as follows:The annexation request is not consistent
with the County's Comprehensive Plan and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
"express approval"for the annexation of the Cloverly property into the Town of Smithsburg per their
request.
Comment:Mr.Kercheval recommended that the motion be separated.There should be one motion for
consistency/inconsistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan and one motion to recommend that the
BOCC should or should not grant "express approval"of the request.
Due to the lack of a second,Mr.Reiber withdrew his previous amended motion.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that
the request is not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.
Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval abstained.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that
they grant "express approval"of the request based on the Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion failed with Mr.Reiber and Ms.Parrish voting "Aye"and Mr.Moser,
Mr.Wiley and Mr.Anikis voting "Nay".Mr.Kercheval abstained.
Comments:Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that there is a lack of information regarding the request
and there are too many inaccuracies in the information that was provided.Ms.Parrish concurred with Mr.
Anikis'comments and believes that the Town should have proceeded with the public hearing in order to
obtain additional information prior to submitting the request.Mr.Reiber believes that this Is what the
Town wants and they will need to deal with any consequences of the annexation.Mr.Kercheval
recommended tabling the request until further information can be obtained.Mr.Moser expressed his
concern regarding the density proposed for the development of this property.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to recommend to the Board of the County Commissioners
that they deny "express approval"of the request.Seconded by Mr.Moser.The motion passed with Mr.
Wiley,Mr.Moser and Mr.Anikis voting "Aye"and Mr.Reiber and Ms.Parrish voting "Nay".
Town of Smithsburg Annexation
Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation a request from the Town of Smithsburg to
annex 30-acres owned by the City of Hagerstown that contains the Town's water treatment plant.Mr.
Thompson stated that a portion of the property is currently zoned Residential Rural and another portion is
zoned Conservation under the County's Zoning Ordinance and listed as Community Facilities under the
County's Comprehensive Plan.The proposed zoning from the Town's current Zoning Ordinance is
General Business.Mr.Thompson stated that based on the information provided and a review of the
81
82 proposed zoning;it is Staff's opinion that the Board of County Commissioners must grant "expressapproval"to the proposed zoning.Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked if the property has access to a public road.Mr.Thompson stated the onlyaccesstothepropertyisbyBishopLane.The property is currently used as a public utility site.Mr.Thompson expressed his concern regarding the zoning classification proposed by the Town ofSmithsburg.He would like additional time to research the request to see if the Town has a moreappropriatezoningclassificationforthepropertywithintheirZoningOrdinance.Motioncand Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to table the request to allow Staff more time to researchtheTown's Zoning Ordinance for a more appropriate zoning classification.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.UPCOMING MEETINGS1.Joint Rezoning Hearing,Monday,September 17,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County CourtHouse,Room 1,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown2.Regular Planning Commission Meeting,Monday,October 1,2007,7:00 p.m.,WashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1,HagerstownADJOURNMENTMr.Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.So ordered.Respectfully submitted,('
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-OCTOBER 1,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingonMonday,October 1,2007,intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiiey and Ex-OfficioJamesF.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Pianning Director Michael C.Thompson,ChiefPlannerTimothyA.Lung,Senior Planner Misty Wagner-Grillo and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMs.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 10,2007 Regular PlanningCommissionmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS-VARIANCESHarryandPeggy Strite (SV-07-024)Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a variance request from Section 405.11.B of the SubdivisionOrdinancetoallowanimmediatefamilymemberlotwithoutpublicroadfrontage.The SubdivisionOrdinancerequiresthatthelaneservingthelotmustbecompietelycontainedwithintheoriginaltractthatisbeingsubdivided.Mr.Strite owns approximately 190 acres of land located on Snug Harbor Lane,
which is a private road off of Kemps Mill Road.Snug Harbor Lanes serves 6 existing lots and crosses
through property owned by the Snug Harbor Campground.Mr.Strite recently placed his land in a
permanent agricultural preservation easement and all development rights will be sold.Within the
agreement,one acre of land was retained for the purpose of creating a iot for an immediate family
member.Mr.Lung contacted the Williamsport Fire Department.They are familiar with the lane and have
no objection to the variance.Mr.Lung also contacted Mr.Terry McGee of the Washington County
Engineering Department.Mr.McGee is opposed to the variance due to the many problems that often
arise with lots that are created off of private lanes and involves going through other people's property.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked who is responsible for maintaining the farm lane.Mr.Strite was present
and stated that the Campground maintains the lane in the summer months and he takes care of it in the
winter months (snow removal).There was a brief discussion with regard to ownership of the six lots.A
portion of the road is owned by Mr.Strite and part is owned by the Campground.Mr.Kercheval asked
how the easement would work on the property that is not owned by Mr.Strite.Mr.Strite stated that the
lane was established by deed in the 1800's as a permanent right-of-way to the farm and the State has
researched this issue and determined that the right-of-way is permanent.He stated that the Campground
has no objection to the subdivision.Mr.Kercheval asked if a letter could be obtained from the
Campground stating they have no objection to the permanent right-of-way.Mr.Lung suggested
contacting the County Attorney's Office to determine if specific language needs to be written into the right-
of-way description stating that the right-of-way is non-exclusive.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to authorize Staff to approve the variance following a
consultation with the County Attorney regarding the language in the deeds covering the right-of-way and
contacting the Snug Harbor Campground to confirm that they have no objections to the subdivision.
Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.
-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS
Mackwest Commercial (PC-07-00S)
Mr.Lung presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation for Mackwest Commercial
located at the southeast corner of Mt.Aetna Road and U.S.Route 40.The developer is proposing a
4,227 square foot restaurant with drive-thru on 1.51 acres.The property is zoned BL -Business Local.
The main points of the consultation focused on the developer's involvement with regard to the County's
current plans for improvements at Mt.Aetna Road and US Route 40.The possible future plans for the
City of Hagerstown with regard to Paul Smith Boulevard were also discussed.A City representative was
not present at the consultation;however,comments were received from the City after the consultation.
Staff made several recommendations with regard to the design of the site and a revised concept plan was
submitted to address some of the recommendations and comments.At the time the property was
rezoned,the applicant's attorney stated that the site was unsuitable for a fast food restaurant with a drive-
thru.The rezoning was approved for a BL -Business Local designation.A property cannot be approved
for rezoning with conditions restricting certain uses;therefore,any uses allowed in the zoning designation
can be placed on the property if all requirements are met.The BOCC did place a condition on the
rezoning that the Planning Commission should carefully consider the buffering between this property and
the adjoining residential properties.
83
84 During the preliminary consultation,the initial concept pian did not show any buffering.Staffrecommendedthattheconceptplanberevisedtoshowtheproposedbufferingbetweenthispropertyandtheadjoining residential property for the Planning Commission's review.The developer is proposing a15-foot buffer between the edge of the parking lot and the property line using a 6-foot high white vinylfencewithadoublerowofarborvitaeplanted15-feet on center with a mature height of 6-feet.Mr.LungcomparedthispropertywithanHI-1 zoning designated property adjoining a residential use.He statedthata25-foot wide buffer between the edge of the parking lot and the property line would be required withtheoptiontorequireafenceorvegetativescreeningorboth.The vegetated screening must be 6-feethighatthetimeofplantingwithaminimumcaliberof2-inches.Mr.Lung stated that the proposedscreeningdoesnotmeetthelevelrequiredinanHI-1 zoning designation.A larger area would allowsufficientroomforlargerdiametertrees.During the preliminary consultation,Mr.Lung expressed his concern for the proposed dumpster locationincloseproximitytotheadjoining residential property.He noted that the loop road for the drive-thru goescompletelyaroundtherestaurant;therefore,pedestrians cannot enter the restaurant without crossing thelooproad.A proposed crosswalk is shown on the concept plan;however,handicap accessibility andpedestriansafetyisamajorconcern.The initial concept plan proposed several separate islandsthroughouttheparkinglot.Staff expressed their concern that traffic could enter from US Route 40 andtakeashortcutmakingaleftintoaparkingspaceinsteadofdrivingaroundtheparkinglot.Staffrecommendedthattheislandsshouldbeconnected;however,Mr.Lung is still uncertain about someonetryingtogoagainsttraffictoquicklyreachaparkingspace.Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that both a vinyl fence and vegetation should be requiredforbuffering.He also suggested a 20-foot buffer area instead of a 15-foot buffer area.Mr.GordonPoffenbergerofFox&Associates,Inc.,consultant,stated that increasing the buffer would possiblyeliminatetwoparkingspaces.Mr.Lung stated that 35 parking spaces are required and 55 spaces arebeingprovided.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that the HI-1 zoning designation buffering requirements should be
.followed for this site.He also believes the proposed dumpster location should be moved.Mr.Kercheval
also asked why trees are not proposed along the other residential property line toward the front of the
site.Mr.Lung stated that the storm water management pond will be located in that area and the
Engineering Department does not approve of trees planted along the top of the berm of the storm water
management pond.He noted that the residential property in question sits lower than the restaurant and
there is a retaining wall proposed that should buffer this property.
Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that the access to the restaurant on Mt.Aetna Road,which is proposed
to become a four-lane road,shouid be right in and right out.He also believes that the drive-thru designed
to go around the entire restaurant is unacceptable especially without a crosswalk to ensure pedestrian
safety.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that the dumpster should be relocated away from the adjoining
residential property.He recommends an 8-foot vinyl fence with more plantings and that the HI-1 zoning
designation buffering requirements should be followed.Mr.Anikis expressed concern with regard to glare
from lights onto the residential properties.
Mr.Kercheval stated that he has spoken to Mr.Doug Wright with the City of Hagerstown's Planning
Commission,and Mr.Rodney Tissue,City of Hagerstown Engineering Department,with regard to Paul
Smith Boulevard.He stated that the City expressed concern for right-of-way limitations and
recommended that the site should be designed to allow for the possible future construction of Paul Smith
Boulevard.Mr.Thompson noted that the City does not have any alignment studies for that project.He
stated that the Paul Smith Boulevard project is not currently shown on the County's master plan.When a
zoning certificate application is received for building purposes and the street is shown on the County's
adopted Plan,the County,by Ordinance,has 45 days to have the alignment set and 60 days to negotiate
the purchase of the property.Mr.Kercheval suggested that the re-alignment issue should be referred to
the Department of Public Works.Mr.Thompson stated that he would be meeting with the City later this
week and this issue is one of the items to be discussed at that meeting.
Mr.Poffenberger believes that the HI-1 buffering requirements are too harsh for such a small parcel of
land.He also stated that the Engineering Department was not concerned with the full movement access
off of Mt.Aetna Road,which Mr.Anikis beiieves should be a right in and right out access only.
Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding signage for the property.Mr.Lung stated that the Zoning Ordinance
wouid allow 2 freestanding signs for this site because it has two road frontages.
George Callas,Lots 6·11 (PC-07-006)
Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation for George and
Tamara Callas for property located along the east side of Bakersville Road.The developer is proposing
to subdivide Lots 6-11 on 14.14-acres of land that is currently zoned P -Preservation.Lots 1-5 were
approved in January 2005.There is an historic dwelling located on the remaining lands that is identified
on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory and is proposed for retention.The Washington
County Engineering Department stated that Fairplay Road is inadequate for this development and must
be widened to 16-feet for its entire length.Additionally,sight distance work sheets for all driveway
connections,current traffic counts and storm water management will be required.The Washington
County Health Department stated that perc tests will be required.
Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked what mechanism the County has to assure that the historic house isretainedsincethedeveloperisusingittoreceiveanextraexemptionlot.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated thatthedevelopermustapplyforthehistoricoverlayzoningdesignation.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern for the stone dwelling also located on the property that is not listed ontheInventory.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,stated he does not know theintentionsofthedeveloperwithregardtothatstructure.Mr.Anikis recommended that the Historic DistrictCommissionshouldvisitthestructure,document and photograph it for the historic register.Mr.AnikisalsoexpressedconcernfortheretentionofthestonewallontheeastsideofFairplayRoad.Mr.Schreiber stated that proposed Lots 6,7 and 8 would be conveyed to family members and wouid beaccessedfromonecommondrive.Therefore,the road is adequate in front of these lots.In front of Lot 9istheonlyportionoftheroadthatwouldneedtobewidened.Mr.Schreiber believes there isapproximately2-feet from the usable portion of the road to the stonewall and believes that the stonewallcouldberetained.-SITE PLANSRiteAid(SP-07-031)Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for Rite Aid Corporation located onPennsylvaniaAvenue.The land use is commercial and the property is zoned BG -Business General.The developer is proposing to demolish the existing Playland bUilding and construct a 14,564-square footRiteAidpharmacybuildingon3.46-acres.Two entrances will serve the site,one off of PennsylvaniaAvenueandoneoffofMaugansAvenue.The hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday,8:00a.m.to 10:00 p.m.and Sunday,8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.Freight and delivery will be one tractor-trailer perweek.Landscaping using Leyland Cypress trees wili provide a buffer at the west edge of site adjoiningtheexistingresidentialproperty.Landscaping will also be provided in the parking islands.Storm watermanagementwilibethroughrun-off,which will go to an existing system behind the North VillageShoppingCenter.A dumpster and private hauler will handle solid waste disposal.Parking required is 29spacesand72spaceswilibeprovided.The City of Hagerstown wili provide water service and the
.Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide sewer service.Two freestanding signs are
proposed,one on Pennsylvania Avenue and one on Maugans Avenue.Lighting will be pole and building
mounted.Maugansville Fire and Ambulance Company will provide fire and ambulance services.The site
qualifies for the use of the "express procedure"to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.
The developer has made the payment-in-Iieu in the amount of $2,265.00.All agencies approvals have
been received.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked if the sidewalk could be continued along Pennsylvania Avenue to the
corner of Maugans Avenue.A representative from Associated Engineering Sciences,the consultant,
stated that the proposed sidewalk would continue but is not shown on the plan.Mr.Anikis asked if the
proposed buffer along the northwest side of the property is adequate to screen the adjoining residential
properties.The developer's representative stated they would plant additional Leyland Cypress at the
corner by the dumpster and along the traffic island.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern for traffic crossing
several lanes when entering and exiting onto Maugans Avenue and asked if the Washington County
Engineering Department had approved this access.The developer's representative stated that they have
collaborated extensively with the County to coordinate this project wtth the County's Capitai Improvement
Project as well as with the State Highway Administration.The developer has been required to construct
an accel/decel lane and to provide the entrance onto Maugans Avenue,which will be aligned with Sprigs
Avenue.
Mr.Kercheval concurred that additional screening along the northwest side of the property is needed and
the sidewalk should be continued along Pennsylvania Avenue to the corner of Maugans Avenue.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan with the following changes:to
increase the screening along the west side of the property adjoining the Kauffman and Bowers properties
with special attention to the corner where the proposed dumpster wili be located and the extension of the
sidewalk by the developer along Pennsylvania Avenue to the corner of Maugans Avenue.Seconded by
Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.
Maugansville Elementary School (SP-05·006)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the revised site plan for the Maugansville Elementary School.
The original site plan was approved in January 2006 with a service road off of Maugans Avenue to the
back of the school building.The Board of Education needed to acquire additional land for the access
road from an adjoining property owner.Negotiations between the Board of Education and the property
owner were unsuccessful;therefore,revisions to the site plan were needed to eliminate the access and to
provide service access from the main entrance to the school.There is an existing right-of-way that wili
provide emergency access to the back of the school bUilding;however,it is not wide enough to be built to
the necessary standards to be used on a daily basis.All agency approvals have been received.
Discussion:There was a brief discussion with regard to the importance and necessity of the second
access.Mr.Lung stated that it would be ideal to have the second access;however,it appears that the
site can function without it.Deliveries may be scheduled at a time when buses are not picking up or
dropping off students.
85
86 Mr.Steve Cvijanovich of Davis,Renn &Associates,consultants,gave a brief summary of the negotiationsbetweentheSoardofEducationandtheadjoiningpropertyownersfortheadditionallandthatwasneededforthesecondaccessroadandwhynegotiationswereunsuccessful.Mr.Cvijanovich also notedthattheright-ol-way relerenced by Mr.Lung is an existing panhandle that is 17.85-leet wide at itsnarrowestpointthatgoestoMaugansAvenue.The panhandle can be used for emergency access to thebackoftheschoolbUilding.Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the revised site plan as presented.SecondedbyMr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved.OTHER BUSINESSRZ-07-006 -Text AmendmentMr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Text Amendment to Articie 27 of theWashingtonCountyZoningOrdinance.The text amendment deals with requirements for the submissionofrezoningcasesanddocumentationthatshouldbeprovidedbytheapplicant.Mr.Thompson alsodiscussedaproposedchangetotheproceduresforarezoningcase.He noted that the procedureswouldfollowtheprocessassetforthintheStateofMaryland's Articie 66S.The rezoning process wouldbeasfollows:the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing for public comment,arecommendationwouldbemadebythePlanningCommissiontotheSoardofCountyCommissioners,the recommendation would be accompanied by the Staff's report and supplemental material receivedduringthePlanningCommission's pubiic hearing,(the public comment period would remain open fromthetimetheapplicationissubmitteduntiltheendoftheSOCC's public hearing).Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that the proposed process would take longer.Mr.Thompson stated it would take approximately 4 to 6 months to complete the rezoning process.Ms.Parrish stated that her perception is that the public prefers to voice their concerns and arguments totheSOCCbecausetheybelievethattheCountyCommissionersdonotaiwaysgobythePlanning's
.Commission's recommendations.Ms.Parrish asked why the comment period couldn't be left open after
the public hearing for public comment.Mr.Anikis explained that information needs to be heard by both
the applicant or his representative and the public and the applicant and/or his attorney would not have the
opportunity for rebuttal.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that the Planning Commission would not
receive all pertinent information or would receive different information than the SOCC if the public
comment period were left open.Therefore, the Planning Commission's recommendation would be based
on oniy the information available to them at the time of their public hearing.
Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission's recommendations are taken very
seriously by the SOCC.However,the Planning Commission only views the rezoning cases based on a
planning perspective;whereas,the SOCC needs to consider the economic impact,logistics,etc.of each
case and how it would affect the entire county.He asked if the Planning Commission's recommendation
could be made after the SOCC's public hearing.Mr.Anikis stated that in order for the recommendation to
be made following the SOCC's public hearing,the Planning Commission would need to attend the
SOCC's public hearing.Mr.Kercheval recommended that two joint meetings should be held,one to
present the appiication and one to present public comment.
Mr.Wiiey expressed his opinion that if the Pianning Commission makes their recommendation prior to the
close of the public comment period,there is no real purpose in the Planning Commission making a
recommendation because they do not have all the pertinent facts and information.He recommended that
the public comment period could be left open for 10 days following the public hearing and the public
would have access to those comments.Mr.Kercheval stated that any public comment submitted
following the public hearing does not allow the person making the comment to be sworn in and could be
challenged in court.Mr.Wiley suggested that an affidavit should accompany the submittals.
Mr.Anikis stated that the proposed process would increase the applicant's legal costs as well as the
public's costs,would prolong the process time period,and wouid increase Staff's workload.
Mr.Thompson recommended that the Planning Commission continue their discussion regarding the
rezoning process at a Workshop meeting later in October.Mr.Reiber requested that the Planning
Commission's comments should be sent to the SOCC.
Town of Smithsburg Annexations
Mr.Thompson reported that the Smith Annexation for the Town of Smithsburg,which was presented
during the September Planning Commission meeting,was approved by the SOCC.A decision regarding
the Cloverly Annexation for the Town of Smithsburg,which was also presented at the September
meeting,is pending.
Mr.Thompson also reported that a public hearing will be held for a 30-acre parcel of iand owned by the
City of Hagerstown where the water reservoir for the Town of Smithsburg is located that is being
proposed for annexation into the Town of Smithsburg.He stated that he does not object to the
annexation;however,he is concerned about the proposed zoning for the property.The resolution for the
annexation is proposing a zoning designation of General Susiness.This type of use Is a special
exception in every zoning category for the Town.Mr.Thompson believes the Town should adopt an
institutional or community facility zoning classification for this property.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners togrant"express approval"with the condition that the Town adopts an institutional or community facilitieszoningdesignationforthisproperty.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kerchevalabstained.Proposed Green FundMr.Thompson reported that the State of Maryland is proposing new iegislation for a Green Fund,thatwouldchargeanannualfeetoeverypropertyinWashingtonCounty.He explained that a rate of $.01 persquarefootisproposedfortheenclosedportionofthehouseandthefirst1,000 square feet of residentialpropertyisexempt.The proposed fund would be divided with 50%going to MDE to be distributed to localgovernmentsformatchingfundsforjurisdictionswithstormwaterutilities,storm water managementprojects,local tree,buffer and stream restoration projects,and technical assistance;10%would go toDNRand40%would go to the Maryland Department of Agriculture for stream buffers,covered crops,wetlands,restoration,and technical assistance to the farming community for reducing farm nitrogen andphosphorous.UPCOMING MEETINGS1.Regular Planning Commission Meeting,Monday,November 5,2007,7:00 p.m.,WashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1,Hagerstown2.Joint Public Hearing,Monday,November 26,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court House,Room 1,95 W.Washington Street,HagerstownADJOURNMENTMr.Kercheval made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.So ordered.Respectfully submitted,
i~U'
Geo ge Anikis,Chairman
87
88 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONWORKSHOPMEETING-October 15,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionandPlanningStaffheldaworkshop meeting on Monday,October 15,2007 at 1:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,Conference Room #1,80WestBaltimoreStreet,Hagerstown,Maryland.Planning Commission members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Bernard Moser,Linda Parrish,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio,James F.Kercheval.Staff members present from the Planning Departmentwere:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker,Planner Chris Cochrane,and Administrative Assistant Debra S.Eckard.StaffmemberspresentfromtheCountyAttorney's Office were:Kirk Downey,John Martirano and AndrewWilkinson.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.DISCUSSION-Proposed Changes to the Rezoning ProceduresMr.Anikis began a discussion regarding the proposed changes to the rezoning procedures that would betheresultofaproposedTextAmendmenttoArticle27oftheWashingtonCountyZoningOrdinance.TheTextAmendmentwasheardduringajointpublichearingwiththeBoardofCountyCommissionersonSeptember17,2007 and discussed by Planning Commission members during their regular meeting heldonOctober1,2007.The proposed rezoning process would be as follows:the Planning Commissionwouldholdapublichearingforpubliccomment,a recommendation would be made by the PlanningCommissiontotheBOCC,the recommendation would be accompanied by the Stafl's report and
.supplemental material received during the Planning Commission's public hearing,(the public comment
period would remain open from the time the application is submitted until the end of the BOCC's public
hearing).
Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion with regard to the following issues:the proposed changes would
increase the workload on Staff,it is inconvenient for the public to attend two public hearings,it would cost
the public more money if they choose to be represented by an attorney,and it would increase the
developer's attorney fees.He does not believe that the proposed changes would solve the problem of
citizen stating their complaints with the County Commissioners after the record if closed.Mr.Kirk
Downey stated that it might not deter citizens from making comments during a BOCC meeting;however,
he believes that the time between public hearings and the County Commissioners making their decision
would be decreased significantly.
Mr.Downey stated that many citizens have expressed their concern that they do not have the opportunity
to participate in the process because they do not iearn about the rezoning until the public hearing is over.
He believes the proposed changes wouid allow the public a greater opportunity to participate.Another
concern expressed by citizens Is that they do not know what use is being proposed for the property until
the public hearing.There is no opportunity for a response or a rebuttal.By holding two separate public
hearings,the public would have the opportunity to hear the developer's proposal and would be allowed
time to draft their response.
Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the proposed changes would make the process longer.He believes
there needs to be a solution with regard the those who are in opposition of a proposed rezoning to voice
their opposition;however,he Is not sure that the proposed changes are the right solution.
Mr.Downey stated that in terms of Stafl's workload,it is the intention of the proposed changes that by
requiring additional information at the time of application,it would allow Staff the ability to provide a more
thorough evaluation of the proposed request in their Staff Report.He noted that only one Staff Report
would be prepared for both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.Mr.
Downey stated that as a result of the Planning Commission's hearing,he believes that their
recommendation to the BOCC would be stronger and the comments from the Planning Commission
would provide a better understanding of concerns and issues relative to the proposed rezoning.
Ms.Parrish arrived at 1:15 p.m.
Mr.Thompson stated that the Staff Report would evaluate all the pertinent information submitted with the
application and would include Stafl's recommendation for the proposed rezoning.Another Staff Report
would not be necessary because the information would not change since all information is provided up
front.Mr.Thompson further explained that a summary of the Planning Commission hearing would not be
necessary since the BOCC would hold their own hearing.Mr.Wiley asked what would happen if
information changes between the two hearings and how would the Planning Commission's
recommendation be weighted if plans change.Mr.Thompson stated that the BOCC could ask the
Planning Commission to review the new Information or changes and reconsider their previous
recommendation.
Mr.Moser expressed his concern regarding the time frame between the hearings and the sacc makingtheirrecommendation.Mr.Martirano stated that a time frame has not been established at this time.Henotedthatwiththecurrentprocedures,once the joint public hearing closes,the County Commissionerscontinuetoreceivee-mails and phone calls that are not to be considered when they make their finaldecision,which has become a probiem.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that currently the case could change based on questions asked by thePlanningCommissionandthesaccduringthepublichearing.She believes that the samecircumstanceswouldprevailfromthePlanningCommission's hearing until the sacc's hearing withcitizenscontinuingtosubmitrebuttaltestimony.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that it would be better for the County Commissioners to make theirdecisiononthenightoftheirpublichearing.He suggested that the Planning Commission holds theirpublichearingandmaketheirrecommendation,Staff would provide a written summary of the meetingandthePlanningCommissionrecommendation,the sacc would have their public hearing and Staffwouldpresenttheirreportandthedeveloper's case and finally provide the Planning Commission'srecommendation.At the same meeting after the record is closed,the County Commissioners wouldmaketheirdecision.If they did not make their recommendation that night,then Mr.Anikis suggested thatthedecisionshouldbemadeatthenextmeetingoftheBaCC.He believes this could stop the e-mailsandphonecallsreceivedbytheCountyCommissioners.Mr.Wilkinson stated the County Commissioners would be informed of why the changes are being madeandwhatisexpectedofthemafterthepublichearing.He believes that compressing the time betweenthepublichearingandtheCountyCommissioner's final decision is a good idea.However,it may bedifficulttomaketheirdecisiononthenightofthepublichearing.By changing the procedures to includetwopublichearings,the public has been given their opportunity to make their concerns and commentsknown.Mr.Kercheval arrived at 1:25 p.m.
Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that the County Commissioners might not be able to make their
decision within a one-week time frame depending upon other items on their agenda.He also expressed
his opinion that public comment is not an issue on most cases.Mr.Martirano stated that whether a time
frame is set or not,the Commissioners need to realize that the longer the case is open the more difficult it
is going to be to ignore public comment.Mr.Kercheval is not opposed to a reasonable time frame,but he
does not believe one-week is feasible.
Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that too much information is being handed out at the pUblic hearings
that should be distributed prior to the hearings.Mr.Wilkinson stated that the new procedures would
require all pertinent information to be submitted with the application.He also stated that Staff should
have the authority to refuse submittals that do not contain all required information.Mr.Anikis believes
that Staff should set a date when all information is required and if not received,the application should be
heid until the next series of rezonings are scheduied.Mr.Martirano beiieves that the deadlines should be
strictly followed.
Ms.Baker stated that the Maryland Department of Planning requires a certain amount of time for review
prior to the pubiic hearing on rezoning cases.She asked for clarification with regard to Staff Reports and
meeting summaries of the Pianning Commission's public hearing and timelines for preparing these
documents.Mr.Downey stated that the Staff would prepare one Staff Report after the application is
received and prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing.Staff would not prepare a summary of
the Planning Commission's public hearing or write another Staff Report.Mr.Martirano stated that a more
detailed explanation with regard to the Planning Commission's recommendation would be prepared for
the sacc.There was a brief discussion to determine how additional,pertinent information should be
relayed between the Planning Commission's public hearing and the BaCC.Some suggestions included
continuing the public hearing for a specific issue or leave the comment period open for a certain length of
time for additional information or comment regarding the specific issue in question.
Mr.Anikis asked for clarification from Mr.Downey with regard to the recommendations from the Planning
Commission and what kind of information should be provided to the BaCC.Mr.Downey suggested
inclUding discussions with regard to compatibility or other significant factors that the Commission used in
making their recommendation.Mr.Thompson stated that the Planning Commission's recommendations
are accompanied by minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting that serve to support their decisions
when forwarded to the County Attorney's office.Mr.Martirano stated that currently,the County Attorney's
office makes the Planning Commission's minutes part of the file;however,they do not provide this
information to the County Commissioners.
Mr.Anikis strongly urges the Board of County Commissioners to make their decisions regarding rezoning
cases as close to the final public hearing as possible.
There was a brief discussion with regard to the number of rezoning hearings that would be held during
the year and if they would be divided among different regions throughout the County.Staff is hopeful that
when the comprehensive rezoning is completed,the number of rezoning cases will decrease.
89
90 Update on the Urban Growth Area rezoningMr.Goodrich stated that the UGA Advisory Committee was appointed by the Board of CountyCommissionersandmetforthefirsttimeonJuly26,2007.There are 13 members on the committee withanon-voting chairman.Mr.Goodrich distributed a list of the committee members including phonenumbersandaddressesandalistoftheassignedtasksforthecommitteetocomplete.During their firstmeeting,subcommittees were formed to address the assigned tasks that were segregated into separatecategories.The subcommittees include Housing,Incentives and Transferable Development Rights.ThesubcommitteesareholdingseparatemeetingsfromtheAdvisoryCommitteeandtheyarefocusingontheirassignedissuesanddevelopingrecommendations.The Advisory Committee is meeting every twoweeksandfocusingoneducatingthemselvesonrelatedissues.Presentations by guest speakers haveincludedtopicssuchas:the Draft Comprehensive Plan for the City of Hagerstown,sewer capacity issuesinthe County,housing issues,and concerns from representatives of the municipalities with regard togrowthandtheirinvolvementintheUGArezoningprocess.Beginning in mid-November,the AdvisoryCommitteewillbegintoreviewtherecommendationsofeachsubcommitteeandputtingtogethertheirrecommendationsfortheBOCC.Staff will develop and present a map of all areas to be rezoned to theAdvisoryCommitteefortheirreviewandrecommendations.Two public meetings were held,one in WHliamsport and one at the Hagerstown Community College toreceivecommentsandconcernsfromthepublicwithregardtozoningintheGrowthArea.The meetingswerewellattendedbymembersoftheAdvisoryCommittee.Mr.Goodrich distributed copies of thecommittee's agendas and minutes from their previous meetings.Mr.Goodrich stated that the City of Hagerstown will be presenting their Draft Comprehensive Plan to theMayorandCityCouncilinthenearfuture.Washington County Staff compared the City's proposed LandUseDesignationMapandtheCounty's Land Use Designation Map.Initially more than 40 sites appearedtohaveinconsistentlandusedesignations.Upon further review and consultation with City staff,theinconsistencieswerereducedsignificantly.Staff presented the matter to the BOCC.The inconsistencieswereaconcernbecausetheycouldcausecomplicationsinfutureannexations.The Hagerstown Mayor
.and Council will be informed and there will be opportunities for additional reviews in the future.
Staff is currently working on changing the text of the zoning designations that will be kept in the UGA,
using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide.Staff wHI also review the Land Use Map and make
recommended changes.The map and the Advisory Committee's recommendations will be presented to
the Planning Commission prior to public hearings.The Planning Commission wHI also have the
opportunity to make recommendations before the report is presented to the BOCC.
There was a brief discussion regarding sewer capacity in the County.Members expressed their concerns
with regard to the limitations on sewer capacity and how this could impact the densities in the UGA.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Anikis adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-NOVEMBER 5,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingonMonday,November 5,2007,intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Sam Ecker,Bernie Moser and Ex-Officio James F.KerchevaL Staff members present were:Planning DirectorMichaelC.Thompson,Chief Planners Stephen T.Goodrich and Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners JillBakerandLisaA.Kelly,Planner Chris Cochrane and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorge Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 1,2007 Regular Planning Commissionmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.KerchevaL Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESS-SUBDIVISIONSRegentPark(PP-06-011)Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat for Regent Park,Lots 1-25 located alongthewestsideofTrovingerMillRoad.The developer is proposing to create 25 single-family residentiallotsranginginsizefrom.6 to 4.8-acres for a total development of 34.5 acres and is zoned A -
Agriculture.All lots would be served by public water and Individual septic systems.All lots would access
the new public street.A total of 7.8-acres of forest would be planted or retained on-site to meet the
Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.The State Highway Administration has no objection to the
preliminary plat approval as iong as the eXisting brush and vegetation is removed from the intersection of
Trovinger Mill Road and Jefferson Boulevard.All other agency approvals have been received.The
proposed development is located within the Pangborn Elementary,Smithsburg Middle and Smithsburg
High school districts.Pangborn Elementary is currently over-capacity.The new Pangborn Elementary
school is projected to open in 2008 and will be at or near capacity upon opening.School capacity will be
tested at the final plat stage.Mr.Steve Zoretich of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,and Mr.
Churchey,developer,were present at the meeting.
Discussion:Mr.Zoretich stated that Trovinger Mill Road will be widened per the County Engineering
Department's requirements.He also noted that the developer has an agreement with the property owner
at the intersection of Trovinger Mill Road and Jefferson Boulevard to remove the existing brush and
vegetation,which will significantly increase sight distance at this intersection.
Mr.Moser made an inquiry regarding escrow accounts for the future extension of sewer lines.Mr.
Zoretich stated that the City of Hagerstown has no plans at this time to extend sewer service to that area.
Mr.Kercheval asked if there are easements or right-of-ways being set aside if sewer were to be extended
to that area so the County does not have to purchase land in the future.Mr.Zoretich stated that the
sewer lines could be placed in the public street.The City of Hagerstown has requested the developer to
loop the water iine to the public street and an easement has been created to meet this request.The
developer believes that the public easement for the water line between Lots 11 and 12 could also be used
for any future sewer lines.
Mr.Reiber noted there is no pedestrian access or sidewalks for the development.
Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the southwest corner of the property that is not buffered with trees.
Mr.Zoretich stated there are existing trees in that area that would be retained.
Mr.Kercheval asked if the developer would have an annexation agreement for water service with the City
of Hagerstown.Mr.Churchey stated he would sign an agreement with the City.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as presented.Seconded by
Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.
Westfields -Section 6 (PP-07-002)
Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary Piat for Westfieids,Section 6 located along
the west side of Sharpsburg Pike.The property is zoned A -Agriculture and is located within the Urban
Growth Area.The developer is proposing 94 single-family residential lots on 14.93-acres.Public water
will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and the Washington County Department of Water Quality will
provide public sewer.New public streets will provide access to the proposed lots.There will be
approximately 5-acres of open space area within Section 6 and will be the responsibility of the
Homeowner's Association.The storm water management facility,constructed as part of Section 4A,will
also serve Section 6.Sidewalks will be located along the public street.Total forest conservation
requirements for this section is 9.3-acres.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by
afforestation of 6.05-acres and 3.88-acres of forest retention to the rear of the site.Students will attend
1
91
92 the new elementary school in this development,which is proposed for opening in the fall of 2008.Allagencyapprovalshavebeenreceived.Mr.Jeremy Holder,Ausherman Homes,and Mr.Steve CijanovichofDavis,Renn &Associates,were present at the meeting.Discussion:Mr.Jeremy Holder stated that prior to the issuance of the 250lh building permit,the tenniscourts,basketball court,all pools ide grading,landscaping and the halfway loop would be completed.They have recently sold their 133,d house.He stated that even if they (the developer)wanted to advancetheconstructionoftheamenities,the community could not afford to operate the pool or additionalamenities.Clarification:Mr.Holder asked for clarification with regard to approval of final plats.He noted that at theendofthisyear,Ausherman Homes may record 346 lots after they pay their excise tax advance to theCountyandiftheyareincompliancewiththephasingscheduleoutlinedintheAPFOagreementpreviouslyapprovedbytheCommissioners.Sections 3,4,5 and 24 lots from Section 6 comprise the 346lots.In the future,as final plats are submitted for approval,Mr.Holder requested that approval may begivenbythePlanningStaff.Mr.Thompson stated that as long as the developer is in compliance withtheirAPFOagreementandallotherrequirementsaremet,approval may be given by the Staff based onthePlanningCommission's policy.Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat as presented.Seconded byMr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved.Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.OTHER BUSINESSSouthPointeP.U.D.Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a proposed change to the revised Final Development Plan
.for South Pointe PUD and a height restriction issue for the proposed 3-story building located along the
north side of East Oak Ridge Drive.Ms.Kelly distributed copies of the Final Development Plan approved
in 1991 and the revised Final Development Plan approved in 2003.The property is zoned RS -PUD
(Residential Suburban with the PUD overlay).The original Development Plan showed 18,3-story
apartment buildings on 7.9 acres for a total of 216 living units.A pool and tennis courts were included in
this plan,which was approved in 1991.In 2003,the developer requested the elimination of the apartment
buildings and proposed a 3-story retirement living center on 6.6-acres with 115 living units and 175
parking spaces.Additional townhouses,a swimming pool and gazebo were also proposed on the site.At
this time,Mr.Crampton is proposing to eliminate the 3-story retirement center and construct 4,3-story
condominium bUildings with a total of 120 units.Underground parking with 152 parking spaces and an
additional 88 parking spaces above-ground will be provided.The proposed condominiums will be age-
restricted units;therefore,there will be no impact on local schools at this time.The Washington County
Engineering Department has reviewed the plan and has no objection to the changes.If approved,the
developer must comply with storm water management regulations and all other requirements set forth by
the County.The height of the bUildings are in question because the Zoning Ordinance Is not clear on this
issue.The height of the proposed bUilding to the peak of the roof would be in excess of 40-feet.The
Zoning Ordinance states,"shall not exceed 3-stories or 40-feet in height";however,the Planning
Commission has the authority to alter the height requirements.
Discussion:Ms.Parrish made an inquiry with regard to the proposed recreational area.Ms.Kelly stated
that the swimming pool has been removed.Mr.Crampton stated that the current residents at South
Pointe did not expect to have a pool and do not want to be burdened with the additional expenses.The
proposed pool was tailored for the residents of the proposed apartments.The current Homeowner's
Association fees are $120 per year and residents do not want those fees to change.
Mr.Moser expressed his concern for the loss of the amenities and the fact that this is the third change
requested to the plan that has not been taken to a public hearing.Mr.Crampton stated his opinion that
every proposed change has been an improvement to South Pointe.He stated that several current
residents of South Pointe have expressed an interest in the condominium units because they would not
be responsible for maintenance issues that they currently have even with a small townhouse unit.The
proposed condominiums offer several floor plans and added security and convenience with the
underground parking.Mr.Moser asked the developer what prompted this change.Mr.Crampton stated
that the assisted living center with nursing care was more complex than anticipated and he believes this
plan is a good alternative.
Mr.Moser aiso expressed concern with regard to traffic issues on Oak Ridge Drive.Mr.Kercheval asked
if the Engineering Department commented on the change from senior living to condominiums with regard
to the change in traffic numbers.Ms.Kelly said they did not give any comments on this issue.Mr.
Kercheval stated that there is a petition from ,the Homeowner's Association at South Pointe for a traffic
light on Oak Ridge Drive.Mr.Crampton stated that the Homeowner's Association has already installed
three street lights,which has helped significantly especially at night.
Mr.Anlkis asked how the sales for elderly housing will be controlled.Mr.Crampton stated that the
Homeowner's Association will oversee the process and the declaration of covenants referred to in deeds
and on the piats will reflect the restriction.He also stated that the project will be marketed as elderly or
age-restricted housing.
2
Ms.Parrish expressed her concern that the Planning Commission is considering a change without thepublic's input.She is concerned that people have bought their homes with the expectation that theamenitieswouldbebuiltatalatertimeandexpectedtheirassociationfeesto be raised when theamenitieswerebuilt.Mr.Crampton stated that the amenities could be added;however,he is concernedforthehomeownerthatpurchasedahomeseveralyearsago and their homeowner's association feeswouldberaisedsignificantly.Ms.Parrish believes that the public should be made aware of the changeandbegiventheopportunitytoexpresstheiropinions.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the proposed changes may not be significant enough to warrant apublichearing.Mr.Ecker concurred with Ms.Parrish's comments.Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the size of some of the units and the need for threebedroomsiftheunitsareproposedto be age-restricted.Mr.Crampton stated the units were designed forpeoplewhowantadditionalspace.A brief discussion continued with regard to the amen'ities being eliminated and some of the member'sconcerns.Mr.Kercheval asked if the Homeowner's Association has been made aware of the changesandwhataretheirexpectations.Mr.Crampton stated he could present these changes to theHomeowner's Association to get their opinions.If they would like to have the amenities and areagreeabletothechangeintheirassociationfees,Mr.Crampton is willing to construct the amenities asproposedin1991.The HOA's next meeting is scheduled for August 2008;however,Mr.Anikissuggestedholdingaspecialmeetingtoresolvetheseissuespriortoproceedingwithplansforfuturedevelopment.Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to table this issue pending an HOA meeting of the SouthPointeresidentsandreceivingtheircommentswithregardtotheproposedchanges.Seconded by Mr.
Moser.Unanimously approved.
RZ-07-004 -Wash co Arnett Farm,LLC
Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a Map Amendment for 29.53 acres of property
located along the west side of Maryland Route 65 approximately 1,575-feet south of Col.H.K.Douglas
Drive.The applicant,Wash co Arnett Farm,LLC,is requesting a change in zoning from HI-2 (Highway
Interchange 2)to HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1).During the pUblic hearing held on September 17,2007,
it was the applicant's contention that the zoning should be changed due a change in the neighborhood
and a mistake in the original zoning of the property.In the Staff Report preViously sent to Planning
Commission members,staff's point of view is that the one-mile radius used by the applicant for defining
the neighborhood was too large and the alternate neighborhood offered was not well defined.In Staff's
opinion,the beginning character of the neighborhood was not well-defined.The applicant did not
challenge Staff's point of view that the neighborhood was a mix of residential and commercial uses in the
beginning and still is a mix of uses.More commercial development has taken place since the zoning was
assigned;however,in Staff's point of view,this has not changed the character of the neighborhood.The
applicant proposed that the possibility of residential development was expected when the HI-2 zoning
was first applied.Since there have been zoning changes in the neighborhood,specifically from HI-2 to
HI-1,the factors that the zoning decisions were made on have changed and thus,constitutes a mistake
with regard to the zoning on this property.Mr.Goodrich noted that there have been zoning changes to
put more HI-2 zoning in the neighborhood also.The Comprehensive Plan shows this property having a
commercial land use category;however,this fact does not convince Staff that a change should be made
in the zoning of this property at this time.Staff does not recommend a change in the zoning based on the
case presented by the applicant.
Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked if a change from HI-2 to HI-1 would allow more flexibility for uses of the
property.Mr.Goodrich stated that HI-2 would give the applicant more flexibility for residential
development and the HI-1 would allow only commercial uses.
Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that a mistake was made in the original zoning of the property as HI-2
because it is located near the interchange area where commercial development belongs.She believes
residential development in that area would only add to the traffic congestion.
Mr.Wiley disagrees with Staff's assessment that the definition of the neighborhood was too large.He
believes you need to look at all the changes that have occurred along the Sharpsburg Pike closer to the
interchange.He also expressed his opinion that zoning requests and changes should be withheld until
the Urban Growth Area rezoning has been completed.Mr.Wiley stated his opinion that this is part of a
greater change that has taken place in this area and the County would be better served with more
commercial development in that area.
Mr.Ecker concurred with Ms.Parrish and Mr.Wiley's comments.
Mr.Anikis stated his opinion that the applicant knew what the property was zoned when he purchased it
in 2003 and previously proposed the construction of apartments and townhouses in the area zoned HI-2.
Mr.Anikis expressed his concern with regard to the portion of the property located on the south side of
redesigned Rench Road and the existing residential properties adjacent to the commercial uses would be
s'lgnificantly impacted.
93
94 Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissionersapprovalbasedonamistakeintheoriginalzoningoftheproperty.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Moser abstained.(Mr.Moser was not present at thepublichearing.)Clarification:Mr.Kercheval asked for clarification of Item F (Pg.13)of the Staff Report and AnalysisFollowingthePublicHearingthatstates,"A change would create an awkward and difficult to developarrangementofthe2zoningcategories".Mr.Goodrich stated that the end result,when viewing thepropertyonamapwouldcreateanareashapedlikeaninverted"U",which would be difficult to develop.RZ-07-005-Walter LawsonMs.Baker presented for review and recommendation a Map Amendment for 9.42-acres of propertylocatedat21023KeadleRoadinBoonsboro.The applicant,Walter Lawson,is requesting a change inzoningfromRB-E (Rural Business,EXisting)to EC (Environmental Conservation).During the publichearing,it was the applicant's contention that a mistake was made in the last comprehensive rezoning ofthesubjectpropertyin2005.The first point made by the applicant was that the County erred when itassumedthatthebusinesswouldcontinueinperpetuity.The second point made by the applicant wasthattheCountyerredinthezoningofthepropertybynottakingintoconsiderationthatonlyasmallportionofthepropertywasbeingusedcommerciallyatthetimeofrezoning..Discussion:Mr.Wiley asked for clarification from Page 4 of the Staff Report and Analysis Following thePublicHearingthatstates,"In this rezoning case,the proposed change from Rural Business Existing toEnvironmentalConservationisconsistentwiththeComprehensivePlanforWashingtonCounty."Ms.Baker explained that while a decision to approve or deny a rezoning request should not be based solelyOnconsistencywiththeComprehensivePlan;however,consistency with the Comp Plan should beevaluatedaspartoftheprocess.In terms of the change or mistake rule,there are defined guidelines thatmustbemet.
Mr.Kercheval advised the Planning Commission to base their decision On change or mistake,not solely
on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.Ms.Baker stated that In preparing her Staff report,she
cited different points that,not individually would prove a case,but when you put them all together they
could build upon each other to prove a case.
Mr.Reiber asked if the business could have continued to operate in the Environmental Conservation
zoning district as a special exception use.Ms.Baker stated that the business could have operated as a
non-conforming use in the EC zoning district until the business wanted to expand or cease operation.
Mr.Moser and Mr.Anikisexpressed their opinions that the property should have continued to be zoned
EC with the business as a non-conforming use.
Ms.Parrish believes the County rezoned the property without cause and that property owners should be
better educated with regard to zoning alternatives.
Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County
Commissioners based on a mistake in the original zoning of the property and the proposed rezoning is
consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan.The County was negligent in explaining
zoning alternatives to the property owner during the comprehensive rezoning process.Seconded by Mr.
Reiber.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval and Mr.Moser abstained.(Mr.Moser was not present at
the public hearing.)
RZ-07-006 -Text Amendment
Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Text Amendment to Article 27 of the
Washington County Zoning Ordinance.The proposed Text Amendment would require additional
information to be submitted as part of the rezoning application process.Mr.Thompson noted there were
discussions with regard to several changes that were recommended as follows:a minimum scale for
drawings should be established;other language to be added with regard to the definition of a
neighborhood;the time limitation to re-file an application if it is denied.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County
Commissioners as drafted and presented.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.Mr.
Kercheval and Mr.Moser abstained.(Mr.Moser was not present at the public hearing.)
City of Hagerstown -Jones Homes LLC Annexation
Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the City of
Hagerstown for Jones Homes,LLC.The request for annexation is for an existing lot and adjoining vacant
parcel consisting of approximately 20,000-square feet that is adjacent to the City of Hagerstown.The
property is located On Linwood Road adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the City of Hagerstown
west of Virginia Avenue at the intersection of Wellington Avenue.The property appears to have
previously been subdivided into Lots 209 and 210 with an existing house on Lot 210,while Lot 209 is
vacant.The owner is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots and develop the vacant lot.The
City of Hagerstown boundary bisects the property,including the existing house.The applicant is
requesting R-1 zoning upon annexation,which is consistent with the existing RU (Residential Urban)
county zoning designation.The proposed zoning is also consistent with the Low Density Residentiaidesignationonthe2002adoptedComprehensivePlan.Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation request to theBoardofCountyCommissioners.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kerchevalabstained.City of Hagerstown -Bowman,Hollyhock and Venetian Investments AnnexationMr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the City ofHagerstownforBowman,Hollyhock and Venetian Investments.The request for annexation is for a parceloflandconsistingofapproximately12.25-acrees that is adjacent to the City of Hagerstown.The propertyislocatedonBroadfordingRoadadjacenttothe1-81/MD Route 58 interchanges on the west side of i-81.The property is located just north of the new commercial deveiopment with Best Buy and the Center atHagerstown.The property is currently the location of several single-family dwellings.Information hasbeenprovidedthattheproposeddevelopmentwillconsistofahotel,bank,convenience store and severalcommercialbuildingswithatotalsquarefootageofapproximately68,450 square feet.The applicant isrequestingC-2 (Commercial General)zoning upon annexation,which is consistent with the existing HI-1(Highway Interchange)County zoning designation.The property is designated for Industrial Flex on the2002adoptedComprehensivePlanandHI-1 is consistent with this designation.After review of therequest,Staff recommends that Broadfording Road should be annexed and improved to its full width toCitystandardsandtheportionoftheroadwayfrontingthesitetoMDRoute58berenamedtoGarlandGrohBoulevard.Mr.Thompson noted that the City of Hagerstown staff agrees with this recommendation.Motion and Vote:Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation request to theBoardofCountyCommissionersbasedontheproposedzoningbeingconsistentwiththeCounty's zoningdesignationofthepropertyandtosupportStaff's recommendations with regard to road improvements.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.Mr.Reiber and Mr.Kercheval abstained.(Mr.Reiberabstainedduetoconflictofinterest.)
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1.Joint Public Hearing,Monday,November 26,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court House,
Room 1,95 W.Washington Street,Hagerstown
2.Regular Planning Commission Meeting,Monday,December 3,2007,7:00 p.m.,Washington
County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1,Hagerstown
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.So ordered.
Respectfully submitted,
~0d~c
Geo!ge A!j!Jkis,Chairman
95
96 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULARMEETING-DECEMBER 3,2007TheWashingtonCountyPlanningCommissionhelditsregularmeetingonMonday,December 3,2007,intheWashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown.Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Sam Ecker,Bernie Moser and Ex-Officio James F.KerchevaL Staff members present were:Planning DirectorMichaelC.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard and JoeKroboth,Director of Public Works ..CALL TO ORDERChairmanGeorgeAnikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.MINUTESMr.Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 15,2007 Planning CommissionWorkshopmeetingaspresented.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.Mr.Reiber abstainedbecausehewasnotinattendanceattheWorkshopmeeting.Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 5,2007 regular Planning Commissionmeetingasamended.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Unanimously approved.NEW BUSINESSPreliminaryConsultations-Fort Ritchie Redevelopment (PC-07-007)
Mr.Lung presented for review and comments the preliminary consultation for the redevelopment plan of
the former Fort Ritchie Army base currentiy owned by COPT (Corporate Office Partnership Trust).The
property is located along the north side of Ritchie Road in Cascade.The site is approximately 500-acres
in size and is zoned SED -Special Economic Development.The SED zoning district allows a mix of
uses on one site and all criteria specified in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance must be met.The
overall plan for redevelopment of the Fort includes the re-use of many of the existing buildings including
those designated as historic as weli as construction of new residential,commercial and retail buildings.
The developer is proposing 1.7 million square feet of office,retail and commercial space and 673
residential units.A secure office area is proposed to accommodate businesses that require a high level
of security.The total build-out of the property is a 15 to 20 year time frame.
Phase I includes the rehabilitation of existing buildings including the finger buildings in the historic area of
the site and three new office bUildings.Phase II of the historic district includes three additional
office/commercial bUildings along the back of the finger buildings and two new buildings in the vicinity of
the parade field.In the restricted office district,the initial phase will include five new buildings and the
rehabilitation of two existing buildings.The build-out phase of the restricted office district includes five
additional new buildings.The development of the historic district area and the restricted office district
may occur concurrently.The development of the residential units will occur based on market demand.It
is anticipated that the residential iake district behind Lake Royer will be the first phase of the residential
area.These residential units will consist of townhouses.A majority of the existing residential
development is still occupied;however,some structures have been removed or they are planned for
removaL
Mr.Lung stated that the Fort Ritchie military base has been in existence for over 75 years.Construction
and renovations were made without local government oversight or with regard to zoning.Since the
former base has now been sold to a private entity,all construction and renovations must now comply with
all County requirements and standards.
Mr.Lung reviewed several of the main points discussed during the preliminary consultation.He stated
that there will be a combination of private and public streets.The proposed streets that will be dedicated
to the County must be constructed to current County standards.There are some restraints within the
historic area to bring the streets up to County standards;therefore,those streets will remain private.The
developer is proposing the reiocation of the eastern end of Ritchie Road with a re-route through the base
and the establishment of a new intersection with MacAfee Hill Road.A traffic impact study will be
required.The Washington County Engineering Department requested a master storm water
management plan to be developed for the entire development.As subsequent phases are submitted,the
storm water management elements will be based on the master plan.The existing lakes are proposed for
re-use for storm water retention.The Engineering Department and the Division of Public Works
recommended that additional meetings should be conducted to provide additional detail with regard to
roads,traffic and storm water management issues.
There is an existing water and sewage system on-site.Treatment of the sewage is handled at the
County's Winebrenner Wastewater Treatment plant.The water system will remain private under the
control of COPT.The sewer collection system must be upgraded by COPT as they proceed through the
redevelopment process and then dedicated to the County for ownership.Currently,the sewer fl.ow ismaster-metered and billed to COPT.Allocation is currently available at the Winebrenner plant.An on-site pUblic safety complex is proposed.Timing of the construction of this facility will be coordinatedwiththeDepartmentofEmergencyServicesandtheSheriff's Department.The new residential areas of the development must comply with APFO requirements.Testing for schoolcapacitywillbeperformedatthefinalplatorsiteplanstage.Excise tax credits may be given to theexistingresidentialunitsthatarereplacedontheproperty.The Department of Permits &Inspections,with the assistance of the developer,will keep a record of the demolitions that are occurring so there willbearecordofwhatwasexistingandcanbecreditedbacktoCOPTasreplacementstructuresareconstructed.Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked if the existing residential units refers to structures that are currentlybeingusedorstructuresthathavebeenemptyforanextendedlengthoftime.Mr.Lung stated that thebarrackswerenotcountedasresidentialunits.He was not aware of existing residential units that wereunoccupiedforanextendedlengthoftime.Mr.Kercheval asked if the residential units were occupieduntilrecentlyoriftheyhavebeenemptyforaperiodoftime.A COPT representative stated that a portionoftheresidentialunitshavebeenunoccupiedfor7or8years.In 1998 the Army closed the base anduntilthattimetheresidentialunitswerefullyoccupied.Mr.Kercheval asked if structures are removed,isCOPTreceivingacreditfornewresidentialunits.Mr.Thompson stated that under the Excise TaxOrdinance,if a structure is removed and replaced with another structure,there is a 1:1 credit per unit.Mr.Lung continued with the Planning Department's comments that were presented during theconsultation.Staff expressed concern with regard to the length of some of the proposed cul-de-sacs intheresidentialareas.Staff recommended the interconnectivity of streets to shorten the length of the cul-de-sacs;however,there are topographic constraints that may make interconnectivity difficult.Staff alsoexpressedconcernwithregardtoindividualdrivewaysthataccessRitchieRoad.Internal street accesshasbeenrecommendedforthosesingle-family residential units.Pedestrian access was recommended
.throughout the development;however,there may be some constraints in the restricted office area.The
Board of Zoning Appeals must approve any modifications requested from Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Mr.Lung noted that when the former army base was turned over to Pen Mar Development and ultimately
to COPT,there was a programmatic agreement established to maintain the historic integrity of the pre
WWII buildings on the site.Pen Mar Development Corporation has been delegated to review and
approve plans within the historic area.The Washington County Historic District Commission has
requested that they receive periodic updates for the revitalization project.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked if there are quaiified individuals that serve on the Pen Mar Development
Corporation's board.Mr.Rook,representative of COPT,stated that there is licensed,registered architect
that serves on the Board as well as former County Commissioner Dori Nipps who was the Ex-Officio to
the Historic District Commission.
Mr.Thompson noted that Mr.Joe Kroboth,Director of the Division of Public Works,was present at this
evening's meeting.He also clarified that a meeting was held with representatives of the State Highway
Administration,Frederick County and Franklin County to discuss traffic issues.A new traffic study is
being completed and should be available early next month.Additional intersections and existing
entrances are also being reviewed and will be incorporated into the plan.Mr.Thompson stated that the
traffic consultants are proposing a trip-phasing program for the deveiopment.Mr.Reiber expressed his
concern with regard to the additional traffic that will be created as the development progresses and asked
how roads will handle the additional traffic.Mr.Kercheval asked how the number of people for the
proposed development compares with the number of people that lived on the base when it was fully
operational.A COPT representative stated that when the base closed,there were approximately 2,500
employees on the base.At one point during the history of the base,there were more than 6,000 people
living there.The infrastructure in the past handied all the residents and the development should not
create more of an impact than when the base was fully functional.
Mr.Moser asked if the streets in the residential areas will be private or public.A COPT representative
stated that the County requires those streets to be public.Mr.Moser made an inquiry with regard to
buses picking up school children in the cul-de-sacs and if sidewalks are proposed along the streets.A
COPT representative stated,"we are in the business of bringing jobs up here and job creation will spur
the residentiai piece".The residential market locally and nationally has "bottomed out".He stated that
they are focusing on the creation of jobs and have not yet given a lot of consideration to the residential
component of the development.Mr.Moser asked if the Allegheny Power station requires a special
exception in this zoning district.Mr.Lung stated that this issue was discussed during the consultation.
Mr.Moser also asked who would own the power distribution system.A COPT representative stated that
Allegheny Power would retain ownership.
Ms.Parrish asked if the lakes and roads would be private or public owned.A COPT representative
stated that the County has expressed their objection to owninQ the lakes;therefore,the lakes will remain
privately owned.All residential/community access and streets must be public as required by the County.
The secure area roads and parking lots will be privateiy owned and the historic area streets and parking
will be a mix of public and private streets.Areas with existing head-in parking and other parking
constraints will be private streets.All public roads will be constructed to County standards.The
97
98 commercial uses in the areas with privately owned roads and parking will be required to pay a fee tomaintainthoseroadsandparkingareas.Ms.Parrish asked if an HOA will be established for theresidentialunits.A COPT representative stated there will be an HOA established and would allow themaccesstotherecreationarea,access to the lakes and a community center.Ms.Parrish asked if there willbeadeficitofparkingaroundthehistoricarea.A COPT representative stated that the facilities in thehistoricareawillbeleasedonlytotheextentthatthereisparkingtoaccommodatethem.There are somebuildingsthatarenottargetedforre-use at this time.Mr.Anikis asked if there is going to be a phased traffic study.A COPT representative stated that thecomprehensivetrafficstudyisgoingtotakeintoconsiderationthatonebuildingwillbedesignedin2008,constructed in 2009,and proposed for occupancy at the end of 2009 or 2010.The traffic study will takeintoconsiderationthatthebuildingwillbeleasedin2009or2010.All existing facilities Including the PX,commissary and finger-buildings have been reviewed and an estimated date for occupancy has beendeterminedthatwillbeincludedinthetrafficstudy.Mr.Anikis asked at what point are neededimprovementsgoingtobemade.A COPT representative stated that will be addressed through the trafficstudyandtheCounty's Engineering Department.COPT has met with the Engineering Department andtheStateHighwayAdministrationtodiscusstheinitialtrafficstudy.Periodically,as the developmentprogresses,updates will be provided.Mr.Anikis asked who will pay for the external improvements to theroads.Mr.Thompson stated that the traffic study will provide information that will determine theresponsibilitiesofthedeveloper.Mr.Kercheval asked if Frederick County and Franklin County Department of Public Works have beencontacted.Mr.Kroboth stated that both counties were involved in the traffic-scoping meeting.A COPTrepresentativestatedthatthetrafficstudywillbesharedwithallthecountiesinvolved.Franklin County,Washington Township and Frederick County requested specific intersections that should be included inthestudy.Mr.Anikis asked who is going to build the fire and rescue facility and will it be a Washington Countyvolunteercrew.A COPT representative stated that the master plan indicates a possible location where
'COPT will donate land for the facility;however,details have not been completed at this time.A meeting
was held with emergency services,advanced life support and fire services representatives to discuss the
proposed facility.The timing of the facility will be triggered by the progress of the development and an
increase in the number of calls.The need for these facilities will also be based on insurance ratings.Mr.
Anikis asked what fire company is responsible for that area.A COPT representative stated that
Smithsburg Fire Company is the primary;however,Blue Ridge Summit is the first responder.The County
has an agreement with the Blue Ridge Fire Company and annually provides a monetary contribution to
them.Mr.Kercheval stated that when the former fort was fully operational,the military fire/police provided
these services.Fire and rescue services will be a challenge because this is basically a new area.Mr.
Kercheval stated that funding for these services will need to be addressed.He recommended that the
Pen Mar Corporation and COPT should be investigating this need.
Comment:Mr.Lung presented one final comment with regard to the proposed townhouse.He stated
that the proposed townhouse units are fronting on parking lots.If the townhouses are developed with
individual lots to be sold,the developer must redesign them to access and front County roads or seek
variances from the Planning Commission to allow frontage onto the private parking lots.He noted that
the County's Subdivision Ordinance requires all lots to have frontage and access onto a public street.
Mr.Kercheval noted that currently there might be capacity at the Cascade Elementary and Smithsburg
Middle schools to accommodate students generated by this development;however,Smithsburg High
school is currently over capacity.A new high school is being considered in the eastern portion of the
county that could address overcrowding issues at Smithsburg High by the time COPT is ready to begin
the residential portion of this development.
Site Plans
-Fort Ritchie LLC (SP-07-052)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the site plan for Fort Ritchie LLC for property located west of
MacAfee Hill Road at Military Road.The property is currently zoned SED -Special Economic
Development.The developer is proposing the commercial re-use of 21 existing buildings at the former
Fort Ritchie Army base.Buildings 102,152, 130, 160,200,603,301 and 304 are proposed for office use.
A few of the finger buildings will be used as office models.Other proposed uses for the buildings include
mini-storage facilities,an office warehouse,storage,a restaurant in the former Officer's Club,and a
maintenance building in Building 601.All buildings will remain under the ownership of Fort Ritchie LLC.
Parking requirements are calculated on a building-by-building basis.
Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked if a waiver or modification could be approved to address some of the
parking issues.Mr.Lung stated that once the entire development is completed,additional new parking
will be established and will help meet the parking requirement needs.Mr.Lung stated that during the
review,Staff determined that COPT's calculation for some parking spaces did not meet the dimensional
parking requirements.Therefore,a variance to the dimensional parking requirements will be required
from the BZA.
Because several of the buildings are large,there are restraints with regard to accessibility that will
minimize the amount of space to be leased in each building.
The existing water system and existing sewer system on-site will serve the development.COPT owns thesewerlines;however,the flow wiil be master-metered and wiil be treated at the County's wastewatertreatmentplant.The site plan has been approved by the County Department of Water Quality.AilexistingbUildingsarecurrentlylocatedonprivatestreetswithintheformerfort.Loading areas are locatedinaccordancewiththeZoningOrdinance.The Zoning Ordinance requires that parking for any facility thathasanynighttimeactivitymustprovideadequatelighting.Due to the variety of existing lighting fixtureswithintheeXistingparkingareas,providing this information on the site plan has been difficult.Mr.LungsuggestedthatthePlanningCommissionailowStafftovisitthesiteduringtheeveninghourstodetermineifthelightingisadequate.If lighting is found to be inadequate,a modification from the Board ofZoningAppealswouldberequired.The existing iocation of signs for the various sites is shown on the siteplan.Ail agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated he received a letter from COPT's trafficconsultantindicatingthesiteplanfortheexistingbUildingswouldnotgeneratesufficientadditionaltraffictowarrantanyAPFOconsiderations.Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to lighting and pedestrian access in theparkingareas.He asked if the Staff does visit the site,how would the adequacy of lighting bedetermined?Would meters be used?Mr.Lung stated that the County does not have meters to measurelightingandtheZoningOrdinanceisnotspecificinestablishingacceptablelightingleveis.In other cases,Staff has used nationally recognized iighting criteria to evaluate lighting plans.There was a briefdiscussionwithregardtostandardsandrequirementsforiighting.A COPT representative stated thatextensivelightingwillbecreatedasthedevelopmentprogressesinaccordancewithailrequirements.However,at the current time,COPT would like to re-use some of the existing buildings "Without goingthroughasignificantefforttocableoldbarriersorre-lamp a lot of areas".Comment:A COPT representative stated that they foilow LEED (Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentDesign)guidelines when designing and constructing their developments.Mr.Kercheval noted that COPThasahistoryoffollowinggoodenvironmentalusesandenergysavingprocedures.A COPTrepresentativebelievesthattheircommunitycenterwillbethefirstLEEDbuildinginWashingtonCounty.Construction of the community center has been delayed in order to get ail LEED credits built into the
.design of the center with a target for the building to receive a silver rating.COPT has 26 to 28 buiidings
in their development pipeline that are in the process of being LEED certified.
Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approval of
parking modifications by the Board of Zoning Appeals and approval of the adequacy of lighting by Staff.
Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr.Thompson began a discussion with regard to transportation planning issues in the County.He stated
that he believes the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated and
strengthened as part of the upcoming update.Mr.Thompson stated that he and Mr.Kroboth have
discussed a joint effort to request the hiring of a staff member to work on transportation and traffic related
issues.A traffic engineer/planner to review local roads to determine road classifications,necessary
improvements,and roadway design issues would be very beneficial to the County.Mr.Thompson and
Mr.Kroboth believe a regional plan for the County would be beneficial.Mr.Thompson gave several
examples of projects where regional studies would have been helpful when considering large
developments (such as Elmwood,the Britner/Ebersole properties)in the future.He noted there are
several areas in the UGA that warrant a plan by the County and would help developers and their
consultants when planning their developments.Mr.Kroboth expressed his opinion that the County needs
to be proactive when dealing with transportation issues.More importantly,he believes Staff needs to be
able to guide the consultants and developers consistently with the Planning Commission's philosophies.
Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the County is lacking with regard to roadways and
neighborhoods and predicting what will happen in the future.
Mr.Moser believes now is an opportune time to update the transportation plan with the update of the
UGA rezoning and reViewing densities.He expressed his opinion that densities have changed due to
rezoning of property within the UGA.He believes a long-range plan needs to be developed and adhered
to when rezoning requests are submitted.Mr.Moser expressed his support to hire additionai Staff for
transportation planning.
Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that the County needs to deai with traffic issues more efficiently and
sooner rather than later.
Ms.Parrish suggested preparing a cost benefit analysis based on an historic perspective using several of
areas that are currently experiencing traffic problems.
Mr.Kercheval recommended that the Planning Commission write a letter to support Staff's request.
Mr.Reiber recommended that Staff should prepare a letter with their concerns and input detailing the
reasons to hire an individual to handle transportation planning and each Planning Commission member
could sign the letter to be presented to the BOCC.
99
100 Discussion:Members discussed various issues with regard to traffic and road improvements.They alsodiscussedfrustrationsthathavebeenexpressedbyconsultantsanddevelopers.A few specific roadwayprojectswerediscussed.Pubiic transportation issues were also discussed.Mr.Kroboth discussed the type of complaints received by the Department of Public Works.He noted thattheCountyiscurrentiyupdatingtheirconstructionstandards,which should integrate the philosophy ofhowdevelopmentsshouidbedesigned.Mr.Anikis stated he would prepare a ietter to present to the Board of County Commissioners.UPCOMING MEETINGS1.Regular Planning Commission Meeting,Monday,December 3,2007,7:00 p.m.,WashingtonCountyAdministrativeAnnex,80 West Baltimore Street,Conference Room 1,HagerstownADJOURNMENTMr.Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.So ordered.Respectfully submitted,