Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 MinutesWASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING January 10,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held a rezoning public meeting and its regular meeting on Monday,January 10,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners Jill Baker and Misty Wagner-Griilo,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the Rezoning Public Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. REZONING PUBLIC MEETING -CP-10-001 -Priority Preservation Element Ms.Baker gave a brief overview and history of the Text Amendment for the Priority Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.In 2006 the Maryland General Assembly passed significant legislation with regard to land use planning in the State of Maryland.The Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006 (House Bill 2)required counties that have a certified land preservation program to designate priority preservation areas.These areas were to be established in an effort to provide a more efficient and effective method of spending land preservation funds.In 2008,the BOCC adopted a Priority Preservation Element that ·established targeted areas for preservation efforts.In 2009,MOP (Maryland Dept.of Planning)reviewed the amendments as part of the County's Agricultural Land Preservation Program certification and determined that they did not meet the full intent of the law.MOP stated that the boundaries were too fragmented and did not include existing easements and districts.The County worked with MOP to resolve this issue.The State was also concerned with the County's abiiity to stabiiize the 1:5 zoning in a manner that would not compromise land before it could be preserved. Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of land currently preserved In the County and the acreage needed to meet the County's goal. Ms.Baker stated that the State of Maryland has given its approval of the proposed amendments and believes that "it meets the intent of the law."If the Amendments are not approved,the County will not lose its Land Preservation Program;however,the County would lose part of its funding. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendments to the Priority Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Mr.Wiiey.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the Rezoning Public Meeting at 7:25 p.m. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 18,2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting,the October 25,2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting,the December 6, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting,and the December 6,2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining. NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS •The Bowman Group (SV·10·015) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented [on behalf of Lisa Kelly]a modification request for an outdoor advertising sign.The applicant is The Bowman Group and the property is located at the end of Railway Lane near Halfway Boulevard adjacent to where Halfway Boulevard merges with the 1-81 northbound ramp.The appiicant is proposing to construct a three-sided outdoor advertising sign.Section 22.24.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance states,"no Outdoor Advertising Sign shall have more than two (2)faces.A modification of the arrangement may be approved by the Planning Commission up to forty-five (45)degrees."It was noted that the proposed arrangement of the sign is 60 degrees.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated that the Planning Commission should deny the application based on the arrangement of the proposed sign and should forward its comments to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 85 86 Discussion:Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,briefly described the proposed sign and its arrangement.He noted that the sign would be approximately 48'x 15'[each face] for a totai of 1900 square feet for the entire sign.There was a brief discussion regarding the size of the proposed sign.Mr.Thompson gave a brief overview of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that were adopted in 2004 and the reasons for the changes. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend denial of the application for a three-sided sign with a proposed 60 degree angle to the Board of Zoning Appeals.Second by Mr.Ecker.Mr.Reiber and Mr.Ecker voted "Aye".Mr.Wiley and Commissioner McKinley voted "No". Comments:Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that this is a heavy commercialized area and he believes this area would be appropriate for this type of sign.Commissioner McKinley concurred with Mr.Wiley's comments and expressed his opinion that this is an area of the County where we are trying to promote business.Mr.Reiber pointed out that the applicant is not being denied the right to an outdoor advertising sign;however,the sign should be constructed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance [a two-faced sign with an angle not to exceed 45 degrees]. Vote:The motion failed on a 3-2 vote with Mr.Reiber and Mr.Ecker voting "Aye"and Mr.Wiley, Commissioner McKinley and Mr.Anikis voting "No". Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to deny the application and to recommend approval of the three-sided,60 degree angle sign to the Board of Zoning Appeais.Second by Commissioner McKinley. The motion passed with Mr.Wiley,Commissioner McKinley and Mr.Anikis voting "Aye"and Mr.Reiber and Mr.Ecker voting "No". -Nancy Rhoderick (S-10-048) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented a modification request from the 50-foot agricuitural land use setback for Nancy Rhoderick.According to Section 5B.5 of the Zoning Ordinance,the Planning Commission may -increase minimum setbacks up to 50 feet for properties adjacent to parcels that are actively farmed or parcels with an Agricultural District designation.The appiicant through her consultant,Frederick,Seibert &Associates,is requesting a waiver from the 50-foot setback requirement for proposed lots 2 and 3, which contain existing dwellings.The proposed lots meet the minimum setbacks for the A(R)- Agricultural Rural zone,but would not meet the 50-foot agricultural setback requirement for the new lot lines.Staff is not opposed to the Planning Commission waiving the 50-foot setback requirements because both proposed lots 2 and 3 have existing principal permitted structures and will meet the setbacks of the A(R)zone,which are 15-feet. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.Second by Commissioner McKinley.Unanimously approved. SITE PLANS -HHA Retail (SP-10-041) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for HHA Retail;property located at the intersection of Halfway Boulevard and Massey Boulevard.The developer is proposing to construct a retail sales building on 1.52 acres of property zoned BG (Business General).The existing bUilding,which is the former site of Roy Rogers restaurant wili be demolished.The proposed building area will be 10,350 square feet and the building height will be 15-feet.The site is served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality.The number of empioyees will be 15 maximum.Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on Sunday.Required parking is 52 spaces and 58 spaces will be provided.Signs will be building mounted with two free-standing signs.Lighting will be pole mounted and building mounted.A photometric plan was prepared,which showed zero to little light trespass on the adjacent roadways.Freight and delivery will be a single-unit (10 per week)and a tractor trailer (2 per week).Landscaping will be provided around the bUilding.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements.Ms.Wagner-Grillo discussed the location of the ioading dock.She noted that Staff does not believe this is the ideal location for the ioading dock and has informed the deveioper of Staff's position. Due to the layout of the lot and the location of the building,the developer does not have any other location for the loading dock.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated that agency approvals have not been received. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Thompson stated that all agencies have submitted comments; however,revisions have not been submitted.He noted that the reason this site plan is before the Planning Commission without agency approvals is due to the award of a County contract for road improvements in this area.The County is working with the developer to coordinate road improvements and site access. Mr.Anikis asked if the increase in water consumption on the site would be approved by the City of Hagerstown.Mr.Thompson stated that no comments have been received from the City at this time; however,the developer is working with them. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon ali agency approvals.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. CLOSED SESSION Motion:Mr.Reiber made a motion to go into Closed Session.Second by Commissioner McKinley.So ordered. RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION The Chairman reconvened the regular meeting at 9:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Thompson announced that the City of Hagerstown has prepared an update of its vacancy rates in shopping center [distributed to members prior to the meeting].He briefly reviewed the information provided. Mr.Thompson began a brief discussion regarding the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove [BKG]Farmstead and a Memorandum of Understanding that was presented to the BOCC on November 30,2010.It was determined,foliowing the presentation to the BOCC,that ali participating parties involved in the on-going process had not seen the final version of the MOU.The Historic District Commission again reviewed the MOU at its December 2010 meeting and reiterated its previous comments [submitted in May of 2010]to Mr.Kroboth,Director of Pubiic Works.Mr.Thompson noted that the Planning Commission previousiy reviewed the MOU and submitted its comments in January 2008.The Planning Commission,at that time, recommended aiternatives to the demolition or removal of the BKG Farmstead.The Commission also recommended rehabilitation and reuse of the structures.Mr.Anikis gave Commissioner McKinley a brief overview of the on-going efforts to save the Farmstead. ADJOURNMENT .Mr.Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.Second by Mr.Wiley.So ordered. Respectfuliy submitte.d9"-712/••......~:;.... 87 88 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 7,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 7,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Anlkis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 1,2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting,the November 22,2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting,the November 29, 2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting,and the January 10,2011 regular Planning Commission meeting.Second by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 10,2011 Pianning Commission Closed Session meeting.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimousiyapproved. OLD BUSINESS 'Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead Mr.Thompson reminded Commission members that this item was brought before them during the January 10,2011 meeting for additional comment.He reviewed the information that was previously presented and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion:Mr.Anikis reiterated the position of historic preservation advocates for rehabilitation and re- use of the property.He believes that an adequate amount of time needs to be given to find an adaptive re-use for the property or it should be "moth-balled"instead of demolished.Mr.Thompson noted that concern has been expressed regarding the timelines outlined in the MOU for finding an adaptive re-use of the property.Commissioner McKinley stated that he has received a letters from the Preservation Service Director of the Maryland Historic Trust and others requesting that the BKG Farmstead be maintained because of its historic relevance to the County.Mr.Anikis noted there is a cemetery in close proximity to the Farmstead,which will need to continue to be maintained by the County. No action required. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS Parkway 11-Parkway Neurosciences (SP-10-037) Mr.Lung presented,on behalf of Misty Wagner-Grillo,a site plan for Parkway II -Parkway Neurosciences located at the northwest corner of the Western Maryland Parkway and West Washington Street.The property is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange I).The total acreage of the site is 9.70-acres,which includes the existing 24,800 square foot building of Parkway Neurosciences.Parkway Neuroscience's is proposing a two-story,51,500-square foot medical building.There are currently 78 employees with an additional 146 employees proposed.The hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.Four box truck deliveries are expected weekly.Exterior lighting will be pole mounted,full cut-off,down-directed lighting.A photometric plan was submitted with the site plan, which shows zero to lillie light trespass off the site.The property was subdivided and the proposed building will sit on its own 4.6-acre lot;however,the parking analysis is being considered using all parcels owned by Parkway Neurosciences.The parking requirements are based on the total square footage of a medical office building.A total of 330 parking spaces are required and 381 parking spaces will be provided.The site is served by public water and public sewer provided by the City of Hagerstown.Storm water management will be handled through an existing storm water management facility with a second one constructed to accommodate the additional run-off.Landscaping will be provided in the parking lot, which will also be used as bio-retention areas to work in conjunction with the storm water management facilities.Additional landscaping will be provided using trees,shrubs and groundcover.All agency approvals have been received.Forest Conservation requirements were preViously met by a payment in lieu when the subdivision plat was approved. Mr.Lung stated that during the course of review of the site plan and the traffic study,the State Highway Administration expressed concern regarding the functioning of the intersection at Western Maryland Parkway and Maryland Route 144.SHA is concerned that as additional development occurs in this area, there couid be problems at this intersection.The SHA is recommending that as additional development occurs in the future,the intersection be replaced with a round-about.As part of its approval,Parkway Neurosciences is dedicating a portion of the right-of-way that would be required for this improvement. 89 The County'$Department of Public Work$and the Capital Project$Department are currently working on the detail$to determine if thi$road improvement will be a County Capital Improvement Project or if a road club might be involved.Mr.Thomp$on $tated that the SHA ha$propo$ed an amendment to the Tran$portation Improvement Plan for the de$ign of the propo$ed traffic circle.A Capital Project i$ propo$ed to be $tarted in FY 2015 to begin de$ign and con$truction of the propo$ed round-about. Di$cu$$ion:Mr.Wiley a$ked if additional $ignage i$propo$ed.A repre$entative of Frederick,Seibert & A$$ociate$,the con$ultant,$tated there would be $eparate $ign for the new bUilding to direct people onto the new $ite and a $ign on the building.There wa$a brief di$cu$$ion regarding the propo$ed road improvement$. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the $ite plan a$pre$ented.Second by Mr. Ecker.Unanimou$ly approved. OTHER BUSINESS City of Hager$town Annexation (A-2010-03) Mr.Thomp$on pre$ented for review and recommendation an annexation reque$t from the City of Hager$town for approximately 5.32 acre$of land located on the ea$tern edge of the city and adjacent to the Doub property near the interchange of 1-70 and US Route 40.The property i$currently owned by the State Highway Admini$tration.Mr.Thomp$on explained that the City i$propo$ing to zone the property C- 4 (Regional Shopping Center),which i$not con$i$tent with the County'$current zoning of the property [HI-2].He further explained that the property cannot be developed under the propo$ed zoning for a period of five year$in accordance with $tate $tatute unle$$the Board of County Commi$$ioner$grant$ "expre$$approval"of the zoning reque$t.Staff doe$not recommend "expre$$approval"of the reque$l. Di$cussion:Mr.Bowen a$ked how the City could annex the property without the con$ent of the State Highway Admini$tration.Mr.Thomp$on $tated that he ha$que$tioned repre$entative$from the City of Hager$town and he ha$been told that the City has the authority to proceed with the annexation.There .wa$a brief di$cu$$ion regarding this issue. Consensus:It wa$the con$ensus of the Planning Commi$sion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny "express approvai"of this reque$t. City of Hagerstown Annexation (A-2010-05) Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation a rezoning reque$t from the City of Hagemtown for approximately 1.41 acre$of land located on the we$tern edge of the city adjacent to Collegiate Acre$ development jU$t we$t of 1-81 north of Salem Avenue.The property i$owned by BeltwaY$Propertie$and i$currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1).The applicant i$reque$ting the property to be zoned R3 (Re$idential)upon annexation,which would allow more flexibility in de$ign of the property.Staff i$ recommending "expre$$approval"for thi$request. Discussion:There wa$a brief di$cu$$ion regarding the type of development currently in the area and $urrounding thi$parcel. Consensus:It wa$the con$en$U$of the Planning Commi$$ion to recommend that the Board of County Commi$$ioner$grant "expre$$approval"of thi$reque$t. Mr.Reiber [a$Vice-Chairman]announced that thi$would be Mr.Aniki$'$final meeting a$a member of the Planning Commi$$ion after serving on the Commi$$ion for ten year$.He pre$ented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr.Aniki$for hi$year$of outstanding $ervice and dedication a$a Planning Commi$$ion member. ADJOURNMENT Commi$sioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m.Second by Mr.Reiber.So ordered. Ice-Chairman 90 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 7,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 7,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Vice-Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Dennis Reeder,Sassan Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,and Administrative Asslsta~t Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to nominate Mr.Reiber as Chairman.Second by Mr.Ecker. Unanimously approved. Motion and Yote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to nominate Mr.Wiley as Vice-Chairman.Second by Commissioner McKinley.Unanimously approved. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 7,2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS James and Nancy Rowland (SY-11-001) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a proposed 634-foot panhandle on property located along the east side of Kemps Mill Road approximately 2,700-feet north of Pinesburg Road.The property is zoned A(R)- Agricultural Rural.The property owners are proposing to subdivide their property and create Lot 2 with remaining lands.Lot 2 would contain 6.98 acres and the remaining lands would contain 32 acres.The proposed lot would include an existing building,pole barn and a contractor's equipment storage yard, which was approved by the Board of Appeals In 2002.The remaining lands would include the existing single-family home with a detached garage and two barns.The site currently has 50-feet of road frontage on Kemps Mill Road;therefore,the proposed subdivision would divide the road frontage and provide 25- feet of road frontage for Lot 2 and 25-feet for the remaining lands.There is one existing paved entrance that serves both the business and the single-fam ily home and will continue to be used for both lots.As a result of the subdivision,access to the remaining lands would be via a panhandle with a length of 634- feet.Ms.Kelly stated that comments have been received from the Land Development Engineering Department regarding sight distance concerns.She explained there are existing trees on the neighboring property,which makes sight distance to the right a problem. Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the sight distance issue.Mr.Schreiber,the representative from Frederick,Seibert &Associates (the consultant),stated that the purpose of the subdivision is to separate the contractor's equipment storage yard (a commercial use)from the residential use for financing purposes.He noted that sight distance is an issue that should be addressed during the subdivision approval process and is not part of the modification request.Mr.Schreiber stated that sight distance requirements are determined based on road classifications. Motion and Yote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS -Town of Sharpsburg Annexation Request (11-001) Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request for the Town of Sharpsburg of approximately 0.54-acres of land located at 5142 Harper's Ferry Road.The property is adjacent to the south and east of the existing town boundaries at the southwest corner of High Street and Harper's Ferry Road.The Town is proposing that the property,which is currently zoned Preservation under the County's zoning regulations,be zoned TR (Town Residential).Mr.Thompson noted that the Mayor and Councii of Sharpsburg considered and approved an annexation plan in 1997,but due to an administrative error,the property was never formally annexed into the Town and the Town's corporate boundaries were never formally enlarged to include the property.The property has been listed on the Town tax rolls,has received Town services,and the owner has paid Town taxes since 1997.The County maps show the property within the Town's corporate boundaries. 91 Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant "express approval"for the zoning of this property as requested.Second by Mr.Ecker. Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining. Mr.Thompson briefed the Planning Commission on projects in progress or recently completed by staff, such as the Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Rezoning,the Water Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan,the Water and Sewerage Plan,amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Priority Preservation Areas,the Solid Waste Plan,changes to the Forest Conservation Ordinance,revisions to the mitigation section of the APFO,amendment to the Excise Tax provision,and the Land Preservation Pian.He briefly discussed the stimulus program for residential construction recently instituted by the County Commissioners. Mr.Thompson announced that the April 4th meeting will be held at the Washington County Court House, Room #1.The Commission wiil be holding a public meeting for a rezoning request for Holcim (US)Inc. The Commission discussed holding its reguiar meeting at an earlier time on the same evening. Commissioner McKinley reported that he attended a meeting earlier in the day at Fort Ritchie with representatives from COPT.COPT is not proceeding with plans for the redevelopment of Fort Ritchie at this time. UPCOMING MEETING 1.Monday,April 4,2011,Regular Planning Commission and Public Rezoning Meeting, Washington County Court House,Court Room #1,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m.Second by Commissioner McKinley.So ordered. 92 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 4,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,April 4,2011 at 6:00 p.m.in the Washington County Court House,Room #1,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Dennis Reeder, Sassan Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,Land Preservation Planners Eric Seifarth and Cody Shaw,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard, CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 7,2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Peco NNN Holdings,LLC (PC.10·003) Ms.Kelly presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for a proposed Walgreens store to be constructed at the intersection of Virginia Avenue and Halfway Boulevard.The site is comprised of 1.2-acres and was the former site of a gas station and used car lot.The property is currently zoned BL - Business Local.The owners are proposing an 11,600-square foot store with a drive-thru window. Access to the site will be via Glenside Avenue with a right in and right out onto Halfway Boulevard.Ms. Kelly gave a brief overview of comments submitted by the reviewing agencies.The Washington County Land Development Engineering Department will require an updated/revised traffic impact study.Any change in traffic pattern for Glenside Avenue will require approval from the Board of County Commissioners.There will be no concrete median on Halfway Boulevard as originally proposed.The proposed sidewalk around the perimeter of the property must be shown on the site plan and must be approved by the State Highway Administration.A hydraulic analysis for the existing channel along Halfway Boulevard and downstream drainage system will be required.An underground storm water filtration system is proposed.Representatives from the Washington County Soil Conservation District stated that there are areas of steep siope and highly erodible soils shown on the site plan.There will be no special treatment indicated since they lie in disturbed soils or under pavement.The City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department stated that water service is currently available to the site by a 1-inch existing water service line.The current allocation is 400 gallons per day.The parcel has an existing allocation of 609 gallons per day;however,if greater usage is anticipated,an application for additional allocation will be required.The State Highway Administration will require six copies of the revised traffic impact study and two sets of pians inclUding complete hydraulic drawings for review.The Washington County Sheriff's Department expressed concern regarding the left turn to travel east on Halfway Boulevard because of the close proximity to the intersection.The developer is proposing to move this access point away from the intersection,which would alleviate traffic problems.The Washington County Pianning Department will require a site plan.A variance was requested by the owner and granted by the Board of Zoning Appeais in 2008 from the 40-foot setback to a 3D-foot setback on Virginia Avenue and Glenside Avenue.The eXisting right-of-way and any setback reduction must be shown on the site plan.Ms.Kelly stated that several more variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals will be required due to the location of the Walgreens on the site and the size of the site.She noted that 56 parking spaces will be required and 37 spaces are proposed,which will require approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals.Variances will also be required for the canopy setback,the property line for the parking area [which is less than 10-feet],sign locations and monument locations.All variances must be approved prior to submitting the site plan.According to new parking regulations,at least 3 parking spaces to accommodate traffic back-Up to the canopy will be required.Ms.Kelly discussed the location of the proposed dumpster;however,as part of the site plan submittal,screening should be shown around the dumpster location. Discussion:Mr.Wiley expressed his concern with regard to the location of the dumpster and pick-up times due to the proximity of existing residences.There was a brief discussion regarding the distance from the dumpster to the closest residence.Mr.Wiley suggested looking at different locations for the dumpster or restricting the time of trash pick-up.Mr.Reiber suggested a vinyl fence around the dumpster location.He also expressed concern regarding traffic problems at this location . •OTHER BUSINESS Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications Mr.Seifarth presented for review and recommendation 12 Agricultural Land Preservation District applications.He began by providing a brief history of the Agricultural Land Preservation program.Mr. Seifarth stated that the County Commissioners have set a goal of 50,000-acres of land to be permanently preserved outside the growth area.The Ag Board previously approved these applications and the Bacc must give final approval for the applicants. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to recommend approval to the BaCC for the 12 Agricultural Land Preservation District applications because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. Agricultural Land Preservation Program Certification Mr.Seifarth presented for review and recommendation the Certification of Washington County's Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Annuai Report.He stated that the primary source of funding for the Agricultural Land Preservation program is the ag transfer tax.A conversion tax is levied (usually 5%) that pays for the permanent easements under the Agricultural Land Preservation program.The County is required to file an annual report to show that the funds are being spent.Mr.Seifarth briefly reviewed the Annual Report with Commission members,which included the Priority Preservation elements and explained the consequences if the County does not receive its certification. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the Certification of Washington County's Agricultural Land Preservation Program Annual Report to the BaCC.Second by Mr.Wiley. Unanimously approved. City of Hagerstown Annexation (A-2010-04) Mr.Thompson presented for review and recommendation a request from the City of Hagerstown to annex a portion of 95 properties (approximately 22-acres)in and around the perimeter of the City.He stated that the proposed City zoning of 19 of the 95 properties is not consistent with the County's current zoning. These 19 properties are located on the western edge of the City adjacent to the Gateway development. All of the iots in question are developed in the City with single-family residences with the rear of the lots located in the county and zoned IG (Industrial General).Staff is recommending that the County Commissioners grant "express approval"of the rezoning request. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend "express approval"of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. Annual Report Mr.Thompson stated that an Annual Report must be submitted to the State of Maryland Department of Planning each year.He noted that this year an element has been added that sets forth measures and indicators on local land use goals.Jurisdictions are to establish a goal toward increasing the percentage of growth within their PFAs and decreasing the percentage of growth outside the PFAs.Mr.Thompson stated that the County must also file a report on adequate public facilities every two years.He stated that the Planning Commission is required to set local land use goals every year and Staff will be prepared to discuss this with the Planning Commission at the May meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m.Second by Mr.Wiley.So ordered. RespectfUlly submitted, T;'~-= 94 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC REZONING MEETING April 4,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting on Monday,April 4,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Circuit Court House,Room #1,95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Dennis Reeder, Sassan Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC REZONING MEETING RZ -11-001 -Holcim (US)Inc. Mr.Goodrich presented a rezoning request from Holcim (US)Inc.to apply the floating Industrial Mineral zoning district to approximately 120-acres of property located along both sides of Old Forge Road southwest of Herman Myers Road adjacent to the north side of other lands of Holcim (US)Inc.Mr. Goodrich used a map to show the areas included in the rezoning request,which consisted of part of parcel 16 and all of parcels 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,433,434,560,734, 773,779 and 858.All parcels are currently owned by Holcim (US)Inc.He requested that the Staff Report be entered into the official record of the rezoning meeting . .Mr.Goodrich explained the process used by an applicant to have the Industrial Mineral (1M)floating zone applied to their property.He noted that if the 1M zone is applied to the property,it is a preliminary step in the process and does not constitute automatic permission to begin mining on the property.Mr.Goodrich stated that the application does not indicate that the quarry would actually be on this property and this parcel could be used in conjunction with the existing quarry for its expansion. Mr.Goodrich explained that there are specific criteria listed in the Zoning Ordinance that must be documented in order for the 1M zoning district to be applied.He briefly reviewed these criteria for the Planning Commission members.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the information contained in the Staff Report,previously submitted into the official record.He presented an overview of the significant changes to the traffic pattern that will occur in this area.Some of these changes are based not only on the applicant's needs but also on the County's intent and need to affect the road network.The County is proposing to extend Eastern Boulevard from Antietam Drive to the north,to an eventual connection with Maryland Route 60 and Marsh Pike (a.k.a.Eastern Boulevard extension).The proposed extension will go through a portion of the Holcim property.Holcim needs to relocate a portion of Old Forge Road in order to expand its operations into the area where the road is currently located.In order to move the road and maintain current access,Old Forge Road will be moved to the northern edge of the rezoned parcel and reconnected to the extension of Eastern Boulevard.There is an agreement with regard to the changes in the traffic patterns between Washington County, the City of Hagerstown and Holcim. Mr.Goodrich stated that the 1M floating zone is intended for the rural areas of the County,as cited in the County's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.The property in question is located outside the County's growth area.The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the need for mineral resources as a necessary part of modern living.It is the intent of the 1M district to protect existing quarries and known mineral resources from encroachment by incompatible land uses. Mr.Goodrich stated that the issue of compatibility,which is very subjective,needs to be considered. Compatibility has many aspects,such as blasting,traffic,noise,dust and ground vibration.The Zoning Ordinance has many methods to attempt compatibility between mining and other uses.There are specific limits on the amount of ground vibration that is permitted,hours of operation,landscaping,berm treatments for visual and safety aspects,bonding requirements,etc. Discussion:Mr.Shaool asked if all the parcels would be combined into one lot during the rezoning process.He noted that if the lots remain separated,an individual lot could be sold and would having mining rights attached to it.Mr.Goodrich stated that an individual lot could be sold;however,the lots are small and he believes would be of no value to an individual property owner for mining.He does not believe that the interior lot lines will be abandoned but the extension of the zoning boundary to include all of the lots is important to consider during this request.Mr.Shaool asked if there were individual houses on any of the lots and if anyone is living in the houses.Mr.Goodrich stated that currently there are individual dwellings on some of the parcels and people do live there.Mr.Shaool asked if the people would continue to live there.Mr.Goodrich stated that the properties are owned by Holcim and it would be their decision if and for how long the properties would continue to be rented. Applicant's Presentation Mr.Urner,attorney for the applicant Holcim US,Inc.began his presentation by introducing Mr.Denzel Cotera,the plant manager at Holcim,Mr.Gary Batey,the former plant manager who was instrumental in 95 negotiations with the County for the relocation of Old Forge Road,and Mr.Fred Frederick,representative of the consultant Frederick,Seibert &Associates.He presented a brief overview of the entire property owned by Holcim and the area proposed for the quarry expansion.He stated that the existing occupied dwellings owned by Holcim would not be occupied once Old Forge Road is relocated.Mr.Urner briefly discussed the abandonment agreement between Holcim and the County for the relocation of Oid Forge Road. Mr.Urner noted that there would be no change in the use of roadways in this area.He stated that traffic generation would not be determined by the amount of land added to the 1M zone,but rather by the production and supply of material on the land.Therefore,if production increases,traffic increases;if production decreases,traffic decreases.Mr.Urner discussed the Zone of Influence and presented an exhibit to be entered into the official record.He noted that the Zone of Influence is established by the State of Maryland. Mr.Gary Batey,former plant manager for Hoicim,spoke briefiy about the citizens'advisory panel that was created by Holcim several years ago.He stated that the panel was presented with this plan and was In favor of the relocation of Old Forge Road.Mr.Batey briefly talked about the Zone of Influence,which Is set by the State of Maryland and what citizens iocated within the Zone of influence should do if there are problems with their wells.With regard to the relocation of Old Forge Road and the extension of Eastern Boulevard,Mr.Batey stated that the timing of the road would be dependent upon the County.Therefore, he believes that the residents currently living in the homes across Old Forge Road from the quarry would not be affected for at least 7 to 10 years.He stated that the next step for expansion of the quarry would be to obtain a permit from the State of Maryland and comply with all State regulations. Mr.Denzel Cotera,the plant manager for Holcim,gave a brief history of the quarry and its operations.He stated that the property proposed for rezoning would be used for mineral extractions.Mr.Cotera stated that it would be more than 10 years before mining extractions would take place on the properties currently proposed for rezoning. Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,iocated at 128 South Potomac Street,Hagerstown began his presentation by entering into the official record photographs of the signs that were posted advertising the public rezoning meeting.He displayed a map showing the quarry's property and indicating two adjoining properties (the Stockslager Farm and the Herbst farm),both of which are currently being used for agricUltural purposes.He stated that there is no planned residential development on these properties at this time.He discussed the proposed expansion area and number of lots that would be available on the adjoining properties and stated that public water and public sewer are not available in this area.However,public water and public sewer are available at the North Brook Estates and Cortland Manor developments.Mr.Frederick briefly discussed the view shed from the neighboring properties and proposed screening and landscaping by Holcim. Public comment: Mr.Rob Stacey,19677 Marigold Drive (North Brook Estates).Hagerstown Mr.Stacey questioned the posting of the property stating that the sign is on the ground and cannot be seen from Old Forge Road.He also noted that only one sign was posted,not two as stated by Mr. Frederick.Mr.Stacey asked if a geological survey has been or will be performed,claiming that current blasting at the quarry has created a sinkhole between his house and his neighbor's house.He expressed great concern about the quarry operations moving closer to his residence.Mr.Stacey also expressed concern with regard to the County actually putting in a new road. Discussion:Mr.Wiley asked Mr.Stacey how long he has lived at his current residence.Mr.Stacey answered 18 years.Mr.Urner asked Mr.Stacey to show him,using the map,where his house is located in North Brook Estates;Mr.Stacey did so. Mr.Elden Stockslager.20122 Old Forge Road.Hagerstown Mr.Stockslager indicated the location of his property on a map and stated that he is a third generation farmer on this property.He expressed concern regarding the location of the buffer zone from his property.Mr.Stocksiager expressed his opinion that the property should continue to be zoned agriculture because more agricuituralland is needed.He made comments regarding dust,noise and blasting issues. Mr.Stockslager ciaimed that during periods of blasting,his well pump was damaged (in the past)and needed to be replaced and the water will turn muddy for several days.He expressed concern regarding the relocation of the road and sinkholes located in the area. Discussion:Mr.Wiley asked if Mr.Stockslager notified Holcim when his well pump was damaged.Mr. Stockslager stated he fixed the pump himself.Mr.Wiley asked if Holcim has discussed its emergency water pian in case there is a problem with the well.Mr.Stockslager stated that nobody has discussed this issue with him.He stated there was a meeting held by Holcim several years ago for the community to discuss the Zone of Influence.Mr.Wiley asked if the residents are notified before blasting occurs.Mr. Stockslager stated he has never been notified. Commissioner McKinley asked Mr.Stockslager what year he built his house.Mr.Stockslager stated he built his house in 1995;however,he was not sure if the Zone of Infiuence included his property at that time. 96 Mr.Donald Muffley,20228 American Way,Hagerstown Mr.Muffley asked where the buffer zone would be located in relationship to Cedar Hills.Mr.Frederick stated that the buffer zone would not change from its current location.Mr.Batey stated that the current permit area is 500-feet inside the property line.Mr.Muffley stated that he believes that three wells have been replaced by Holcim.Mr.Batey stated that two of the wells were on property owned by Holcim.Mr. Muffley asked if both roads would be constructed at the same time.Mr.Reiber stated that previous testimony indicated that would be based on economic conditions;the Eastern Boulevard extension is not currently in the CIP.Mr.Goodrich stated that when the roads are constructed and relocated,no one will be left without access to their property.He stated it is his understanding that Old Forge Road cannot be relocated until Eastern Boulevard is extended. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Reiber reiterated that this was a public meeting,not a public hearing.Written comments will be accepted for ten (10)days following the conclusion of this evening's meeting and all information will be available for review at the County Planning Department and on the department's website.A formal recommendation will be made by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners.The BOCC will hold a rezoning pubiic hearing where the applicant will make their presentation and citizens will be given an opportunity to comment.Following the BOCC's public hearing, the official record will be closed and the BOCC will make its decision at a later time. Chairman Reiber adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .~~K/ Terry 97 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 24,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 24,2011 at 6:00 p.m.in the Washington County Court House,Room #1,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker (arrived at 6:07 p.m.),Dennis Reeder,Sassan Shaool,and EX-Officio William McKinley (arrived at 6:40 p.m..Staff members present were:Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Jennifer Smith,Director of Plan Review and Permitting,Deputy Director Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 4,2011 regular Planning Commission meeting and the April 4,2011 public rezoning meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS .Liberty Towers (SP-11-002) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed wireless communications tower to be located along the north side of Breezy Acres Road near Leitersburg.The property is currently zoned Agriculture.The applicant,Liberty Tower,is proposing to construct a 199-foot lattice cell tower on a 127- acre parcel owned by Mr.and Mrs.Clarence Cook.The proposed ieased area will be 75-feet by 75-feet (approximately 5,600 square feet).A 12-foot gravel drive will connect the site with Breezy Acres Road, which will be maintained by the applicant.The proposed setbacks for the cell tower are a minimum of 350-feet from the nearest property line.No lighting is required on the tower.The total disturbed area is .9-acres.The tower meets the separation requirements of overhead transmission lines.The tower will have a galvanized finish and will be situated on an open hilltop with mature forest on the north and east sides.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception in September 2010 to allow the placement of a cell tower on this site.The tower is designed to accommodate 6 carriers with 4 pads and 2 shelters.The proposed tower will be surrounded by a 7-foot chain link fence with barbed wire on top. This site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because there will be less than 40,000-square feet of disturbed area.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked why the cell tower application was presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals.Ms.Kelly stated that all cell towers are a special exception use in the Agriculture, Environmental Conservation and Preservation zoning districts;therefore,approval is required from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Second by Mr. Reeder.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS -RZ-11-001 -Holcim (US)Inc. Mr.Goodrich informed Commission members that Staff will be asking for a recommendation on this rezoning case,which was presented on April 4,2011 during a public rezoning meeting.He distributed an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance that summarized the four points to be considered by members when making their recommendation. Discussion:Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the public [during the public meeting]did not understand that the Maryland Department of the Environment has several issues to thoroughly review and investigate prior to issuing a mining permit.He believes that the public views these issues,such as groundwater,mining,sinkholes,etc.,as a responsibility of the Planning Commission.The Commission is only responsible for determining the appropriate use of the property.Mr.Goodrich noted that the applicant commented during the public meeting that it would take approximately 10 years before mining could start on this section of land due to the various steps that are necessary to obtain a permit from MOE. -Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove (BKG)Working Group Mr.Goodrich stated that a member is needed to represent the Planning Commission on the BKG Working Group.He gave a brief overview of the history of the purchase of the BKG Farmstead by the County, events that led to a Section 106 review,and reasons for the formation of the BKG Working Group.A Memorandum of Agreement has been signed between the FAA,the Maryland Historical Trust and the 98 County Commissioners.Mr.Goodrich briefly described the responsibilities of the Working Group as outlined in the MOA. Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the time limitations for instituting the parameters set within the MOA. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to appoint Mr.Shaool as the Planning Commission representative to the BKG Working Group.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to appoint Mr.Bowen as the Planning Commission alternate representative to the BKG Working Group.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. -Capital Improvement Plan Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation [as it pertains to consistency with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan]the Capital Improvement Program.He explained the differences between the capital budget and the Capital Improvements Program.The capital budget is the spending for FY 2012 and the first year of the CIP;the CIP is the six year plan for capital spending.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the information presented in the CIP including a list of all capital projects [six year plan].He also reviewed the capital budget for FY 2012.Mr.Goodrich briefly discussed the Mt.Aetna Farms road network (Yale Boulevard Phases I and II and Varsity Drive),which are all located in the Urban Growth Area.There is currently a lot of controversy regarding these projects because they would be built using taxpayer dollars. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the Capital Improvement Plan because it is consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan.Second by Mr.Wiley. Unanimously approved. -Annual Report Goals Mr.Goodrich reported that in accordance with new legislation,the Planning Commission is required to establish a goal toward increasing the percentage of growth within its PFAs and decreasing the percentage of growth outside its PFAs as part of the required Annual Report submitted to the Maryland Department of Planning.In the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan,goals have already been established for growth with a split of 80%urban and 20%rurai development.Mr.Goodrich stated that this goal has been met during the past year and in previous years using different mechanisms.Staff recommends that the goal should be formally stated in the Annual Report to maintain the current 80/20 split with the intent to improve on that goal in the future as additional recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan are implemented. Discussion:Members questioned how the goal percentages were established and how the goal would be affected during peak times of development.Members also questioned how the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area would affect this goal.The Commission requested that this item be tabled until its June meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.June 6,2011,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission Meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.So ordered. Terry 99 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 6,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission heid its regular meeting on Monday,June 6,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryiand. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Dennis Reeder,Sassan Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Jennifer Smith,Director of Plan Review and Permitting,Deputy Director of Pian Review and Permitting Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 24,2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-11-001 -Holcim (US)Inc. Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the materials previously provided to Commission members regarding the rezoning application for Holcim (US)Inc.for 120.11-acres of property located along both sides of Old Forge Road,southwest of Herman Myers Road adjacent to the north side of other lands of Holcim (US) Inc.He reminded members that the Industrial Mineral (1M)zone is a floating zone;therefore,the "change in the character of the neighborhood or mistake in original zoning"does not apply to this rezoning application.The Zoning Ordinance lists four criteria that should be considered when considering the application of an 1M floating zone on a parcel of land.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed these criteria with Commission members.He noted that the quarry is located outside of the Urban Growth Area and currently co-exists with residential development on several sides.Mr.Goodrich noted that the applicant does not plan any change in current traffic patterns or in the amount of traffic from the quarry.Road bonds are in place and will be used if there is damage to the roadways. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked who would monitor any problems with regard to water issues in this area.Mr.Goodrich stated the Maryland Department of the Environment will issue a permit to the mine operator to pump water out of the quarry and direct it to the appropriate outlet.The Zone of De-watering Influence has boundaries and a plan to be followed if water supplies within it are disturbed. The quarry would be responsible for any problems within this Zone according to the plan.Mr.Goodrich briefly discussed the steps that the quarry would take if there is a problem;and,if the quarry is at fault, steps to remedy the situation. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that if there is a problem with water,he is confident that MDE would help the residents to resolve these issues.He noted that Holcim testified during the public meeting that there are no plans to start mining the new area for at least 20 years. Mr.Wiley stated that he is not opposed to the expansion and believes that Holcim has worked with the City and the County on road improvement issues that will benefit residents. Mr.Shaool asked how many homes are served by well and septic that could be affected by expanding the quarry.Mr.Goodrich stated he did not have an exact number;however,many of the homes are already located within the existing Zone of Influence and at least two additional ones in the expanded zone. Commissioner McKinley asked if there was a legal definition of the word "rural".Mr.Goodrich stated that the County is using the word "rural"as it is used in the County's Comprehensive Pian.In this case,"rural" means outside the growth area and not in a Rural Village. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the "1M"floating zone for the Hoicim (US)Inc.property located along both sides of Old Forge Road.The Commission has considered and bases its recommendation on the following criteria as outlined in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance:"the purpose of the 1M district,the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan,the compatibility of the proposed district with the adjacent lands,and the effect of the mineral extractive operations on public roadways".Second by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. 100 NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Gerald N.Minnich Funeral Home (SV-11-004) Ms.Kelly presented a modification request for the Gerald N.Minnich Funeral Home to be located along the south side of Robinwood Drive at the end of Medical Campus Way.The parcel is currently zoned A- Agriculture and contains 3.89-acres of land with 580-feet of road frontage on Robinwood Drive.Ms.Kelly explained that when the site plan for the proposed funeral home was approved,the developer was proposing to use the existing entrance to the Elks Club.The applicant is requesting a modification from Section 405.2.A of the Subdivision Ordinance to reduce the access spacing along a minor arterial from 500-feet to 300-feet.The applicant is proposing to construct a new entrance for the funeral home 390- feet east of the previously approved access [the Eik's Club entrance].The next entrance [the mini- storage facility]would be 300-feet from the proposed funeral home entrance. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the applicant's consultant,briefly addressed the Commission.He noted that Robinwood Drive is proposed to be a divided highway with a raised median in the area of the funeral home.Mr.Frederick expressed concern for the stacking of traffic at the traffic light.He stated that traffic would make a right-in/right-out to the funeral home;thereby alleviating stacking issues.He believes the median will provide better traffic movement and safety. Mr.Reiber questioned the need for the additional access when an access is available and the site plan was approved using that access.He expressed his concern with regard to additional traffic as the Robinwood Drive area continues to be developed. Mr.Shaool asked if the modification is approved,would the approval transfer with the property if another use would be proposed.Ms.Smith stated that it would transfer with the property.Members expressed .their concern that stacking issues could still develop if a higher intensity use on this property or adjoining properties would develop in the future. Mr.Bowen asked if the applicant was agreeable to the conditions recommended by Staff that the access could not be constructed until the median is in place.Mr.Frederick stated that the median would be mandatory before the access could be built. There was an exchange of concerns and ideas between the consultant and members of the Commission with regard to safety and traffic issues.Mr.Lung noted that the functionality of the access would be reviewed as part of a revised site plan for the funeral home or a new site plan if the use on the property is changed.A decision would be made at that time if the functionality of the access is acceptable or not. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request with the following conditions:1)no construction plans shOWing an access spacing of less than 500-feet will be approved prior to the construction and acceptance of a concrete median on the section of Robinwood Drive that fronts the Kenworthy property;2)prior to any approval of construction plans shOWing the proposed entrance,the Kenworthy property will require recordation of a re-plat to remove the access restriction;3) a new or revised site plan for the Kenworthy property will be required shOWing the proposed entrance on Robinwood Drive and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.The design requirements for the Robinwood Drive entrance will be determined as part of the site plan review process. Any change in the proposed use of the property may alter the design of the entrance;4)a pubiic works agreement (PWA)and performance bond will be required for the entrance construction.Second by Mr. Reeder.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS Remax Achievers (SP-11-003) Ms.Kelly [on behalf of Misty Wagner-Grillo]presented for review and approval a site plan for Remax Achievers for property located along the south side of East Oak Ridge Drive.The property is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1).The appiicant is proposing to construct three temporary modular homes on 2.2-acres.There is currently a single-family home on the site with an existing drive and paved area.There will be no water or sewer services provided and no signage is proposed.Lights will be bUilding mounted.Trash will be stored inside and no dumpster is proposed.The hours of operation will be by appointment only.No deliveries or employees are proposed.Five parking spaces are required and six parking spaces will be provided.This site is exempt from storm water management requirements and Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.No landscaping is proposed. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the applicant's consultant,briefly addressed the Commission.He stated that the applicant [Steve Powell]is an employee of Remax Achievers and his office is located across the street from this site.The homes will be pre-fabricated houses placed on concrete blocks;there will be no permanent foundations. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Second by Mr. Wiley.Unanimously approved. Islamic Society of Western Maryland (SP-10-028) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed building addition to the Islamic Society of Western Maryland located along the east side of Day Road.The property is currently zoned 101 Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed building addition to the Islamic Society of Western Maryland located along the east side of Day Road.The property is currently zoned HI-2 (Highway Interchange 2).The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,700-square foot buiiding addition to the existing mosque to be used as an expansion to the prayer hall,men's and ladies lobbies and restrooms,meeting,Sunday School and office area.There will also be a 3,900-square foot expansion to the parking lot.The site will be used on Friday evenings for fellowship and on Sundays for meeting and class use.There is an existing stone house,trailers and one-story single family home located on the site.The single-family home is currently used as offices with its own access and parking area.Parking requirements are based on congregation size.There are currently 160 members,which require 64 parking spaces that currently exist.In anticipation of increased membership [222 persons],a total of 83 parking spaces would be required,which would be provided with the additional parking lot that is proposed.No signage is proposed. Public water and sewer services are provided by the City of Hagerstown.No deliveries are anticipated.Front and rear setback requirements are 50-feet,which have been met.Existing landscaping will remain and additional landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by a payment-In-lieu in the amount of $2,918.52. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool questioned the use of the payment-in-Iieu to meet Forest Conservation requirements instead of on-site planting.Ms.Kelly stated that a simple Forest Stand Delineation Plan was prepared,which shows there is no existing forest on the site and no high priority areas on the site for planting.Mr.Lung clarified that this site qualified for "express procedures"as outlined in the Forest Conservation Ordinance.In accordance with the Ordinance,if the mitigation requirement on a site is less than 2-acres and other criteria are met as stipulated in the Ordinance,the payment-in-Iieu option can be used without prior approval by the Planning Commission. There was a brief discussion regarding the new storm water management regulations and the County's process for review. Mr.Reiber asked if the current lighting would be adequate for the proposed parking lot expansion.Ms. Kelly stated that additional pole mounted lighting is proposed.Mr.Reiber asked if the lighting would spillover onto neighboring properties.Mr.Puthawala,representative for the Islamic Society,stated that the lighting is directed downward and that the existing trees would protect the neighbors from lighting spillover. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Second by Mr. Reeder.Unanimously approved. Verizon -Indian Lane (SP·10·044) Mr.Lung [on behalf of Misty Wagner-Grillo]presented for review and approvai a site plan for a proposed 150-foot stealth tree-style cell tower to be located off of Indian Lane,south of Maryland Route 64 east. The property is currently zoned A -Agriculture and is located within the Urban Growth Area.The applicant was granted a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals in October 2010 for construction of the cell tower on this site.Mr.Lung stated that the Historic District Commission submitted comments to the Board of Zoning Appeals with regard to the effect of the proposed cell tower on historic sites and the National Register listed site in close proximity to the proposed cell tower.The HDC questioned the use of a tree-style stealth tower as opposed to a regular monopole and requested a photo simulation be prepared.Mr.Lung stated that there is no reference to the HDC comments in the BZA's opinion on the case;however,it was stated that the State Historic Preservation office had no objections to the request.Mr.Lung explained that when companies propose the construction of a cell tower,they must obtain approvais from the FCC.Part of the approval process requires that environmentai and historic studies be prepared.The applicant must submit the historic study to the Maryland Historic Trust.If a response is not received from MHT within the specified amount of time,it is assumed that there Is no objection by MHT to the request [which happened in this case].A 50-foot by 50-foot compound area will house the base of the tower and four equipment shelters and will be shielded by an 8-foot high shadow box style fence.There will be no lighting on the tower.Space will be reserved on the tower for Washington County Emergency Services.A 150-foot setback from all property lines is required and has been met.There Is a 352-foot setback to the nearest dwelling.If the tower is unused for a period of one year,it will be the owner's responsibility to remove it.There Is an existing gravel drive off of Indian Lane which serves the existing house and a short length of drive 12-feet wide will be constructed to access the cell tower site.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because there is less than 40,000-square feet of disturbed area.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding the location of the cell tower,its distance from the National Register site and its effect on the surrounding neighborhood.There was a brief discussion with regard to the use of the tree-style stealth tower discouraging co-locators due to higher costs.A representative for Verizon stated that this style of cell tower is more expensive for the applicant to construct;however,the cost for co-locators is the approximately the same as any regular cell tower. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Second by Mr. Shaoo!.Unanimously approved. [Mr.Shaool excused himself from the meeting and left the room before the next item on the agenda was called.[8:28 p.m.] 102 -OTHER BUSINESS Rosewood Planned Unit Development Mr.Lung began with a brief overview and history of the Rosewood PUD,which is located along Robinwood Drive between the Hagerstown Community College and the Robinwood Medical Center.The PUD overlay zone was granted in 1995 and allows a mix of residential and commercial uses based on an approved development plan.The final development plan for 520 residential units and two commercial areas on 79-acres was approved approximately two years after the PUD zoning was approved.Since that time,plats and site plans have been approved for Phase I and Phase II.Phase I has been completed with primarily residential units including senior housing units and a commercial area along Robinwood Drive.Plans for Phase 11-8 have been approved but it has not been built.Plans for Phase III are currently under review by the County's Division of Plan Review and Permitting.In February 2010 the Planning Commission approved the replacement of a 12-unit apartment building in Phase II-B with a commercial area,which resuited in an increase of commercial uses ratio from 10%to 12%.Within the PUD standards as defined in the County's Zoning Ordinance,a maximum of 10%of the gross area can be designated for commercial development.That change was considered a minor change to the development;therefore,a public hearing was not required.In June 2010,the Planning Commission considered another revision request to replace 52 townhouse units in Phase II-B with 10 professional business use buildings,which resulted in an increase in commercial area from 12%to 19.35%.The Planning Commission did not consider this a minor change;and,therefore,a public hearing was required. A joint public hearing [Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission]was held in August 2010 with no public opposition.The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed change and the BOCC subsequently approved the change in September 2010.A revised development plan has not been submitted for either of the approved changes.The developer is now requesting to replace 87 townhouse units in Phase II-B and Phase III with 5 commercial office buildings containing a total of approximately 56,000 square feet of space.This change would increase the total commercial area ratio in the PUD to 29.8%.The proposed revision is being presented to the Planning Commission to determine if this change would be a minor change and the developer could submit a revised development plan.If the Planning Commission determines that this is not a minor change,a joint public hearing [BOCC and Planning Commission]will be required. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Lung explained that the intent of the commercial area in a PUD is that it should be supported by the PUD itself.He also explained that the area being considered to be changed from residential to commercial could be removed from the PUD and a separate commercial zone be requested for that property. Commissioner McKinley noted that with the changes that have been made in the past,and if the requested change is granted,the commercial area in the PUD would be tripled from the original proposal. He questioned if any more residential development in the PUD would be changed from residential to commercial uses.Mr.Adam Shaool,developer,explained the reason for requesting the change and stated that the remainder of the development would remain residential. Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the PUD will not support all of the commercial development proposed.However,he noted that there has been a change in the neighborhood since the time the PUD was approved and the change in the economy has affected the housing market. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the request does not warrant a public hearing.He believes that "the clock was re-set"when the previous increase was approved and that this increase should be based on that number instead of the original 10%.However,he stated that he would not support any further changes to the PUD because plans are now in place for the new road system.Mr.Bowen asked if the proposed change would be consistent with the proposed recommended rezoning of the UGA in this area. Mr.Goodrich stated that approximately 50-acres of the Mt.Aetna Farms property is proposed for RS (Residential Suburban)zoning,which would be consistent with the Village of Robinwood residential development.There is a large portion of the Mt.Aetna Farms property that is proposed to have the aRT (Office,Research &Technology)zone.On the north side of the proposed aRT zone,more residentiai zoning is proposed.There was a brief discussion regarding different scenarios for commercial and/or residential uses in this area and various changes that have taken piace in the surrounding neighborhood. Mr.Reiber reminded Commission members that major changes in the PUD development plan require a joint public hearing.He noted the significant increase in the percentage of proposed commerciai area. Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that a public hearing is warranted due to the significant increase in the proposed commerciai area and location of the proposed commercial area in relationship to the residential area. Motion and Vote:Commissioner McKinley made a motion that the request should be heard during a joint public hearing because this constitutes a major change in the development plan.Second by Mr. Wiley.The motion passed with Commissioner McKinley,Mr.Wiley,and Mr.Reeder voting "Aye"and Mr. Bowen voting "No". [Mr.Shaool re-entered the room following the vote for the remainder of the meeting.] Westfields 103 Mr.Lung presented a revision to the previously approved Section 4A of the Westfields subdivision,which was approved using the ciustering provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.Westfields subdivision is located along Sharpsburg Pike.The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and is zoned A (Agriculture). Mr.Lung explained that ciustering is used to reduce the lot size without increasing the overall density of the development.The developer is proposing to change 64 lots for semi-detached dwellings to single- family lots.This would constitute a reduction of 13 lots in Section 4A;however,the developer is proposing to move these lots to future Section 7.This change would not affect the total number of lots in the development. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked why this request was made.Mr.Jeremy Holder of Ausherman Development,the developer,stated that there is currently not a need for semi-detached dwellings due to economic conditions. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the request as presented.Second by Mr. Reeder.Unanimously approved. Annual Report Mr.Nugent briefly discussed the information that the State of Maryland wants provided in the Annual Report each year.The State would like to see new residential lots created per calendar year and new building permits.Mr.Nugent distributed maps to Commission members.One of the maps showed new subdivisions in 2010 and if they are located inside or outside a Priority Funding Area.The second map showed single-family homes.He noted that there were 156 single-family homes constructed [with Use & Occupancy permits issued]of which 31 homes were located within the PFAs.The Commission continued to review the growth related changes as described in the Annual Report. Following a review of the Annual Report,Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission needs to approve a local land use goal.The goal should support the philosophy that development should occur in the Growth Area or PFAs and not in the rural areas.During the May meeting,Staff recommended that .the Commission should establish its goal to maintain the current goal as stipulated in the County's Comprehensive Plan,which are 80%development in the urban area and 20%development in the rural area.Those percentages reflect past trends [going back to the late 1990's].In past Annual Reports,the amount of development that occurred in the rural area on converted agricultural land was also reported. The overall average over the past 20 years has been approximately 20%.Mr.Goodrich stated that past trends inciude development in the towns. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the Annual Report as presented and that the Commission establish its goal to maintain the 80%development in urban areas and 20%development in the rural areas.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. Water Resources Element Mr.Reiber reminded the Commission that a joint public hearing was held with the Board of County Commissioners on May 24 th on the Water Resources Element.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Water Resources Element should be considered an amendment to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.He briefly reviewed the materials presented at the public hearing and testimony that was heard.Mr. Goodrich distributed a copy of a letter from the Maryland Department of Planning with regard to its review and comments.He noted that all of the comments have been addressed and Staff recommends the adoption of the WRE.Staff has based its recommendation on the following:State law requires that the WRE be included in the Comprehensive Plan (if the WRE is not adopted,the County will lose its authority to make any zoning changes [in fact,the County is currently on hold]);the County has followed the State's models and guidelines for preparing the WRE;MDP has stipulated its approval if the changes were made;the WRE is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan [it is not law,therefore,there is no direct effect on the approval of development plans];the Comprehensive Plan is updated on a six year cycie and therefore the WRE can be changed as warranted;the WRE document points out shortcomings in the County's ability to serve future development and assists the County in adjusting the land use plan to address the limitations. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen expressed his concern with regard to water and sewer limitations. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend adoption of the Water Resources Element to the Board of County Commissioners as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. Election of Officers Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to appoint Mr.Reiber as the Chairman.Second by Mr. Reeder.Unanimously approved. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to appoint Mr.Wiley as the Vice-Chairman.Second by Mr. Reeder.Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.July 11,2011,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission Meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baitimore Street :;;:»-0"~... OJ 00:;;c: (1);lJ :>Z 3 s: !ll m 0-z(1)-I !ll 3 0g :> 0- !llg 0c ~:> :T (1) 3 (1) ~ :> (0 ~ CDen '""3 (f) 0 0 ~ 0- (1) ~ (1) 0- 105 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 11,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 11,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review and Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review and Permitting Timothy A. Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Goodrich requested that a discussion regarding a proposed Text Amendment for Solar Energy Generating Systems be presented to the Commission and added to the agenda. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 6,2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -Meritus Health System (SP-11-011) .Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for additional parking at the Meritus Medical Center.The developer is proposing 300 additional parking spaces on the southern side of the existing parking area at the Meritus Medical Center.Mr.Lung noted that a subdivision plat is also currently being reviewed by staff.In order to get all the proposed parking on the parcel owned by the Meritus Medical Center,an addition of approximately 2-acres of land from the Washington County Endowment Development Corporation property to the Meritus Medical Center Is required.The subdivision plat must be approved and recorded before final approval of the site plan is granted.Based on the original zoning requirements of this property,1,146 parking spaces were required.On the site plan,which was approved several years ago for the hospital,2,333 parking spaces were proVided.With the additional parking that is being proposed,the total parking spaces for the complex would be 2,633 spaces.New parking require- ments were adopted in February 2010,which included new criteria for pedestrian access,bicycle parking and additional landscaping within the parking isiands.The proposed parking spaces will comply with the new parking standards.Additional pedestrian crosswalks and additional landscaping material will be provided,including 15 two-inch caliber deciduous trees,262 inkberry holly shrubs and 181 vibernum shrubs.New storm water management regulations will be met using a rain garden and bio-retention areas in the parking islands.The new parking regulations require one bicycle space per 25 vehicular spaces (12 bicycle spaces are required and 18 spaces will be provided).Lighting will be down-directed, cut-off lighting which will minimize glare and spillover.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion:Commissioner McKinley made an inquiry regarding the number of handicapped spaces. Mr.Tony Taylor of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,stated that the number of handicapped spaces exceeded the number of spaces required per Zoning Ordinance regulations;however,additional handicapped spaces are being added.Mr.Reiber asked how the determination was made that additional parking spaces are needed at this time.Mr.Raymond Gray,Meritus Medical Center CFO,stated that the original number of parking spaces were sufficient based on traffic studies performed at that time.He noted that the additional parking spaces were planned during the initial planning and design of the hospital.However,new census numbers and employee parking spaces,as well as new zoning and storm water management regulations have contributed to the changes and need for the additional spaces. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon final approval and recordation of the subdivision plat.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS -Certification of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program Update Mr.Goodrich informed Commission members that the County's Land Preservation Program has been recertified by the State of Maryland for three years.The County is now eligible to continue to receive two- thirds of the transfer tax money instead of one-third.Commissioner McKinley asked if the County Commissioners couid expand the County's goal of preserved land with the additional funding received through this program.Mr.Goodrich stated that the goal is set in the Comprehensive Plan and the Commissioners could amend the Plan to increase the goal;however,he believes that the increase in funds is not substantial enough to expand the acreage. Mr.Goodrich also informed Commission members that the County's updated Solid Waste Plan has recently been approved by the State of Maryland,the Annual Report has been submitted to the State, and the Water Resources Element was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and submitted to the State. 106 -PlanMaryland Mr.Goodrich distributed copies of the Executive Summary of the PlanMarviand Draft Plan.He noted that the entire document is available through the Maryland Department of Planning's website for review and comment.The deadline for comments is September 1,2011.This document is,in many ways,a comprehensive plan for the entire State of Maryland.PlanMarviand designates certain areas statewide for specific activity [some for growth,some for revitalization,some for ag preservation and some for resource protection].The document has goals for each of these areas and discusses implementation strategies to achieve those goals.Staff believes it is very important for local jurisdictions to know what is in this Pian because they are a party to some of the activities proposed in some of the designated areas. Local jurisdictions can participate in the designations and in the implementation of policies to achieve the goals of the Plan.The PlanMarviand document has many of the smart growth philosophies that the State has been encouraging for the past several years.However,the document is more aggressive in the State's efforts and there will be many more implementation measures to attempt to make smart growth work.The Plan will primarily focus on State efforts and activities of State agencies in order to support implementation of this Pian.Mr.Goodrich encouraged Commission members to review the document, with specific emphasis on chapters 3,4 and 5.Chapter 5 focuses on possible implementations that the State is considering to achieve the goals in PlanMarvland.Staff wili be reviewing the entire document and,if necessary,will make recommendations to the State with the support of the Planning Commission and County Commissioners. Mr.Goodrich reviewed the designated areas,which are very similar to the County's Comprehensive Plan. The "Growth Print"is a blueprint for the urban areas where the State wants revitalization and new development.The "Green Print"and "AgPrint"are the blueprints for the rural areas where the State is promoting agricultural preservation and resource protection and utilization.Mr.Goodrich noted there are mapping items in the document that are incorrect and Staff will inform the State of these issues.These issues are relative to our community and the relationship between the Priority Funding Areas (PFAs)and the growth print areas that the State has identified.GrowthPrint areas are a smaller subset of the Growth ,Area and the Priority Funding Areas.The County's Growth Area has been identified as a larger area which identifies more undeveloped land.The intention of the GrowthPrint is to focus on undeveloped land in the urban core,not on the fringe and redevelopment of areas in the urban core. -Proposed Text Amendment -Solar Energy Generating Systems Ms.Baker distributed a draft copy of a proposed text amendment for Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS).Ms.Baker reminded Commission members that text amendments were adopted several months ago for solar arrays and wind turbines for private use on homes [on-site consumption].The purpose of the new proposed text amendments is primarily for generating energy to sell to the grid,not for on-site consumption.Ms,Baker briefly reviewed the proposed ianguage of the text amendment.She explained that Staff believes this type of use would be better suited for the rural areas because putting the systems in the Growth Area would utilize valuabie land where infrastructure is readily available.She also noted that the Growth Area could provide land and infrastructure for commercial and industrial type uses,which could have the potential to create more jobs for the County. Discussion:Mr.Wiley asked if the systems could tap into the grid from any location.Ms.Baker stated this issue needs more research and staff is trying to contact interested companies that are considering a move to Washington County.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the County should not make the locations too prohibitive so that interested companies that could benefit the County would not locate here. He also made an inquiry regarding regulations from the Public Service Commission.There was a brief discussion regarding solar systems for private use versus production of solar energy to sell back to the grid. Ms.Baker continued her review of the proposed amendment stating that SEGS would be a special exception use allowed in the A(R)-Agricultural Rural,EC -Environmental Conservation,P - Preservation,RV -Rural Village,and 1M -Industrial Mineral zoning districts.She briefly reviewed the design standards being proposed in the amendment.Staff has also discussed this amendment with the Director at the Hagerstown Regional Airport and has included design standards for the Airport zone. Ms.Baker stated that Staff would like to present the proposed amendment in a public meeting at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 1,2011. Discussion:Mr.Ecker made an inquiry regarding land currently in preservation,specifically each one- acre parcel that is not in preservation and is not defined.Ms.Baker stated that the one-acre parcel is not defined;however,it is considered the homestead around the farm.Mr.Ecker believes that most farms in the County have some area that is not being used for farm production and asked if these areas could be used for SEGS.He believes this is an issue that needs to be defined.There were brief discussions regarding the Reclamation Plan and the changes in technology as it relates to the SEGS. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,August 1,2011,7:00 p.m.,regular Pianning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland 107 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.Second by Mr.Reeder.So ordered. Re~bmitle~":.;;tLJ T-erry j(eiber,Chairman 108 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING August 1,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting Monday,August 1 ,2011 at 6:30 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Sam Ecker,Sasson Shaool, and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review and Permitting Jennifer Smith,Senior Planner Jill Baker,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. REZONING PUBLIC MEETING -RZ-11-003 Text Amendment Solar Energy Generating Systems Ms.Baker presented for review a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to include language for Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS).Approximately one year ago,ianguage was adopted to allow for on-site,small wind and solar systems as accessory uses in all zoning districts in the County.The proposed text amendment would aliow the use of solar generating energy systems for the sole purpose of generating electricity to sell back to the power grid.Ms.Baker noted that while doing research of the impacts of solar energy on the sustainability of the energy system in Maryland,she found that the citizens of Maryland used approximately 63.3 million megawatt hours (MWh)of electricity in 2008.Approximately '6%of the energy consumed was generated by renewable energy resources.The State of Maryland has made a commitment to increase its renewable energy resources by adopting the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).The goal of the RPS is to require at least 20%of electricity sold in the State of Maryland must come from renewable resources by 2022.The standard also requires that a minimum of 2%of the renewable energy must come from solar energy sources. Ms.Baker addressed questions that were raised during the Planning Commission's meeting on July 11 th She noted that several components would factor into the development of solar electric generating facilities In our County,as follows:(1)Site Location -the best location for a SEGS would be an area with low land costs with virtually little or no environmentally sensitive areas.According to solar energy companies in the region,it takes approximately 5 to 7 acres of solar arrays to generate one megawatt (MW)of power;(2)Power Purchase Contract -Contracts would need to be negotiated with Load Serving Entities [specifically in our area,First Energy Corporation];(3)Clear Regulatory Requirements -Solar developers prefer working in jurisdictions with clear regulations and processes and predictable fees for project implementation;and (4)Adequate transmission and distribution infrastructure -It is crucial that facilities be located near high-voltage power lines.Another question that was raised during the last meeting regarded the location of SEGS on agricultural easements and districts.Property in permanent easements would be required by the State to have a generating area within one acre of the pre-existing dwelling and the solar system must be used solely for on-site consumption.A question regarding regulations of the Public Service Commission (PSC)was raised.Ms.Baker obtained information from the County Attorney's Office,which indicates that anybody generating electricity and serving it back into the grid would be regulated by the PSC.Prior to the meeting,Ms.Baker distributed a guide for Interconnection Standards and briefly reviewed this information with the Commission. Ms.Baker stated that Staff has drafted language to permit SEGS as a special exception use within the rural areas of the County,specifically in the A(R)-Agricultural Rural,EC -Environmental Conservation, P -Preservation,RV -Rural Village and 1M (Industrial Mineral)districts.Staff is aiso proposing that SEGS be allowed as a special exception use on lands zoned AP -Airport.She noted that property in the AP zoning district have large expansions of unused land currently used to buffer AP operations from other properties.There are FAA regulations in place for SEGS. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool asked if SEGS wouid be permitted in industrial areas.Ms. Baker stated that SEGS would be compatible with Industrial uses.However,Staff believes that SEGS should not be allowed in the Urban Growth Area because of the large amount of land needed and because the SEGS would not produce a lot of jobs that would benefit the County as a whole.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that jobs would be created while the facility is being built.He noted that large warehouse facilities or iarge parking areas used for storage of materials do not create a lot of jobs either. He believes that the SEGS should not be excluded from industrial zones and need to be near transmission lines and substations that would produce a constant voltage. Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to allowing SEGS in the Airport zoned areas.He believes that additional information is needed from the FAA and the local Airport. Public Comment Mr.James Devine.P.O.Box 2217.Hagerstown,Maryland -Mr.Devine expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission "stands on the threshold of making a decision that could be very important to this 109 community".He does not believe that solar energy should be limited,but should be expanded and could be applicable in a number of places.Mr.Devine expressed his opinion that the 20-acre minimum lot size is too large.Smaller acreage requirements would allow more people to install solar parabolic collectors on their property to produce energy. Mr.Reiber clarified that the proposed text amendment is for SEGS for commercial use.The County currently has regulations in place for Individual use of solar energy. Mr.George Anikis,8105 Sharpsburg Pike,Fairplay,Maryland -Prior to the meeting,Mr.Anikis provided written comments to be entered into the record.Mr.Anikis expressed his opposition of allowing SEGS in the Rural Village zoning district.He quoted from the Zoning Ordinance,Article 5D,the purpose of the Rural Village designation and the meaning of a Rural Village from Chapter 759 of the Maryland Code. Mr.Anikis stated that Washington County has approximately 50 Rural Villages of which 8 are designated historic.He expressed his opinion that,"there Is more than enough vacant industrial,commercial and agricultural land in this county to support a SEG without threatening our rural villages".Mr.Anikis's second concern is in regard to buffering requirements.He recommends that language from the Zoning Ordinance,Article 5,Section 5D(b)should be incorporated in the Design Standards for the proposed text amendment.Mr.Anikis supports the use of solar energy;however,he believes that this county has a distinct rural heritage that needs to be protected. Mr.Wiley asked if Staff could calculate the number of 20-acre lots that would be available in the rural villages for SEGS.Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff could calculate this information and present it at the Planning Commission's next meeting. Mr.Jerry Ditto.14736 Ditto Road.Clear Spring.Maryland -Mr.Ditto stated that if SEGS would be allowed in agricultural zoned areas,he would "probably be opposed to that for many reasons"[i.e.the fencing requirements,consuming ag land that is going to be shaded by solar panels,which would make it ineffective to farm].He believes that buildings with flat roofs,such as warehouses,would be an ideal place for solar panels and he also suggested zoning areas of land around substations for SEGS.Mr. .Ditto expressed his opinion that the UGA rezoning should be adopted before any other changes are made to the Zoning Ordinance regulations. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Reiber adjourned the public rezoning meeting at 7:00 p.m. 110 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 1,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen,Dennis Reeder,Sam Ecker, Sasson Shaooi,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review and Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director Tim Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 11,2011 meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Carlton and Lorraine Martin (SV-11-005) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request from Subdivision Ordinance Section 318.1 to permit the creation of a stand alone simplified parcel located along the north side of Reiff Church .Road.The property is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural with the Airport overlay zone.The applicants,Mr.and Mrs.Martin,want to create a 1.76-acre lot that would include their house and establish a 9-acre parcel for agricultural purposes only.The prospective purchaser of the g-acre parcel is a nearby farmer,Mr.Eby.The property cannot be subdivided for residential development because it is located within the Airport Overlay zone,which has a maximum density of 1 lot per 50 acres. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked if there are any restrictions on the current deed with regard to subdividing or selling a portion of the land.Ms.Kelly stated that information was not provided by the consultant;however,she believes there are not any restrictions.Mr.Lung stated that the surveyor must certify on the plat if there are any restrictions written in the deed that would make the subdivision invalid. Mr.Shaool asked for clarification if a house could be built on the g-acre lot.Mr.Lung stated that a house could not be put on the property and a statement would be put on the recorded plat and in the deed of conveyance that states,"Not for development". Motion and vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.Second by Mr.Shaool.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS Susquehanna Bank (SP-11-009) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed addition and drive-thru for the Susquehanna Bank located at the Intersection of Marsh Pike and Longmeadow Road.The property is approximately 1.13-acres and is currently zoned RS -Residential Suburban.The owner/developer is proposing to add a 675-square foot addition to the existing bank [2,500-square feet]In addition to reconstructing the parking area and drive-thru due to the acquisition of property for the construction and upgrade of the Marsh Pike/Longmeadow Road intersection by the County.The new entrance for the existing bank is proposed to be moved approximately 70-feet south and 70-feet west both along Marsh Pike and Longmeadow Road from the existing entrances.There will be 3 drlve-thru lanes constructed on the south side of the bank in addition to a 10-foot ATM and by-pass lane.The current ATM and drive-thru lane located on the north side of the bank will become a parking area.There are currently 18 parking spaces on site and 21 parking spaces are proposed,2 of which will be handicapped spaces.The site is served by public water and sewer from the City of Hagerstown.There are currently 6 employees on site. The hours of operation will be Monday thru Thursday g:OO a.m.to 3:00 p.m.and Friday g:OO a.m.to 7:00 p.m.in the lobby and Monday thru Friday g:OO a.m.to 7:00 p.m.and 9:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon on Saturdays at the drive-thru.Lighting will be building mounted and the existing sign will be relocated approximately 30-feet south from its current location.Trash will continue to be collected inside the building.Additional landscaping is proposed throughout the parking lot and along the southern property line.Red cedar trees will provide a buffer between the bank property and the residential property on the south.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there is less than 40,000-square feet of disturbed area. Discussion and comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the proposed landscaping along the southwest side of the property next to the residential uses along Longmeadow Road.Other Commission members agreed that additional landscaping is needed along this area. III Mr.Bowen made an inquiry regarding the ownership of the parcel of land on which a house is proposed to be demolished.He expressed his concern that all legalities between the County and Susquehanna Bank [with regard to this parcel]have been worked out.Ms.Mong of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,stated that an e-mail was received from a representative of the County stating that "the deed to Parcel 161 will be conveyed at the time we settle on the right-of-way acquisition". Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon additional iandscaping being installed to protect the residential property owners and that the land is conveyed appropriately to Susquehanna Bank at the appropriate time.Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS -Solar Energy Generating Systems Text Amendment Mr.Goodrich stated that the additional information requested during the public meeting and Staff's recommendation will be presented at the next regular Pianning Commission meeting.The Planning Commission will be making its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners during that meeting. -Plan Maryland Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that the Executive Summary from the Draft PlanMaryland was distributed during the July 11 th meeting.A workshop will be held with the Board of County Commissioners on August 9th regarding this document.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed comments that Staff believe are pertinent to the "Plan".One of the main comments that Staff would like to reiterate to the State is to include local governments in subsequent steps of Plan Maryland. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that Plan Maryland's main focus is the .urban areas,not the rural areas.He believes that we should address these comments and concerns to the State.Commission members briefly discussed the Staff comments and suggested that these comments be presented to the BOCC.Mr.Reiber recommended that Staff prepare a letter on behalf of the Planning Commission to be submitted to the BOCC outlining these comments and concerns. Mr.Reiber briefly discussed the Urban Growth Area rezoning public hearing that was held by the BOCC on July 26th •He noted that most of the public comments were similar to those expressed during the October 2010 joint public hearing by individual property owners and some comments were made regarding Transferrable Development Rights (TORs).There was a brief discussion regarding the next steps in the process to adopt the UGA rezoning. UPCOMING MEETINGS The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,August 29,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the County Administrative Annex. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Reiber adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, #~-'? ferry~bElr.CI1'ffirman 112 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 29,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 29,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Sasson Shaool,and Ex- Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Director of Plan Review and Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director Tim Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 1,2011 public rezoning meeting as presented.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 1,2011 regular meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-11-003 -Solar Energy Generating Systems /SEGS)Recommendation .Ms.Baker reviewed three points of discussion addressed by members during the August 1"public rezoning meeting.The first issue discussed was to allow SEGS as a permitted use in the AP zoning district.Mr.Ridenour,Manager of the Hagerstown Regional Airport,informed Staff that the Airport is interested in this type of technology and that there are FAA guidelines for SEGS (a copy of which was e- mailed to members prior to this meeting).The FAA favors the photovoltaic panels because they produce a lower reflective glare.Ms.Baker noted that under current zoning regulations,SEGS are permitted as an accessory use in the AP zone when used for the sole purpose of powering structures on site.The second issue discussed was allowing SEGS in the Rural Villages.An analysis was prepared by Staff indicating 54 Rural Villages designated in Washington County.Within those Rural Village designations, oniy eight parcels are greater than 20 acres in size.Ms.Baker clarified that under the current zoning regulations,Solar panels are permitted as an accessory use in the Rural Villages for the sole purpose of powering structures on site.The third issue addressed was in regard to allowing SEGS in the industrial zones.Ms.Baker presented a map highlighting the areas currently zoned for industrial uses in the County. Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding properties proposed in the UGA comprehensive rezoning for IG,PI,or IR zoning.Ms.Baker noted that Staff believes allowing SEGS in the UGA would take up valuable land area for job producing uses.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that most industrial zoned land would not sell at a price that would work for solar energy;however,there may be a left-over parcel of land that would meet the requirements for the installation of a solar generating system.He also noted that solar panels are lighter in weight than before and could be used on factory or warehouse roofs. Mr.Ecker agreed that allowing solar panels in industrial areas could encourage development in these areas. Ms.Baker also pointed out power substations [known by Staff)were included on the map;however,this may not be all of them. Comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that the Rural Villages should be excluded in the amendment.He believes there is enough other land in the rural areas of the County where these systems [for power generation]could be located. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment for Solar Energy Generating Systems to the Board of County Commissioners with the following changes:(1) exclude SEGS [for commercial use]from the Rural Village zoning district as a special exception use;and (2)add the SEGS as a special exception use in the IG (Industrial General),IR (Industrial Restricted)and PI (Planned Industrial)zoning districts.Second by Mr.Ecker. Discussion:Ms.Baker noted that by adding SEGS as a special exception use in the IG,IR and PI zoning districts,they would also be allowed in some other zoning districts (such as the HI-1). Commissioner McKinley recommended that Rural Villages should be defined. Amended Motion and Vote:The motion was amended to include Commissioner McKinley's recommendation to define the Rural Villages.The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. 113 NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS South Pointe PUD Condominiums (SP-10-017) Mr.Lung [on behalf of Ms.Kelly]presented for review and approval a site plan for the South Pointe PUD located along the east side of Grand Oak Drive and Peppercorn Drive.Mr.Lung noted that the original development plan was approved in 1991 with several subsequent changes to this phase of the PUD.In 2007,the Planning Commission approved a request to change the assisted living facilities in this phase to condominiums.The developer is proposing to construct three 3-story condominium buildings [two of these bUildings wiil contain 36 units and the third bUiiding will have 30 units for a total of 102 condominium units].The proposed building height is 39-feet to the mid-point of the roof.Public water and public sewer is provided by the City of Hagerstown.There are 235 parking spaces required and 237 parking spaces will be provided.A portion of the proposed parking spaces will be provided in an underground parking facility.Recreational vehicle parking will be provided near the existing storage buildings.Existing public streets wiil serve the site;however,the street within the area to be developed wiil be a private street and wiil be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.Storm water management will be provided by an existing regional storm water management facility.There wiil be mailboxes within each building.A park-like area with a gazebo,plantings and benches will be provided in the center of the development.A total of 3.22 acres of open space will be provided.Sidewalks will be provided and will tie-in with the existing pedestrian system at South Pointe.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because the PUD was in existence prior to 1993 when the Forest Conservation Ordinance was adopted.All agency approvals have been received.The final Homeowner's Association documents have not been submitted to the County for review and approval. Additionai research is needed with regard to the applicability of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance on this phase of the development.In the minutes of the 2007 meeting when the Planning Commission approved the change as described above,the developer indicated that these residential units would be age restricted and would therefore be exempt from APFO requirements.If these units will be age .restricted,this needs to be included in the Homeowner's Association documents. Discussion and comments:Mr.Ecker asked the developer,Mr.Paul Crampton,if he intends to develop these condominiums as an age-restricted facility.Mr.Crampton stated that he could not remember if he agreed to the age restriction in 2007 and would need time to do further research on this issue.There was a brief discussion regarding the width of the proposed private street.There was a brief discussion regarding the applicability of the APFO requirements and the age restriction issue. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approval of the Homeowner's Association documents and that Staff verifies the issue of age restriction from the 2007 minutes and APFO requirements be met by the developer [if applicable].Second by Mr.Ecker. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Goodrich distributed a copy of a letter from the Board of County Commissioners to the Maryland Department of Planning.During the August 15t meeting,the Planning Commission voted to write a letter to the BOCC regarding the Plan Maryland document.The BOCC agreed with the Commission's comments and asked Staff to include additional comments.Mr.Goodrich noted that the County Commissioners held a Workshop meeting with staff members from the Maryland Department of Planning, at which time the PlanMaryland document was explained in greater detail.MDP informed the BOCC that the document will be revised based on comments that have been received.The revised document will then be available for another public review period.No action was required. Mr.Goodrich announced that a revised development plan and complete application for the Rosewood PUD has been submitted to the Planning Department to change a portion of the residential units to commercial facilities.A joint public hearing is required for this change.Commission members briefly discussed available dates for the public hearing. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,October 3,2011,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m.Second by Commissioner McKinley.So ordered. 114 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 3,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 3,2011 at 7:00 p,m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker, Sasson Shaool,and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung,Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Jill Baker. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the September regular meeting held on August 29, 2011 as presented.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimousiy approved with Mr.Wiley abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Review and Herald Publishing (SV-11-008) Mr.Lung presented a request from the Review and Herald Publishing Company for the use of the .simplified subdivision plat process to create a separate 47.53 acre stand-alone parcel "not for development".The property is located along the south side of Oak Ridge Drive and is currently zoned HI- 2.The property is currently being used for agricultural purposes and it is the intent of the applicant that the agricultural use will continue.In Section 3.18 (a -c)of the Subdivision Ordinance,a list of allowable uses of the simplified plat procedure is provided.Mr.Lung stated that Staff is not opposed to this request;however,County EngineeringReview personnel have listed several conditions that must be met prior to approval of this request.First,the consultant must provide a standard sight distance worksheet for the existing pump station access if this is proposed to be the primary access to the property parcel. An additional 50-foot right-of-way from the centerline of West Oak Ridge must be dedicated for future widening. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reeder asked if the 4-acres of land located on the other side of 1-70 would be used for agriculture.Mr.Lung believes that it is not the intent of the applicant to include those 4-acres of land in the 47.53-acre parcel for agricultural purposes.Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant for the applicant,stated that the 4-acres is a separate parcel created by the public taking of 1-70.He briefly explained the applicant's justification for this request.Mr.Ken Grove,the attorney for the appiicant,gave a brief history of iitigation involving the Review and Herald'Publishing Company with regard to property tax assessments on the subject parcel. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the request to create a separate stand-alone parcei "not for development"of 47.53-acres contingent upon the applicant providing the required standard sight distance worksheet for the existing pump station access and the dedication of the additional 50-foot right-of-way from the centerline of West Oak Ridge Drive for future widening.Second by Mr.Wiley. Unanimously approved. June Leasure (SV-11.006) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request to create a 4.35-acre single-family lot around an existing dwelling served by well and septic,which will leave a remaining 14-acre parcel.The Health Department requires a 10,000 square foot septic reserve area and it cannot be located on the subdivided lot.The applicant is requesting approval to locate the reserve area on the remaining lands. The property is located along the north side of Lappans Road east of the intersection with College Road and is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural and RV -Rural Village.The applicant would like to utilize the 10,000 square foot area on the remaining lands in the form of an easement instead of ownership. The Health Department has no objection to the request. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool asked why the applicant does not include the 14-acre parcel with the existing dwelling in order to have the septic reserve area on the same lot as the dwelling.Ms. Leasure,the applicant,explained that the subdivision is part of a family estate settlement and that there is a natural boundary [a stream]between these two parcels.She stated that the family has worked diligently to preserve this land in its native state.Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates, the consultant,further explained the justification for this request. There was a brief discussion with regard to other similar requests brought before the Planning Commission with Mr.Lung citing specific examples. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the request contingent upon restrictions being recorded with the deed.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. 115 -SITE PLANS Peco NNN Holdings.Inc.(SP.11-008) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed Walgrens to be located along the south side of Virginia Avenue and east of Halfway Boulevard.The property is currently zoned BL - Business Local.A preliminary consultation was held in January 2011 and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed plans and offered comments in April 2011.The developer is proposing to construct a 2-story,10,873 square foot building on 1.18 acres.The first level of the building will house a pharmacy/convenience store and the second level will be used for storage only [and will not be available to the public].The maximum height of the building will be 30-feet.A drive-thru with canopy is proposed along the north side of the building.Access to the site will be from Glenside Avenue,which will have both an entrance and an exit and a right-in and right-out is proposed from Halfway Boulevard.There will be no access from Virginia Avenue.Public water and sewer will serve the site.Hours of operation will be 7 days/week,24 hours per day.There will be a total of 40 employees working various shifts.Deliveries are expected several times per week.Parking spaces reqUired is 38 spaces and 38 spaces will be provided. Lighting will be building and pole mounted and a photometric plan has been requested by Staff prior to final approval.A screened dumpster will be located to the rear of the building next to the parking area. Screening will be prOVided by a wood fence and landscaping.Two 25-foot high signs totaling 165-square feet each will be located on site.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted 3 variance requests:1)a reduction in the front yard setback from 40-feet to 25-feet;2)a reduction in the minimum 25-foot street right-of-way to 2-feet from a free-standing sign support structure;and 3)a reduction from 5-feet to 1-foot from the street right-of-way for the sign face and the buffer area from 10-feet to 2-feet from the rlght-of- way line for parking.Storm water management facilities will be provided underground due to constraints of the site area.Landscaping will be interspersed throughout the site using a variety of iandscaping materials.Directional pavement markings and free standing signs will be used to direct traffic on the site. A privacy fence 8-foot in height made of opaque cedar sealed with a clear sealant will be used as screening adjacent to Mr.McAllister's property.The McAllister's have expressed concern with regard to the lighting,screening and proposed hours of operation.State Highway Administration approval is pending.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by payment in lieu in the amount of $784.08. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber noted that for the past several years the Planning Commission has been requiring vinyl fencing.There was a brief discussion regarding access to the site from Glenside Avenue and Halfway Bouievard.There was a brief discussion regarding the variances for setbacks granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals and concern was expressed for the neighboring properties relative to light and noise. Mr.McAllister,who owns the adjoining property,was present at the meeting and presented Commission members with a petition from residents along Glenside Avenue.Residents are concerned about the amount of traffic that will be generated on Glenside Avenue.Mr.McAllister expressed his opinion that the 8-foot fence will not provide adequate protection on his property from the lights on the proposed Walgrens property. Mr.Shaool asked if it is possible to provide additional screening to Mr.McAllister's property.Mr. Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,suggested that the applicant could install the vinyl fencing as previously recommended.He explained that Mr.McAllister's property is situated lower than the proposed Walgren's and would make it difficult to provide any additional screening on the proposed site.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that a taller fence (greater than 8-feet)should be considered.Mr.Schreiber noted that the 8-foot fence would be sitting on top of a 3 to 4 foot retaining wall and he does not believe that the Zoning Ordinance would permit anything taller.Ms.Kelly suggested that the two property owners could agree to additional screening on Mr.McAllister's property. Mr.Wiley asked when the photometric plan would be submitted for review.It was noted that the photometric plan has been completed and was designed to have downward facing lights so there would be no spillover beyond the applicant's property line.It was also noted that there will not be any lighting on the second story of the bUilding [all bUilding mounted lighting will be limited to the first story of the building].There was a brief discussion regarding the Issue of lighting and screening.Commissioner McKinley expressed his concern that the number of parking spaces being proposed may be inadequate. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon screening being provided using an evergreen tree [8-foot minimum],which would grow large enough to block any spillover of lighting on the adjoining properties. Discussion:Mr.Ecker expressed his opinion that there is not enough room on the site to plant trees due to the variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Schreiber stated that the developer was fearful that planting trees in this area would affect the existing retaining wall. Mr.Bowen seconded Mr.Shaool's motion. Discussion:Ms.Kelly stated there is not enough space for both the fence and the trees.She does not believe that trees would survive in that small space.A suggestion was made that trees be planted by the developer on the adjoining property owner's land,if both the developer and the property owner agree. Mr.Shaool withdrew his motion. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon Staffs approval of the photometric plan,all agency approvals and the use of vinyl fencing around the dumpster and along the property on the retaining wall.It is recommended that the developer and adjoining property owner meet to discuss the planting of trees on the property owner's land to provide additional screening. 116 Second by Mr.Bowen.The motion passed with Mr.Wiley,Mr.Ecker,Mr.Bowen,Mr.Reeder and Commissioner McKinley voting "yes"and Mr.Shaool voting "no". OLD BUSINESS -RZ-11-003 Solar Energy Generating Systems Mr.Goodrich stated that the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on RZ-11-003 on Tuesday,October 4th at 2:00 p.m.Following the Planning Commission's recommendation and requested changes,Staff realized that Article 18 (h)of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the special exception uses in the IR and IG zoning districts.Therefore,Staff prepared additional text to allow the Solar Energy Generating Systems in the PI zoning district. OTHER BUSINESS -Revised PlanMaryland Mr.Goodrich presented the draft of the revised PlanMaryland document.He reminded Commission members that the first draft document was reviewed and comments presented by Staff during the July 11 th Planning Commission meeting.At that time,the Commission recommended that a letter should be sent to the Board of County Commissioners stating its concerns with regard to the loss of local zoning authority,the "one size fits all philosophy"of the Plan,etc.The BOCC adopted the Planning Commission's concerns and forwarded a letter to the Maryland Department of Planning regarding these concerns as well as other concerns including examples of how the Plan,as written,could be detrimental to local government.As a result of comments received by the State of Maryland from local jurisdictions and citizens around the State,revisions were made to the Plan. Mr.Goodrich stated that he has reviewed the revised Plan and noted that significant changes have been made.He briefly highlighted a few of the changes made in the Plan.The Plan includes a comparison of current trends versus a smart growth scenario and a chart of expected fiscal and environmental implications from current policies and smart growth scenarios.Mr.Goodrich pointed out there are 3 major goals and 12 visions included in the Plan.Although the revised Plan presents a more collaborative approach and recognizes unique local conditions,it Is still a plan that the State intends to use to help make funding and policy decisions and couid impact local governments. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding the Maryland Delegation and its position on the goals and objectives of Plan Maryland.Commissioner McKinley briefly discussed the idea of a lobbyist for several of the western counties in Maryland.He noted that each county has indigenous qualities that PianMaryland does not take into account and is not in the best interest of that county.Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the County Commissioners should work with the Delegates to represent Washington County in expressing its concerns and communicating what is in the best interest of our County. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners work with the Maryland Delegates to communicate its concerns regarding Plan Maryland and to represent the best interest and to protect the future planning of Washington County.Second by Mr.Ecker. Unanimously approved.Commissioner McKinley said he would convey the Planning Commission's recommendation to the County Commissioners. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Tuesday,October 18,2011,6:00 p.m.,Joint Public Hearing,Washington County Administration BUilding,100 West Washington Street,Room 255,Hagerstown,Maryland 2.Monday,November 7,2011,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.Second by Mr.Ecker.So ordered. Respectfu~, ~//.</~. Terry 117 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,November 7,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker, and Ex-Officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 3,2011 regular meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Reeder.Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-11-004 Rosewood PUD Modification Request Mr.Lung noted that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on October 18,2011 to consider the Rosewood PUD modification request.There was no opposition at the public hearing.Mr.Lung also noted that when the PUD application for this property was approved in 1995,several criteria were considered including the applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the County,the compatibility of the proposed PUD with neighboring properties and the effect of the PUD on community infrastructure.These factors should be taken into consideration when acting on this request.Several issues with regard to traffic,road design,and possible on-site and off-site road improvements that may be necessary if the modification is approved were addressed in comments received from the County Public Works Department and the Division of Plan Review & Permitting when reviewing this request. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked if a traffic control signal is proposed in the vicinity of John F.Kennedy Boulevard.Mr.Lung stated that the entire Robinwood corridor is proposed for significant upgrades and the developer of the Rosewood PUD will be required to install a traffic light at the intersection of Varsity Lane and Robinwood Drive.There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed updates in this area.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the amount of traffic in the Robinwood corridor. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed revisions to the Rosewood PUD development plan to the Board of County Commissioners.Second by Mr.Reeder. Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked if Mr.Bowen would recommend that the traffic issues be addressed per comments from the Washington County Division of Public Works. Amended Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen amended his motion to recommend approval of the revisions contingent upon the developer satisfactorily addressing all traffic related issues per the requirements of the Washington County Division of Public Works.The amended motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley and Mr.Wiley abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Gerald Steven Rhodes (SV-11-010) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request for the addition of a panhandle in a subdivision that already has the maximum number of panhandles allowed.The property is located along the northwest side of Light Street in the Byers Meadow subdivision near Downsville.The property is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.The applicant is proposing to subdivide and sell a 3 Y,acre parcel of land with his existing house and build a new house on the remaining 12-acres of land.Due to the width of the existing road frontage [approximately 1OO-feet],the subdivision would create two panhandies (one panhandle would serve the existing house and one panhandle would serve the remaining lands).In accordance with Section 405.11.G.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance a maximum of four panhandles are permitted in a subdivision of the original tract of land.The proposed subdivision would create two more panhandles for a total of six panhandles.The Engineering review section of the Division of Plan Review and Permitting has no objection to the request. Discussion and Comments.:Mr.Bowen asked if the panhandle is intended to be a shared driveway. Ms.Kelly explained that the applicant intends to keep the same access and create a panhandle to the proposed new lot.However,there is enough road frontage to create a separate access in the future.Mr. Reiber asked if the right-of-way would have its own legal description in the deed.Mr.Schreiber of 118 Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,explained that the right-of-way would be shown on the subdivision plat as an easement and referenced in the deed of conveyance when the property is sold. Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the legal description of the right-of-way for both proposed lots be recorded in the deeds for both parcels if the new lot utilizes any portion of the existing driveway. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the modification request for an additional panhandle.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. Jerry E.Massey (SV-11-009) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request to allow for the reduction of the minimum access spacing on an "other principle arterial"road.The property is located along the northwest side of Virginia Avenue just north of the 1-70 over-pass and is currently zoned HI-2 (Highway Interchange 2).Ms.Kelly stated that the applicant,Jerry Massey,Is proposing to reconfigure the lot lines of three (3)lots of record -Tract 3,Tract 2,Tract 1 and Parcel A and has.submitted a replat to the Washington County Division of Pian Review and Permitting.There are two existing dwellings on Tract 1, no dwellings on Tract 2,and an existing house and garage on Tract 3.Ms.Kelly showed Commission members the proposed reconfiguratlon of the lots as shown on the replat.The proposed Tract 2 will have one of the existing houses from Tract 1 and will require an access onto Virginia Avenue.Virginia Avenue is classified as an "other principle arterial"roadway,which has a minimum access spacing requirement of 750-feet.There is an existing access 95-feet to the south and an existing gravel drive 164-feet to the north that does not serve any dwellings.The State Highway Administration has reviewed the request and has no objection. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that the proposed access is onto a State road [a main thoroughfare]and could cause problems in the future by going from the required 750-feet to 95-feet and 164-feet.Mr.Wiley noted that no additional traffic will be generated since the property is already developed.Mr.Bob Bush of Triad Engineerin9,the consultant,stated that the current access will continue to be used;however,if the property is conveyed outside of the family there may be t~e need to have a separate access.He noted that the access spacing requirements were adopted after the road 'was developed. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS HCC Energy House (SP-11-017) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the proposed Energy House located on the campus of the Hagerstown Community College near the intersection of Scholar Drive and Arc Lane.The proposed house will be 3,500 square feet with an attached 1,000 square foot garage.The house would be used Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.with four employees.A maximum of 50 students will be present during operating hours.The City of Hagerstown will provide water and sewer services to the site. Parking facilities and handicapped spaces are currently in place and were part of the parking facility previously approved.There are eXisting pole mounted lights in the parking area and lights will be installed on the house.No signs are proposed.Trash recycling collection will be inside the house. Existing forest around the proposed house is to be retained along with the construction of a bio-retention area garden for additional landscaping.A Forest Conservation Plan was previousiy submitted and approved by the Planning Commission to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Approximately 47-acres of existing forest on campus were set aside in a retention area.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding the previously approved Forest Conservation Plan and the master plan for HCC. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the HCC Energy House site plan as presented. Second by Commissioner McKinley.Unanimously approved. Miller Avenue Communication Tower (SP-11-019) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed public safety communications tower to be located at 19005 Miller Avenue In Knoxville.The applicant is the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County.The 190-foot self-supporting communications tower is considered by the Zoning Ordinance to be an essential utility;and,therefore,no approvals are required by the Board of Zoning Appeals.The site is approximately 1-acre in size,with a disturbed area of approximately .30- acres.An eight foot chain link fence is proposed around the equipment shelter.A second equipment shelter is proposed in the future.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because the disturbed area is less than 40,000-square feet.No overhead transmission lines are proposed and the tower will not be lit.The exterior finish of the tower will be galvanized steel.Signs will be posted on the chain link fence.Approval from the Soil Conservation District is pending;all other agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen asked why a tower is needed in this area.Mr.Pete Loewenheim from the County's Communication Department stated that this area is used for a lot of recreational activities and communication services are needed for public safety.Commissioner McKinley noted there were complications from the State of West Virginia and asked if all issues have been addressed.Mr.Loewenheim noted that all requirements for the FCC and others have been met.Mr. 119 Wiley asked if there would be co-location opportunities for private carriers.Mr.Loewenheim stated the intent of this tower is "public safety"and there would be no co-location opportunities at this time. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the Miller Avenue Communication Tower as presented.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. OTHER BUSINESS City of Hagerstown Annexation -Pangborn Corporation Property (A-2011-03) Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the Pangborn Corporation to the City of Hagerstown.The property is located along the north and east sides of Pangborn Boulevard and is currently zoned IG (Industrial General).After annexation into the City of Hagerstown,the zoning would be POM (Professional Office Mixed).The City of Hagerstown is also proposing to rezone additional property [next to this property]of the Pangborn Corporation to POM. Because there is a significant difference between the current zoning and the proposed zoning [upon annexation],"express approval"would be required."Express approval"would allow development to occur according to the City's zoning designation.If "express approval"is not granted,the annexation can proceed but the development on the property would be limited to the county's zoning category for a period of five years after the annexation takes place.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the uses allowed in the two different zoning categories and noted that the uses allowed in the POM zoning district are much less intense than the uses allowed in the IG district.He noted that some residents in the neighborhood have requested that the zoning on this parcel not allow high density residential uses.POM is consistent with that concern. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the parcel owned by Pangborn that would be left in the County.Mr.Goodrich stated it is a 12-foot strip of land that connects the county property on the other side of the CSX railroad tracks behind Pangborn and five residential properties at the intersection of Pangborn Boulevard and Security Road.It is designed to prevent creation of an enciave. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to recommend "express approval"of the annexation request to the Board of County Commissioners as presented.Second by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,December 5,2011,7:00 p.m.,regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.So ordered. ~submitt _.•----':JRes::~.~~(,,~_ Terry Reiber,Chairman 120 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 5,2011 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 5,2011 at 7:00 p.m.In the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Drew Bowen,Sam Ecker, and Sassan Shaool.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly and Debra Eckard,Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 7,2011 regular meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS Ronald and Betty Leggett (5-08-020) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a request for an extension of the subdivision plat for Ronald and Betty Leggett per Section 310 of the Subdivision Ordinance.In 2009,the Subdivision Ordinance was .amended and states,"Upon written request from the developer,the Planning Commission,or its designee,the Planning Director,may extend the time for approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat for a period not to exceed two years.The granting of any subsequent extensions shall be at the soie discretion of the Planning Commission."Ms.Kelly explained that approvals from the Health Department and Engineering Department are pending.The Health Department indicated that additional testing for groundwater and a test well would be required prior to approval. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern that there could be legal ramifications for the County if the plans are not updated to meet current regulations.There was a brief discussion regarding the effect of new storm water regulations and how these regulations would be met.Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,was present at the meeting and spoke on behalf of the Leggetts.He noted that this is a one lot subdivision and all current regulations will be met. Mr.Frederick stated that Mr.Leggett needed to drill a well on the property to meet requirements of the Health Department in 2008 for approval.At that time,Mr.Leggett did not have the funds to drill the well and subsequently,the project was put on hold.Currently,Mr.Leggett is working with Mr.Dave Barnhart at the Health Department to meet the requirements for approval. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to extend the preliminary/final plat approval time for one (1) year.Second by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved Giovanni Orcino,Lots 7-14 (PP-06-006) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a request for an extension of the preliminary plat for Giovanni Orcino,Lots 7-14,per Section 310 of the Subdivision Ordinance.Comments made in 2006 by Engineering,Planning,Addressing,and Soil Conservation District have not been addressed to date. Changes in regulations since 2006 would warrant significant revisions and review by all approving agencies. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his concern regarding the amount of time required and expense incurred by the County for the review of revisions made because of the adoption of new regulations for storm water management and roadways.Ms.Kelly gave a brief summary of the history of this plat.Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant for the property owner, was present at the meeting and spoke on behalf of Mr.Orcino.He stated that the owner delayed this project due to school mitigation issues and he was also attempting to sell this property.The property has not been soid and the owner has decided to now move forward with the project.There was a brief discussion regarding the possibility of fewer lots due to new regulations and schooi capacity issues. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to grant a final two year extension for the preliminary plat with no additional extensions to be granted by the Planning Commission.Second by Mr.Ecker. Unanimously approved. Discussion:Commission members requested that on future extension requests,the Staff provide the level of effort needed to finalize the review process on each specific plat.Members also requested that written correspondence be provided from the owner/developer and a personal appearance by the owner/developer at the Planning Commission meeting is preferred.There was a brief discussion with regard to owners/developers that do not respond either to their consultant or to County staff when an extension is needed.Ms.Smith stated that Staff is currently sending letters to owners/developers stating that if a response to request an extension by the Planning Commission is not forthcoming by a particular 121 deadline,the plat will be considered "null and void".Planning Commission members gave their consensus that this practice should be followed. OTHER BUSINESS Subdivision Ordinance Interpretation Ms.Smith presented a question for interpretation by the Planning Commission with regard to lots created by subdivision by deed only [with no plat]prior to 1970 when the Subdivision Ordinance was originally created.Can the lots created by subdivision by deed be combined or can the internal lot lines amongst those lots be moved?Ms.Smith cited several sections of the Subdivision Ordinance for review and consideration by Commission members when making their interpretation.She stated that her inter- pretation of the Ordinance is that subdivisions by deed are recognized;however,by moving the internal lot lines around or by combining lot lines in the subdivision,you are creating a new subdivision. Therefore,in these instances,the process of the Subdivision Ordinance should be followed and a plat should be provided.Ms.Smith noted that the implications of trying to meet the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance,which is to have adequate traffic and adequate drainage,cannot be met when subdivisions are created by deed only.During the review process of a plat,Staff seeks right-of-way dedication and stream buffer designations.They also look for an adequate septic system and well on the property,setback areas for the well and septic areas,and that zoning setbacks are being met.Ms.Smith noted that the County Attorney's Office has reviewed this issue and they believe that the Subdivision Ordinance is not clear and a text amendment should be drafted to make the Subdivision Ordinance clear on this matter as to whether or not a plat is required. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the County Attorney's Office should prepare a text amendment to meet the necessary legal criteria.Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the regulations were established for a reason and these regulations should be addressed.Mr.Wiley concurred. Consensus:Planning Commission members requested that the County Attorney's Office review the Subdivision Ordinance interpretation and prepare a text amendment as needed. Fountainview PUD Commercial Use Mr.Lung presented a request for a change of use of a commercial area shown on the approved Final Development Plan for Fountainview PUD.He noted that the PUD is located along US Route 11 near the Airport and was approved in 1988.The PUD contains approximately 77 acres of iand.The original PUD concept plan provided for 3 commercial areas to be located along the frontage with Pennsylvania Avenue.Two of these commercial areas were removed from the plan by a revision that was approved in 2002.The remaining commercial area contained a barn to be used for commercial uses;however,a specific use for the barn was not indicated on the approved plan.At a later time,a site plan was submitted and approved to use the barn for an antique book shop and a residential apartment unit.There is currently a request to establish a new business in the barn described as a facility for community and corporate functions such as private parties,rehearsals,receptions,church functions,art shows,activities, seminars,conferences and training.Mr.Lung explained that commercial uses allowed in the BL zoning district are permitted in a PUD.However,the proposed use is not specifically outlined in the BL district; and,therefore a determination is needed to determine if the proposed uses are functionally similar to the permitted uses.Mr.Lung stated that he has reviewed the permitted uses in the BL and RR zoning districts and has found some functionally similar uses to the proposed use.He also noted that due to the size of the site,parking would be limited and would limit the size of the activities that could be heid on site.If the proposed use request is approved,a site plan would be required for review and approval. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the change of use request as presented. Second by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. Southern Boulevard Phase I Mr.Goodrich explained that the County is in the design phase of Southern Boulevard,which will connect East Oak Ridge Drive with Frederick Street and by-pass Funkstown.Part of the review process for this project is the consideration of historic properties and input from the Maryland Historic Trust.MHT has identified a cluster of homes that could potentially become a historic district.MHT has requested input from local organizations regarding the design of this roadway,specifically the proposed landscaping in the round-about on Frederick Street.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the proposed landscaping plans and the types of plants to be used.He noted that the Historic District Commission has already reviewed this design plan and had no additional comments. Consensus:Planning Commission members did not believe any additional comments are needed. Plan Maryland Update Mr.Goodrich stated that the Maryland Department of Planning and the Governor's Office reviewed all of the comments made during the initial 120 day review period and made revisions to the PlanMaryland document.The document was released for a second review period and Staff found several changes to the Plan;however,there continued to be concerns with regard to the entire State being treated in the same manner rather than acknowledging the uniqueness of each municipality and each county.There was also concern with regard to the loss of local planning and zoning authority.The Board of County Commissioners voiced their concerns and objections to the PlanMaryiand document and wrote a letter to the Maryland Department of Planning [a copy of which was included in the Planning Commission's agenda packets].Mr.Goodrich stated that the Maryland Department of Pianning has announced a delay '-~"~~ 122 in the adoption of PlanMaryland until the hearing scheduled before the Senate Education,Health and Environmental Matters Committee for December 12'h is held.Adoption by the Governor could occur prior to the start of the Legislative session in January 2012.Mr.Goodrich explained the procedures that would be necessary for local government if the Plan is adopted. Mr.Goodrich noted that he has heard there will probably be a septic bill considered during the Legislative session,which would limit the number of lots that could be on septic systems in the rural areas. Mr.Goodrich announced that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,December 13th at 3:00 p.m.by the Board of County Commissioners on the proposed changes to the Urban Growth Area. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,January 9,2012 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore 'Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.Second by Mr.Wiley.So ordered. Respectfully submitted,,/ }-_.-7 ./. ///............•~ ~~