DRRC 05-24-07 Meeting MinutesNotes of DRRS Meeting May 24, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
In attendance were Members: Claus Bader, Greg Unger, Gary Oates, Roger Thomas, Kevin
Kenney, Paige Manuel, Whit Wagner & June Wilmot
Staff: Principal Planner Susan Eddy, Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran & Planner I Bernard
Suchicital
Also in attendance: Patrick Barker (Economic Development Commission)
Item 1 — SIC to NAICS Conversions
Planner Eddy introduced Mr. Barker with the EDC, who reminded Members of the original
reason for undertaking this conversion — to enable the development of targeted industries in the
County.
Planner Eddy explained that as the conversion process has proven to be complex, only the B 1
District would be discussed tonight. Members discussed the intent of the B I District and the fact
that large grocery stores were allowed in the B 1. A discussion of size limitations took place.
Some of the questions raised by staff in the agenda packet were discussed. The issue of ice
cream manufacturing (an NAICS conversion from the SIC code for food store) was highlighted.
All on the DRRS were satisfied that a small shop hand making chocolates was appropriate in the
B 1 District. No one saw a large manufacturing plant making candy as appropriate in the BI
District. NAICS code 311330 includes both of these extremes.
Chairman Thomas reminded Members that the Districts had been modified many times over the
years.
A discussion of how to accomplish the conversions took place. It was agreed that a small
working group would handle the task. Members Manuel, Kerr and Oates agreed to participate.
Staff would contact Mr. Barker for his participation and suggestion for which zoning district to
tackle first. Members discussed stating land uses, as most surrounding jurisdictions do, instead
of using codes. Zoning Administrator Cheran described how the process works in other
jurisdictions that don't use codes. Zoning determination letters and appeals play a bigger role in
those jurisdictions. A discussion of intent, including unit size and performance standards, took
place and whether the working group should do a pure translation or consider intent as well. The
pros and cons of a clearly defined code with no gray area such as the NAICS were discussed.
The working group could evolve depending on the districts under review
Member Wagner reminded the group that the EDC has very little time with potential industries
and needs to quickly and clearly demonstrate the ability of Frederick County to accommodate
them.
Staff would report back to the working group with examples from other jurisdictions.
Item 2 — Large Lot Parcels Zoned RP
Planner Eddy directed the Members to the maps in the agenda packet that showed the large lots
(100,000 SF+) in the RP District and in the R5 District outside of the UDA and SWSA. A
discussion of all of these locations followed. Expectations of the property owners was
considered. Planner Eddy reviewed the criteria used by some jurisdictions to allow horses on
large residential lots.
Members did not want to limit the discussion to horses. Members were not in favor of limiting
the number of animals. Members were not in favor of performance standards. Some members
wanted this to apply only in the RP, not in the R5. There was no consensus on this proposal. It
was felt that current ordinances were not broken.
Item 3 — Other
Planner Eddy updated Members on her meetings with the Chamber of Commerce and other
groups on the draft sign ordinance. There was much opposition from affected groups on the size,
height and number of free standing signs and also on the prohibition on electronic signs. Planner
Eddy was concerned that the draft in its current form had little chance of passage. Planner Eddy
had agreed to bring the concerns she had heard back to the DRRS, likely at their June meeting.
DRRS Members were keen to hear these views and Planner Eddy was directed to encourage
affected groups to speak at the June meeting.
The meeting ended at 9:00 pm.
SKE
-2-