HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_08-15-79_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PIANNING CCHUSSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Roan
August 15, 1979
PRESENT: C. langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman; W. French Kirk;
Manuel DeHaven, James Golladay; Elmer Venskoske; Thomas B. Rosenberger;
Herbert Sluder.
rIMMOZO). R O.
The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes from the
previous meeting, August 1, 1979. Correction was as follows: Add the first name
of Robert to Mr. Solenberger's name on page 5.
Mr. Golladay then made a motion that the minutes be approved as corrected.
This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
0 luUV14.1N/.10):iY
Mr. Golladay neat mentioned that the agenda published in the Winchester
Evening Star has not been in the same location of the paper each time. Mr. Golladay
made the suggestion that the agenda be located on the same page each time.
Ms. Stefen replied that this suggestion could easily be carried out.
Mr. Rosenberger next asked if it would be possible to add a column entitled
"Total 1978 to Date" in the Building Permit Section.
Ms. Stefen acknowledged that this can be done and noted that the June figures
were also a good indicator as June is one of the busiest months of the year.
Chairman Gordon next recognized Mrs. Richard Nicholson, owner of fourteen
acres on Bufflick Road.
Mrs. Nicholson stated that their fourteen acres had been zoned business and
they would like to have that changed to residential because they are thinking about
moving a house on the property. Mrs. Nicholson added that they were not even aware
that their property was zoned business and noted her concern regarding the higher taxes
she might have to pay. Mrs. Nicholson further located her property as being just off
Front Royal Road and three houses down between Ralph Beaver and Jimmy Wisecarver properties.
Mr. DeHaven then asked is the entire fourteen acres was zoned business.
Ms. Stefen noted that the entire acreage was zoned business.
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 2
Ms. Stefen further stated that there was no notation on the zoning maps
that this was done at anyone's request and it must have been done in 1973. Ms. Stefen
added that this property is the last portion of the Business zoning in the area.
In answer to Mr. Gordon's question regarding frontage, Mrs. Nicholson noted
that there is a lot of road frontage and the property goes back approximately 1600 feet,
bordering on the City in the back.
Chairman Gordon then asked if this property was located in the fly -over of
the Winchester Airport.
Mrs. Nicholson noted that they had never been contacted in that regard.
Mrs. Nicholson noted that the house they would like to purchase and move must be moved
prior to October 31, 1979 because the house is in the fly -over zone.
In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mrs. Nicholson stated that Mr. Wendell
Seldon, Winchester City Manager, noted that the Nicholson could build anywhere they
desired, on their own property.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked what the zoning was before the 1973 change.
Ms. Stefen explained that there were maps but it can not be ascertained they
are the official maps of that time.
Mr. Rosenberger next asked if this request would be considered down zoning.
Ms. Stefen suggested it would be.
Mr. Brumback asked how long it would take if a formal-request is enacted now.
Ms. Stefen explained that the application, if in by the second Monday in
September, could be heard at the first meeting of October by the Planning Commission
and at the second meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Stefen continued, that if the
application went to the paper next week, the Planning Commission could hear it at the
second meeting in September and the Board could hear it at their second meeting in
September.
Mrs. Nicholson acknowledged that a decision by the end of September would
769
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 3
be acceptable, giving them the entire month of October to move the house.
Mr. Gordon explained that because the zoning of Business was not asked
for, the fee for rezoning will be waived for this fourteen acre parcel of land.
Mr. Kirk explained that he had no objections to this request.
Mr. DeHaven suggested that the rezoning could be to Agriculture rather then
Residential.
Mr. Rosenberger then moved that Mrs. Nicholson be allowed to make application
so that the Planning Commission could hear it at the second meeting in September and
the Board can hear it at their second meeting in September. This was seconded by
Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recaanend to the Board of Supervisors
that Mr. & Mrs. Richard Nicholson be allowed to make application for rezoning to be
heard by the Planning Commission at their second meeting in September and by the
Board of Supervisors at their second meeting in September and that the usual fee be
waived, as this zoning of business was not requested.
Chairman Gordon then suggested that Mrs. Nicholson further consult with
the staff to determine the most suitable.zoning.
Cha irman Gordon next asked Messrs. Stivers to cane forward to address the
Planning Camnission.
Mr. Will Stivers then came forward and introduced himself and his son
Mark Stivers to the Planning Commission, noting they wished to address the subject of
the Joint Public Hearing on August 22, 1979 concerning the change in language of A -2
zoning. Mr. Will Stivers questioned the purpose and intent of changing the
language from the way it read before.
Chairman Gordon noted that the Commission was striving for a more uniform
ordinance in Aricultural zones, adding that the Commnission is continually updating
the ordinance.
Mr. Will Stivers then stated that there seems to be a lack of uniformity
in many areas of the ordinance, not in one particular area.
770
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 4
Cha irman Gordon then reminded Mr. Will Stivers that the Joint Public Hearing
was being held to answer the questions being raised today.
Mr. Will Stivers continued, stating that his purpose today is to point out
concerns at this time that may be of help to the Planning CCREdssion. Mr. Stivers
added that there was a lack of definition in many areas including the definition of
tourist camps, camping resorts, mechanical amusement devices, and permanent mobile hone
parks. Mr. Stivers then referred to page 3 of the ordinance in the A -1 Zoning in
Section 2 -1 -6, Public Parks and Recreation, adding that if the purpose was to create
uniformity you can turn to A -2 Zoning (3 -1 -6), Public Parks and Campgrounds. Mr. Stivers
then gave several examples of what is considered lack of uniformity, noting that changing
the language for campgrounds now would be very incomplete.
Chairman Gordon then acknowledged the Commission's appreciation for this
input.
At this time, Mr. Mark Stivers requested time to address the Commission.
Mr. Mark Stivers added that amending the ordinance as it is proposed is premature as this
will go before the Supreme Court of Virginia and recommendations would be forthcoming to the
Planning Comdssion. Mr. Mark Stivers then stated that it might be wise for the Planning
Commission to take this opportunity to work on the ambiguity pointed out today.
Cha irman Gordon next recognized the County Tax Assessors, Messrs. Hansbrough.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough and Mr. Bill Hansbrough then came forward and introduced
themselves to the Cotmission.
Chairman Gordon noted the primary concern of the Conmission is the differential
between various categories of zoning as applied to Frederick County work being done now.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough commented that during the reassessment they hoped to follow
the zoning. Mr. Hansbrough continued that the only problem seen isif downzoning were
done on a voluntary basis and only the one in the center of the zoning wanted
to be down zoned, the assessors'opinion would be that the down zoned area would be
771
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 5
worth as much as adjoining properties because of location. Mr. Bob Hansbrough noted
that this would not be so if it were a
fringe
property. Mr. Hansbrough
added
that
values will go up consistant with the
zoning as they get closer to town.
Mr.
Hansbrough
also commented that comparable sales or rentals, building costs, etc. would also be a
consideration and these areas are not clearly defined.
Chairman Gordon then asked if the last assessment was done to the extent that
it is being done this time.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough answered, apparently not.
More specifically, Mr. Brmuback next asked, what is the difference in the
valuation comparing Business to Agriculture, referring to Mrs. Nicholson's circumstance.
Mr. Brumback continued, asking if because of location they would be of the same value.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough stated, not referring to a specific property, that a
multi -use property would be based on similar properties in similar locations.
Mr. Brunback pointed out that landowners will want to know what criteria this
assessment is going to be base on before realignment is decided upon.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough noted that a parcel zoned coemmercial now, changed to
agriculture through down zoning, at a later date could be approached for rezoning to
Commercial by a prospective buyer wanting it for commercial use.
Mr. Brumback noted that it seems to be based more on what is being sold
then what the potential or zoning is.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough commented that the consideration is at the highest and
best use according to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Stefen then specifically asked if an area divided dawn the middle by a
highway, one side of which is zoned Residential and one side Agriculture and neither is
developed, what would be the difference in the taxes paid? Would it be worth the
Planning Commission paying one hundred dollars out of their budget to rezone the
Residential to Agriculture, Ms. Stefen continued.
Mr. Bob Hansbrough noted that if this were not in land use, the taxes would
be approximately one half for the Agriculture use. Mr. Hansbrough added that Land Use
772
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 6
is not a concern for assessing since it is only a County taxing ability.
Chairman Gordon then noted that Industrial zoning, for example, has to cut
off somewhere and, if there were two acres, one Industrial and one Agriculture, what
would you estimate the difference in taxation.
Mr. :Bob Hansbrough noted the tax difference could be five times or possibly
more, referring to a parcel near Bartonsville as suggested by Ms. Steen as an example.
Mr. DeHaven then asked if a parcel of land had no improvements whatsoever
but was zoned Commercial, would it still be five times higher.
Mr. Hansbrough acknowledged it would be since zoning has created the highest
and best use, without taking into consideration land use.
Mr. Hansbrough continued that the location and quality of land would have a
bearing also on taxation, since zoning is not always the highest and best use.
Ms. Stefen then asked if the Comprehensive Plan would be referred to when a
questionable parcel of land was being appraised.
Mr. Hansbrough omriented that they did desire to get into that more deeply
with regard to questionable pieces of land.
Mr. BrLmlback noted that a problem could arise where a taxpayer would want \
a commercial zoning on his property because he is being charged a cmrmrcial tax rate.
Mr. Gordon suggested there is a need in order to answer citizen's question
to have a criteria for voluntary down zoning. Chairman Gordon asked if Messrs. Hansbrough
could possibly give the CoRmission an average differential between zonings in the near
future.
In answer to Ms. Stefen's question, Mr. Bob Hansbrough noted that it would be
three months or longer until they will be working in the most affected areas.
Mr. Sam Leman then introduced himself and noted that he is concerned with a
few spot real estate market prices being used in a time of rising expectations. Mr. Leman
noted that he hoped other improvements would also be considered such as hard surface roads,
etc.
773
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 7
Mr. Bob Hansbrough noted that those areas where sewer facilities, etc.
exist will be studied, and a fair price reached.
Messrs. Hansbrough noted that it would be difficult but they would cane
Lip with a percentage differential for zonings.
Cha irman Gordon then noted that the next item on the agenda was a discussion
with Mr. Stan Pangle regarding entrance requirements.
Mr. Pangle conmented that large lot subdivisions are not covered under the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance with regard to drainage at the driveway
entrances. Mr. Pangle continued that from five acres and below the Subdivision Ordinance
will -take care of culverts of any size and additional information on lot grading has
been requested from the engineering ccnmittee. Mr. Pangle noted that his department has
received approximately thirty ca[plaints since he came with regard to over lot grading;
with most crniplaints dealing with half acre lots and below. Mr. Pangle stated that
his department is presently working with Inspections and talking with the subdivision
administrator, requesting additional over lot grading plans to be submitted with the
building permi Having this as part of the building permit, it would also require
houses on larger lots (5 and 10 acres) to submit a plan for handling the water and
could put a handle on. things, continued Mr. Pangle. Mr. Pangle stated that the problems
have not been common to owner built hares, but those built by contractors and then
sold. For one acre and smaller lots, Mr. Pangle continued, it would be reccmrlended that
a certified land surveyor do the drainage design.
Mr. Brumback then questioned what control there is with regard to chemical
runoff near houses built near orchards where spraying takes place.
Mr. Pangle noted that the only control might be through inspections or the
reporting of a nuisance or health hazard.
Mr. Renalds conmented that before subdivisions are approved it should be made
sure that the drainage of orchards goes away fran the subdivision or possibly not allow
additional subdivisions in orchards, noting that over five acre lots are not controlled.
774
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 8
Mr. Bnunback asked if the Planning Commission should be involved in a
situation of this type.
Mr. Renalds noted that an on -site inspection will tell the Planning Commission
if a subdivision is being platted in the middle of an orchard and provisions could
be made at that time, before approval of the subdivision..
Mr. Pangle stated that new developments have field inspections before comments
are sent to the Planning Conmission and this type of thing will be taken into account.
By making over -lot drainage considerations part of the permit, Mr. Pangle continued,
would encompass five acre lots, and this has been recam ended to the engineering code
enforcement committee recently.
In answer to Ms. Stefen's question, Mr. Pangle commented that his interpretation
of Section 18 -26 would be that five acre lots and below are already covered and it is
just a matter of enforcement and could be handled through the Department of Inspections.
Ms.-Stefen continued that there were no controls for development of five acre
lots and above and asked Mr. Pangle if they could be handled under the ordinances his
department deals with.
Mr. Pangle commented that he was confident that by working with Mr. Brown
something could be found.
Cha irman Gordon expressed appreciation if Mr. Pangle could explore this angle.
Mr. Pangle noted that he could handle new storm water problems, but existing
problems in the County also need to be dealt with that even in twenty five year storms
flood. These people need relief, Mr. Pangle continued.
Mr. Rosenberger commented that on Route 50 West in the last couple of years
near Reid's Market on highway in left hand lane had flooding problems which should be
looked into.
Mr. Pangle noted that the Highway Department could look into this.
Chairman Gordon then thanked Mr. Pangle for coming to the meeting.
775
(P /C 8/15/79) 1 Page 9
Next, Mr. Bill Tisinger introduced himself to the Commission, commenting
that he represents Lenior City Company of Virginia and noting that he was here today
to discuss the industrial park that is being developed north of Winchester. Mr. Tisinger
noted that at present there were seven industries located within the park and since
last year a sewer contract has been let and will be completed this Fall paid for and
financed by Lenoir City Company at a cost of $256,000. Also, Mr. Tisinger then explained
a water line designed by McNair and Associates as shown in booklet handed out to
Commission members about which proposals have been made and contracts will be let in
the near future. Mr. Tisinger noted that the water line will run along Welltown Pike
and cones in along the entrance road at a cost of approximately $145,000. Mr. Tisinger
commented next that they have developed new plans for the development of the park,
basically the same as seen last year, with one exception. To further explain, Mr.
Tisinger referred Commission members to a visual aid and referred Commission members
to a change `from a housing area to industrial expansion area. Mr. Tisinger next
pointed out the proposed construction of roads, noting that all roads will be built
to State specs and taken over by the State when constructed. All of the,small lots,
Mr. Tisinger added, will be in one area,illustrating where on the visual aid.
In answer to,Mr. Rosenberger's question, Mr. Tisinger noted that the change
in housing area is proposed because the engineers do not feel it is a feasible place
for housing, thinking it should be set aside for industry, adding that what is being
presented is just a plan and noting that a 12" sewer line and 12" water line will be
going in.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, Mr. Tisinger cammented that the
problem of traffic on Route 11 will eventually have to be faced, however, once it is
developed to that point it is felt that the State will have to do something in the way
of widening the road. The entrance , Mr. Tisinger continued, would use Industrial
Access Funds if they can be obtained, noting the State is aware of plans.
Mr. Golladay then asked how this entrance compares to the Stine Park's one
776
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 10
entrance. To this, Mr. Tisinger answered that they do not have the railroad tracks.
Mr. Brumback then asked if the water and sewer were to serve just the
industrial park or is it large enough to extend beyond.
Mr. Tisinger stated that it is designed to serve only their property.
Mr. Tan Gilpin noted that it is designed to serve the entire drainage area
and that they are assured a.percentage of capacity.
Mr. Brumback then noted that the proposed change in the housing area could
make a.difference with regard to the Planning Comission's view of the entire project.
Mr. Tisinger acknowledged, in answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, that
abandoning the housing area is not definite, noting that an industrial park is not a
subdivision, and a master plan is not required.
Mr. Rosenberger further explained that it is necessary.to know if there is
going to be housing in the development in the event adjoiners would want to develop
residential land.
Mr. Tisinger noted that if a residential area to the north would want to be
developed, the sewer could be run to there if the cost was shared since it is designed
for the entire 2,000 acres in the drainage area.
In answer to Mr. DeHaven's question, Mr. Tisinger acknowledged that right
now there is only one entrance.
Ms. Stefen then asked how many different parcels is the Gilpin land in now.
Mr. Tisinger noted it was just one big parcel.
Mr. Golladay again asked how the entrance for this industrial park compares
to that of Stine Industrial Park.
Mr. Tisinger acknowledged that he thought it would create traffic congestion.
Mr. Golladay then asked if thought had been given to another entrance.
Mr. Tisinger noted that at one time they thought of going back to Route 522,
which might be worse—
Mr. Brumback suggested that now is a good time to get on top of this traffic
problem.
777
(P /C 8/15/79) Page 11
Mr. Tisinger connented that perhaps the Planning Commission could give
assistance in approaching the Highway Department on this.
Mr. BrLm noted that what type of traffic will be generated needs to
first be determined.
Mr. Kenneth Gilpin the stated that a timetable is not easy to cane up with
when money is being used for a road to be used five or ten years from now. Mr. Gilpin
then suggested that they are being asked to over design.
Mr. Brurback connented. that a site plan cannot be approved without the roads
being considered.
Mr. Tisinger then asked who sets priorities on the roads.
Mr. Rosenberger explained that this is part of a six year plan and a request
should be made now to the Highway Department.
Mr. Tisinger then noted that they now have restrictions and convenants.
Cha irman Gordon then commented that there is 500 acres of industrial zoned
property here and the ooncern'is to keep on top of the situation, not to penalize the
developer, noting the Canmission's desire to work together on this.
Chairman Gordon then reported that the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission had tabled action on Wheatlands lake, noting that the next move would have
to come fran the local jurisdiction, here. Chairman Gordon stated that the Cc mission
needed to receive a request for action from the owners.
Ms. Stefen then made reference to the fee reconnendation memorandum
included in the agenda.
Mr. Rosenberger then suggested that it might be proper for this fee reconnenda-
tion to go to the Finance Committee tomorrow before the Board meting, since it concerns
monies.
Mr. Br miback then made a motion to refer the fee recoimiendation to the Finance
Committee for its consideration. This was seconded by Mr. Venskoske and passed unanimously.
778
(P /C 8/15/79) Page .12
BE IT RESOLVED, that.the Planning Commission refer to the Finance Ccnmittee the Fee
Recmmendation for Conditional Use Permits.
Mr. Golladay then made a motion to go into executive session to discuss
personnel matters. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
Mr. Brmrback then made a motion to reconvene. This was seconded by
Mr. Venskoske and passed unanimously.
Cha irman Gordon noted that no decision had been reached during executive
session.
Mr. Bnm back then made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This was seconded
by Mr. Golladay.
Chairman Gordon then noted the Institute for Planning Connissioners had
three slots open for this area and,since Mr. Venksoske is not able to go, anyone
interested should contact Ms. Stefen's office.
Mr. Brumback then asked if the work session could be held August 21, 1979
instead of August 28, 1979. All Commission members expressed agreement to the change.
Adjournment was then passed unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
•
Dorothea L. - - Actin4)Dire
.. ...
779