HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_04-07-10_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
• OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on April 7, 2010.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District;
Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Christopher Collins, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and
Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R- Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -
Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
• CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the April 7, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee — 4/22/10 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported on actions taken by the Transportation Committee, as
follows: 1) recommended approval of the 2010 -2011 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans with
the additions of Light Road and Cattail Road to the Unscheduled Hardsurface Road Improvements and
moving Ridings Mill, Warm Springs, and Woodside Roads from the Scheduled Plan back to the
Unscheduled Plan; 2) recommended approval of the application for the construction of Snowden Bridge
Blvd. in the Graystone Industrial Park; 3) recommended moving forward with applications for potential
federal safety grant applications for a number of intersections along Routes 7 and 277; 4) recommended
an incremental approach to improve safety at the Route 50 and Route 614 (Back Mountain Road)
intersection rather than to proliferate signal lights on county roads; 5a) a public hearing for the Phase II
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2615
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-z-
• Study of the Shady Elm Drive intersection with VA 37 will be held in April by the MPO; and, 5b) the
Northeast Land Use Plan is being updated to reflect the results of the traffic model study.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) — 4/06/10 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Comprehensive Policy Plan is being completely
revised this year. He reported about the kick -off meeting last evening with about 40 people in attendance.
Commissioner Kriz said the Comprehensive Policy Plan will be divided up into sections and several
different committees will work individually on those portions of the Plan. He said there are about ten
committee groups altogether. Commissioner Kriz emphasized the fast time schedule; he said first drafts
will be due by July 1, 2010.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's
agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak.
E
PUBLIC HEARING
2010 -2015 Agricultural and Forestal District Update. Consideration of the renewal of the South
Frederick, Double Church, and Red Bud Districts, and the creation of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge,
and South Timber Ridge Districts. The renewal and creation of these districts will establish a total
of 10,585.012 acres within the Agricultural and forestall District Program for the ensuing five year
period. Properties incorporated into an agricultural and forestal district are guaranteed certain
protections as specified in Section 15.2 -4300 of the Code of Virginia
Action — Recommended Approval of Three New Districts
and the Renewal of Three Existing Districts
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Agricultural
District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on March 18, 2010, and unanimously recommended the
creation of three new agricultural and forestal districts: the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District; the
Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District; and the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal
District; along with the renewal of three existing agricultural and forestal districts: the Double Church
Agricultural and Forestal District; the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District; and the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District. He noted that if all six districts are approved, Frederick County will
have 10,585 acres within its Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program for the ensuing five -year period.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2616
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-3-
• Mr. Cheran proceeded to give the location and description of each of the three new
proposed districts. The Planning Commission considered and acted upon each of the new districts
separately, as follows:
Albin Agricultural and Forestal District
Consisting of 1,017.84± acres within 14 parcels, located within Gainesboro Magisterial District, across
North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) to the north, Route 37 to the east, and Poorhouse Road (Rt. 664) to the
west. This proposed district contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture
(livestock, orchards, and crop harvest) and 10 percent open- space /woodlands.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Comissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 1,017.84+ acres within
14 parcels and located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
• Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
Consisting of 889.052 acres within 34 parcels, located within the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial
Districts, across Payne Road (Rt. 663) to the north, Welltown Road (Rt. 661) to the east, Apple Ridge
Road (Rt. 739) to the west, and Glendobbin Road (Rt. 673) to the south. This proposed district contains
predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (livestock, orchard, and crop
harvesting) and 10 percent open- space/ woodlands.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 889.052
acres within 34 parcels and located in the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial Districts.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2617
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-4-
0 South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
Consisting of 466.70 acres within seven parcels, located within the Back Creek Magisterial District,
bordered by Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north, and Muse Road (Rt. 610) and Golden Orchard Road (Rt.
708) to the east. This proposed district contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent
agriculture (orchard, and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open- space /woodlands.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates said that while doing surveying work in this particular area, he
noticed that a couple properties are missing from the map and some of the tax map numbers do not match
up correctly with the property owners. Commissioner Oates suggested he get with the staff to add those
properties before the Board of Supervisors' public hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 466.70
acres within seven parcels and located in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
• Mr. Cheran next provided the location and description of each of the three districts
proposed for renewal. The Planning Commission considered and acted upon the renewal of each district
separately, as follows:
Update of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District
This district will consist of 949.20+ acres within the Opequon Magisterial District. The removal of one
parcel, PIN 86 -A -32, consisting of 74.53+ acres will decrease the district from its former 1,023.73+ acres
to 949.20 acres. This district contains predominantly agricultural operations, with 75 percent livestock
and cultivation of hay, and 25 percent open- space /woodlands.
Chairman Wilmot noted this district includes five -acre sites. Mr. Cheran said it has been
the policy of Frederick County to include a property within an agricultural and forestal district, if the
property meets established criteria and if the property is contiguous within one mile of the existing
district. Commissioner Unger questioned the validity of a five -acre parcel being considered as an
agricultural or forestal producing property for a tax break. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence,
interjected that having a property within an agricultural and forestal district is only one qualifier to getting
a land use assessment tax break; the property must still have active farming activities. He said the
property owner must still go through a land use assessment managed by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Mr. Lawrence further explained the Land Use Assessment Program requires at least five acres of pasture;
therefore, a five -acre lot with a house does not qualify for any tax abatements. Mr. Lawrence said being
included within an agricultural and forestal district shows commitment from the property owners who
want to maintain a rural community and the county is attempting to honor that commitment.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2618
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-5-
Chairman Wilmot inquired if the five -acre sites to be included within this revised district
were built upon. She asked if they could be built upon once they are included within the agricultural
district. Mr. Cheran replied they can be built upon, but they cannot be subdivided.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 949.20+ acres located in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Update of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
This district will consist of 1,079.69+ acres within the Stonewall Magisterial District. The proposed
addition of two parcels, PIN 55 -A -3 and 55 -A-4, consisting of 245.81+ acres, and the removal of two
parcels, PIN 44 -A -28F and 44- A -28H, consisting of 15.4 acres, will increase this district from its former
849.28± acres to 1,079.69+ acres. This district contains predominantly agricultural operations, with 75
percent agriculture (livestock, horses, and crop harvest) and 25 percent open- space /woodlands.
• Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 1,079.69+ acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Update of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District
This district will consist of 6,182.53 acres within the Back Creek Magisterial District. The proposed
addition of five parcels, PINs 62- 12 -5 -53, 72 -A -24, 73 -A -31, 73 -A -73, and 84 -A -50, consisting of
429.36+ acres, and the removal of three parcels, PINs 84 -A -29, 73 -A -3, and 73- 12 -13, consisting of
221.48± acres, will increase this district from its former 5,974.65+ acres to 6,182.53+ acres. This district
contains predominantly agricultural operations, with 90 percent agriculture (orchard and crop harvest) and
10 percent open- space /woodlands.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
• person came forward to speak:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2619
Minutes of April 7, 2010
• Mr. Paul Anderson, one of the original property owners who established the South
Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, spoke on behalf himself and the Frederick County Farm
Bureau. Mr. Anderson was in favor of the renewal of the three existing districts and the establishment of
the three new districts. He said there were many benefits to belonging in an agricultural district; one is
the land use and the other is the protection it provides agriculture in the case of nuisance suits. Mr.
Anderson advised against limiting inclusion in an agricultural and forestal district to the number of acres.
He said an intensively farmed five -acre tract could result in a higher profit return than a larger parcel used
for cattle.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 6,182.53+ acres located in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article III, Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program — Part 301 Establishment and Purpose, 165- 301.01 Purpose;
• 165- 301.02 Applicability, 165- 301.03 Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions;
Part 302 Sending and Receiving Properties; 165- 302.01 Sending Properties; 165- 302.02 Receiving
Properties; 165- 302.03 Calculation of Development rights; 165- 302.04 TDR Sending Property
Development Limitations; 165- 302.05 Sending Site Certification; 165- 302.06 Instruments of
Transfer; Part 303 Transfer Process and Development Procedures; 165- 303.01 Transfer Process;
165- 303.02 Development Approval Procedures; and Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and
Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions; 165 - 101.02 Definitions and Word Usage.
These amendments provide revisions to the Frederick County Code to include a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program for Frederick County.
Action — Recommended Approval
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided a brief history of how the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance came about. Mr. Lawrence reported that, in March, the Board of
Supervisors believed the TDR document was in an appropriate state to go through the public hearing
process for adoption. Mr. Lawrence explained that the TDR Program is an opportunity to preserve the
rural landscape and farmland. He said it provides an opportunity for landowners in the farming
community to sell the development rights from their farm without actually selling the land. A purchaser
would take those development rights and apply them in a designated growth area of the county.
Mr. Lawrence next explained the three components of the TDR ordinance: the sending
site requirements (the rural land), the receiving site requirements (the UDA), and the transfer/
development process. Qualifications of the sending properties were: agricultural lands zoned RA located
outside the UDA and SWSA; must be shown on the sending/receiving area map; must be 20 acres or
greater in size; and must be a subdividable (public road access) property per the subdivision ordinance.
• Mr. Lawrence also explained the density bonuses that would be available for the sending properties.
Minutes of April 7, 2010
rage zalu
-7-
Qualifications for the receiving properties were: properties must be zoned RA, RP, or R4, located within
the UDA, and Comprehensively Planned for residential land use; be located in a defined Rural
• Community Center; be located on the sending/receiving area map; be served by public water and sewer,
be served by state roads or private roads; and properties may exceed underlying density maximums. Mr.
Lawrence continued, explaining some of the incentives for the developer to use this program; those
incentives included no rezoning process, no engineering process, and no payment of proffers.
Commissioner Thomas raised the possibility for high - density development on the
receiving properties, in which the County would have to absorb all the costs for schools, transportation,
emergency services, etc., and the developer would not be responsible for off - setting the costs with
proffers.
Mr. Lawrence responded that the ordinance sets the maximum density increase available;
it limits the number of development rights a developer could bring onto the property. Mr. Lawrence said
in regards to impacts on community services, the sending properties within the rural areas could have
ended up with houses on five acre lots and the County would not receive any additional compensation
through proffers. Mr. Lawrence said that from a cost of service perspective, the County would much
rather see those houses within the UDA, rather than scattered over the rural landscape. He added it is
more cost efficient for the County to provide those services in designated growth areas.
Commissioner Oates said he supported the TDR Program, but had concerns regarding the
proposed calculations used for determining development rights within the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Oates said when he surveys properties for development, the land contained within
easements or submerged lands still counts towards the total acreage; he asked why a landowner wanting
to use the TDR Program would be penalized by not allowing those areas to count towards total acreage.
Commissioner Oates suggested the use of a sketch plan to lay out lots, rather than using GIS data or
floodplain maps, which were not entirely accurate. Commissioner Oates said he was not looking for the
TDR to be more favorable than another type of subdivision, but simply thought it should be comparable
to a regular subdivision as far as the calculations.
Mr. Lawrence replied the intent was to make the TDR Program as simple as possible; it
was not the intention for someone who fames to have to spend a lot of money through surveying,
engineering, or soil work to determine whether they should sell their rights. Mr. Lawrence said if
someone simply wants to preserve their farmland and not spend a lot of money, the information available
on the County's computer systems would be sufficient to use. He added that someone should not get
credit for lots they were not going to create, such as those in a floodplain; he said a subdivision is laid out
based on where there are successful perc sites, a house footprint, etc.
Commissioner Thomas suggested including criteria specifying if a landowner is getting
the benefits of being in the Agricultural District, such as doubling the density units, and then the property
is removed from the Agricultural District after selling the property's development rights, the remaining
available rights will be reduced by the true number that was sold. Mr. Lawrence stated this criterion was
appropriate and could be placed within the ordinance.
A discussion among Commissioners and staff followed regarding the possible impacts of
not receiving proffers from the development that would take place in the urban areas under the TDR
Ordinance. Chairman Wilmot pointed out that one district was missing from the list of receiving districts,
the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) District. She commented that of the four receiving districts,
only the RA District could result in the situation where there will be zero proffers offered inside the UDA.
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2621
Minutes of April 7, 2010
Chairman Wilmot thought the TDR ordinance would be very attractive for a TND (Traditional
Neighborhood Design) District because it allows the greatest density; she believed it was imperative to
add this housing design.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
person came forward to speak:
Mr. Paul Anderson, a farmer in the Back Creek District, was in favor of the TDR
Program. Mr. Anderson said that when the RA Study began a few years ago, a large burden was placed
on agriculture. He said farmers have equity in their land and they depend on the sale of parcels when
times get rough, but the implications of the RA Study made subdividing parcels harder and more
expensive. He said if a farmer has to bear the expense of having parcels surveyed and engineered, more
lots will have to be sold to make up the cost difference. Mr. Anderson said the new TDR Program gives
the farmer the opportunity to sell off development rights, if he needs money, and continue farming his
land and maintain the rural nature of the area. Mr. Anderson said he represents the Frederick County
Farm Bureau, and the Farm Bureau represents over 250 family farms in Frederick County. He said the
Frederick County Farm Bureau is in full support of the TDR Program.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of
the public hearing.
No other issues were raised by members of the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the TDR Draft
• Ordinance, dated March 23, 2010, with the following revision: If a property is removed from an
Agricultural and Forestal District, the developmental rights remaining will equal what is available for the
underlying sending district minus any developmental rights already sold. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of an Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article III, Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program — Part 301 Establishment and Purpose, 165- 301.01 Purpose; 165-
301.02 Applicability, 165 - 301.03 Right to Transfer Development Rights, General Provisions; Part 302
Sending and Receiving Properties; 165- 302.01 Sending Properties; 165- 302.02 Receiving Properties;
165- 302.03 Calculation of Development rights; 165- 302.04 TDR Sending Property Development
Limitations, 165- 302.05 Sending Site Certification; 165 - 302.06 Instruments of Transfer, Part 303
Transfer Process and Development Procedures; 165 - 303.01 Transfer Process; 165- 303.02 Development
Approval Procedures; and Article I General Provisions Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part
101 General Provisions; 165- 101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. This amendment was recommended
for approval with the following revision: If a property is removed from an Agricultural and Forestal
District, the developmental rights remaining will equal what is available for the underlying sending
district minus any developmental rights already sold. This ordinance amendment provides revisions to
the Frederick County Code to include a Transfer of Development Rights Program for Frederick County.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2622
Minutes of April 7, 2010
• Consideration of the proposed Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans for
Frederick County for Fiscal Years 2010 -2011 through 2015 -2016, along with the Secondary System
Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, in accordance with Section 33.1 -70.01 of the Code of
Virginia. All projects in the Secondary Six -Year Plan which are eligible for federal funds will be
included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how
Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds.
Action — Recommended Approval
Deputy Director- Transportation, John A. Bishop, provided the Commission with the
financial history faced by VDOT and the County over the last few years, starting with the statewide
revenue forecast reductions from Spring of 2008 through 2010, which totaled $4.61 billion. Mr. Bishop
next focused on the Statewide Secondary Highway Program and noted the program approved in FY 2008-
2013 had $1.3 billion for secondary roads, not including interstate or primary projects, such as Route 37
or Route 277. The approved program for FY 2009 through 2014 totaled $1.0 billion initially, but had to
be revised and cut to $0.6 billion. For the FY 2010 through 2015 Program, the budget was reduced to
$0.5 billion and again, revised to $0.3 billion.
Next focusing on Frederick County, Mr. Bishop said the 2007/2008 Program had an
average of $3.2 million, however for 2010 /2011, the average amount is approximately $255,000.00. Mr.
Bishop next reviewed the individual road plans for Frederick County. Beginning with the Interstate Road
Improvement Plan, he said there are no recommended changes; although there is support for moving
forward with Exit 310 and Exit 307 and the improvements to I -81. Regarding the Primary Road
Improvement Plan, no new changes are recommended. Mr. Bishop said last year, the South Frederick
Parkway was added, which was a part of the Route 277/Route 522 Triangle; there are no new roadways to
add in this year. Mr. Bishop noted that should the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) progress, the
modeling would indicate the six-lane section would need to be expanded; however, since that has not yet
been adopted, it did not seem appropriate to make the change within this plan.
Regarding the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, the Number 1 Project, Sulphur
Springs Road, is the one funded project and most of the funding is previous year allocations; therefore,
this project is still moving forward. The other funded project is the Tasker Road and White Oak Project;
a safety project is also considered at White Oak and Route 277. Mr. Bishop said the remainder of the
projects are place holders, such as Warrior Drive, and a number of revenue - sharing projects. Regarding
the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, there is one publicly - funded project, which is Ridings Mill
Road; Woodside Road is part of a master plan for Titan Concrete and is not state funded. Finally, with the
Unscheduled Hardsurface Road Improvement Plan, the top three projects, Ridings Mill Road, Warm
Springs Road, and Woodside Road are previously- scheduled projects, which have been de- programmed
due to funding cutbacks. He said they are in the first, second, and third places to recognize them; these
projects seem to be appropriate to consider, should the Board of Supervisors choose to do so as more
funding becomes available. Mr. Bishop said two new projects were added to the Unscheduled list at the
bottom, Light Road and Cattail Road.
Mr. Bishop said the Transportation Committee reviewed this information on March 22,
2010, and forwarded a recommendation of approval.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing by calling for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2623
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-10-
• Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the proposed Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans for
Frederick County for Fiscal Years 2010 -2011 through 2015 -2016, along with the Secondary System
Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, in accordance with Section 33.1 -70.01 of the Code of Virginia.
All projects in the Secondary Six -Year Plan which are eligible for federal funds will be included in the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how Virginia will obligate
federal transportation funds.
PUBLIC MEETING
Subdivision Ordinance Variance Request of Robert & Lynda Carpenter, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for exceptions to Section 144 -24(B) Lot Requirements and Section 144- 31(C)(3) Rural
Subdivisions of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, to allow the creation
of a parcel of land intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill ground water
storage tank.
Action — Recommended Approval
• Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this request is to create
a 0.763± acre parcel in the RA Zoning District, which would otherwise need a minimum of five acres.
Also, reduced setbacks are requested for a 20 -foot BRL (building restriction line) along the western
property line, which otherwise would need to be 60 feet; a 25 -foot BRL along the southern property line,
which otherwise would need to be 60 feet; and a 40 -foot BRL along the northern property line, which
otherwise would need to be 100 feet. In addition, an allowance of a 20 -foot easement for a right -of -way,
rather than the required 50 -foot easement, is requested. Mr. Cheran said the waivers are being requested
to allow the creation of a parcel of land intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill
Ground Water Storage Tank. He said if the Commission recommends approval, staff is recommending
there be a provision included that would restrict the utility to public use only.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about the reason for all the variances requested and if
there was a hardship. Mr. Cheran replied that the applicant's representative, Greenway Engineering, has
stated that the Sanitation Authority would prefer to own the property with the water tank; however, they
would like to own the smallest amount of land possible to set the tank on.
Commissioner Triplett asked who would be using the water from the storage tank. Mr.
Cheran stated users would include the National Lutheran Home and properties within the Round Hill
Land Use Plan, which was extended out to Poorhouse Road. Mr. Cheran stated that one of the criteria for
the Round Hill Land Use Plan was to have water and sewer services available; he said this proposed tank
is one of the components to get water and sewer to the Round Hill community. He said the master plan
for the National Lutheran Home specified the need for a water storage tank for the benefit of the Round
Hill community.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2624
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-11-
Commissioner Oates commented that the property is not within the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) and a waiver should be included for a health system, since an approved drainfield
is required for every new lot created.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, said that back in 1995, Frederick
County initially contemplated the Round Hill Land Use Plan (LUP) and the extension of public water and
sewer services for the Round Hill community. Mr. Wyatt said as the plan has progressed over time,
particularly with the design of the National Lutheran Home project, the Sanitation Authority is now
tasked with considering the development of infrastructure necessary to service the defined area of the
Round Hill LUP. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority preferred to have the water tank system in
place with the first phase of the National Lutheran Home project. Their goal was to provide a facility that
was fairly innocuous to the community at large and the idea of the ground storage tank came into play.
Mr. Wyatt explained the tank level needed to provide adequate water pressure for the system to work
effectively and; therefore, a 1025 elevation contour was established. This 1025 contour is the driving
factor for the tank location. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority does not want to own anymore land
than necessary to site the facility; he said the height of the tank at the top of its dome is 41 feet; they
would be cutting into the side of the hill to place the tank. Using a visual aide, Mr. Wyatt showed the
reveal of the potential visual portion of the tank. Mr. Wyatt said they are working on behalf of Silver
Lake to meet their commitment to deliver the water service required for National Lutheran Home.
Commissioner Kriz asked legal counsel if Frederick County had the power to condemn
land to place a public utility. The County Attorney, Mr. Roderick Williams, replied yes, the County
would indeed have that power, if it is consistent with its mission.
Commissioner Thomas inquired why the water tank is being located on the western
• property boundary and not back into the center of the property, so the waivers wouldn't be so great. Mr.
Wyatt replied the base of the tank is basically where the 1025 contour is located; the balance of the
property is for grading and an access cut.
Mr. Randy Kepler, also with Greenway Engineering, explained they were holding the
base of the water tank to this location because of the structure of the tank and the manufacturer's
requirements; he said the tank needed to be recessed down into the ground with a three -foot bury depth on
the downhill side to make sure the tank doesn't slide down hill after it's constructed. Mr. Kepler said
there is very little leeway to move the tank, other than a few feet. He said the tank is specifically located
at this 1025 elevation to ensure there is sufficient pressure in the system and secondly, to make sure the
tank is structurally sound.
Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Wyatt to provide the dimensions of the tank and
approximately how much will be visible. Mr. Wyatt said the tank is 70 feet in diameter and the highest
point at the dome is 41 feet in elevation. He said the tank will be visible 15 feet above Skyview Lane.
Commissioner Crosen inquired how much vegetation would be removed and how much
would be replaced. Mr. Kepler said the parcel is approximately .73 acres and about '/ of that would be
cleared; he said areas along the northern and eastern boundary would be replanted with evergreens.
Commissioner Lemieux asked for the elevation change from the top of the dome to the
bottom of the foundation. Mr. Wyatt said it was about 60 feet of elevation difference.
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2625
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-12-
• Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing by calling for citizen comments. The
following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Richard G. Larsen, an adjoining property owner to the west, said that he and his wife,
Harriet, own the three - bedroom log cabin on their property, which was constructed in 1926. Mr. Larsen
stated this is a rural, historic area and he described the historic significance of the eastern side of Round
Hill. He said the water tank is proposed to be located 300 feet from the front of their home. Mr. Larsen
said they are the only users of Skyview Lane, which they solely pay to maintain. He said a tank at this
elevation will allow for a gravity fed system, eliminating the need for a booster system and providing a
cost savings to the Sanitation Authority. He said the water will be pumped in from a "to be constructed"
pumping station behind the new Walmart and piped up to the new tank. Mr. Larsen said these variances
are being requested to cut costs and not because of undue hardship. Mr. Larsen thought the tank could be
built at another location without damaging the value and beauty of his property and the surrounding
properties; he suggested construction behind the Walmart with a raised tank and booster system or on the
Carpenter or Silver Lake property, or the southern end of Round Hill. Mr. Larsen said this tank is
proposed to be located in the upper comer of the Carpenter's 156 -acre property. Mr. Larsen also believed
there were inaccuracies in the application; he thought there needed to be a 100 -foot setback from his
property and he did not think the Carpenters had a prescriptive easement to Skyview Lane.
Mr. Tim Campbell said he and his wife, Lamm C. Burley, own the property at the end and
to the north of Skyview Lane. Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Larsen's comments. He said the applicant
asked him to grant an easement for the water pipe to come through his property and also, to restrict what
he does with his land in order to provide a view for trucks to see a distance down the road. Mr. Campbell
said they are not inclined to grant that easement.
Mrs.Charlotte Driver, wife of Bradley B. Driver, adjoining property owners, said she and
her husband were opposed to the application. Mrs. Driver said it has been erroneously stated that they
were in agreement with the application and she wanted to correct that.
Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to respond to the public comments. Mr. Wyatt said the
Sanitation Authority also had questioned the issue of access on Skyview Lane and they had their attorney
Mr. Benjamin Butler, conduct an analysis. It was Mr. Butler's opinion that a prescriptive easement is
available to the Carpenter property; therefore, the Sanitation Authority would have access. Regarding
road maintenance, he felt sure the Sanitation Authority would be willing to negotiate an agreement to
share in the cost of road maintenance, although their use of the road would be extremely limited. Mr.
Wyatt stated this appears to be the right location for this water tank for the community as a whole, as far
as visibility is concerned. He said the option available on the Silver Lake property, which was shown on
the master plan, is more visually obtrusive and will impact a greater number of existing residents along
Poorhouse Road. Mr. Wyatt added that the Sanitation Authority has stated they do not want to own five -
acre lots, when they need only' /a acre to site their tank; furthermore, the 1025 elevation is the catalyst for
the placement. Regarding the issue raised by Mr. Larsen about the 100 -foot setback, Mr. Wyatt believed
the plat was accurate based on discussions with the Planning Staff.
Commissioner Oates inquired about the easement to be acquired through Mr. Campbell's
property; he said if the Campbells are not willing to grant the easement, is there a backup plan to route a
water line. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority asked Greenway to pursue this option as a first step
and the Planning Staff's approval signature on the plat would be conditioned upon the easement being
delivered. He said discussions have taken place; however, a format contract has not been presented with
a dollar amount to purchase because if the requested waiver was not granted and the lot unable to be
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2626
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-13-
® created, there was no need to determine a dollar value for the easement. Mr. Wyatt said if the waiver is
granted and the easement offer is declined, the Sanitation Authority will explore the 20 -foot Skyview
Lane as the mechanism for access and the utility line for transmission.
Commissioner Thomas said if the waiver proceeds, the Sanitation Authority should
include within the application the rebuilding of Skyview Lane from the tank to Poorhouse Road because
construction vehicles will damage the gravel road. Mr. Wyatt said a road survey is typically done before
construction to evaluate the condition of the road to determine a baseline, so if damage is done during
construction, the Sanitation Authority would rectify the situation.
Commissioner Oates was also in favor of the Sanitation Authority taking care of the road
after construction with tar and chip. He also said he would like to see the site plan before voting on this
to know what type of screening is proposed for the western property line along the road; he suggested a
double row of evergreens along Skyview Lane.
Chairman Wilmot asked the County Attorney if the variances sought could be approved
by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Roderick Williams, the County Attorney, replied yes. Chairman
Wilmot recalled an additional statement whereby this parcel will have direct access to a state road,
Poorhouse Road, by Skyview Lane. Mr. Cheran agreed.
Commissioners next raised the issue of the color of the water tank.
Commissioner Triplett made a motion to recommend approval of the variances requested
with the stipulations that site be surrounded by a full- screen buffer, consisting of a double row of
• evergreens; that Skyview Lane be paved from the tank to Poorhouse Road with an agreement on shared
road maintenance; and, the color of the tank be appropriately selected. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of the variance requests of Robert & Lynda Carpenter, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for
exceptions to Section 144 -24(B) Lot Requirements and Section 144- 31(C)(3) Rural Subdivisions, of the
Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, to allow the creation of a parcel of land
intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill ground water storage tank. The proposed
new parcel will require the following variances:
• Allowance of a 0.763 acre minimum lot size for a parcel in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District which would otherwise need a minimum of five acres.
• Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) District to establish a 20 -foot BRL
(building restriction line) along the western property line, which would otherwise be 60 -foot
BRL;
• Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) District to establish a 25 -foot BRL along
the southern property line, which would otherwise be a 60 -foot BRL;
• Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) District to establish a 40 -foot BRL along
the northern property line, which would otherwise be a 100 -foot BRL;
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2627
Minutes of April 7, 2010
-14-
• Allowance of a new, minor rural subdivision parcel to be accessed via a 20 -foot, rather than a 50-
foot, minimum required right -of -way; this parcel will have direct access to a state road,
Poorhouse Road (Route 654), via Skyview Lane.
This recommendations is based on the following stipulations: the site will be surrounded by a full- screen
buffer, consisting of a double row of evergreen trees; after tank construction, Skyview Lane will be paved
from the water tank to Poorhouse Road and an agreement reached on the shared maintenance costs for the
road; and the color of the tank be appropriately selected.
The majority vote on this recommendation for approval was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE) Mohn, Lemieux, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Oates, Crockett, Manuel, Ambrogi,
Crosen, Unger, Wilmot
NO: Thomas
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
• Respectfully submitt ed,
)'Jue n M. Wilmot, Chairman
is R. Lawrence, Secretary
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2628
Minutes of April 7, 2010