Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 07-15-15 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 July 15, 2015. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; and Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the July 15, 2015 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda with a revision for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Crockett and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their May 20, 2015 and June 17, 2015 meetings. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3234 Minutes of July 15, 2015 COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans and Prollrams Committee — 7/13/15 Commissioner Mohn reported, the primary topic of discussion was the initiation of the update to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. He noted the first phase being demographic data has been initiated. He concluded further discussion on this will take place and will continue to move forward. Board of Supervisors Report — Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess reported the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on Rezoning 02-15 Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association which was approved. A public hearing was also held for Conditional Use Permit 01-15 Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association at which time a condition was added noting no permanent sound or music amplification would be permitted. The Conditional Use Permit was then approved. A proffer amendment for Abram's Chase was approved as well. Mr. Hess noted, the Board of Supervisors would like to request the Planning Department Staff look into the revenue sharing funds from the Russell 150 property and determine how these funds can be used elsewhere in the County. Citizen Comments Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission's agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Addition to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District — The proposed addition is a 175.00+/- acre tract within one parcel and is located in the Back Creek District along Conestoga Lane. Action — Recommend Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this is a request to add a 175.00+/- acre parcel to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Cheran explained the District currently has a total of 5,845.90+/- acres and if approved with the additional 175.00+/- acre parcel, the District would now have a total of 6,020.90+/- acres. Mr. Cheran noted the Agricultural Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3235 Minutes of July 15, 2015 District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of this item at their June 24, 2015 meeting. 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. There were no questions or comments from Commission members at this time. Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Addition to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District — The proposed addition is a 175.00+/- acre tract within one parcel and is located in the Back Creek District along Conestoga Lane. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting) 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District Addition of Parcels Less than 5 Acres — This Public Hearing is to consider the addition of 46 parcels, each less than 5 acres in size to the following Districts: Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, Double Church, Red Bud, South Frederick, and South Timber Ridge Districts. This could add up to an additional 87 acres to the established 11,425.93 acres within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing five year period. Properties that are incorporated into and Agricultural and Forestal District are guaranteed certain protection as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia. Action- Listed separately below Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported in February 2015 the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met to consider the eight Agricultural and Forestal Districts the County currently has. He explained during the review process, the ADAC found there were parcels less than 5 acres, not in the Land Use Assessment Program, and in an Agricultural District. Mr. Cheran noted that the ADAC felt this could be placing unintended restrictions on adjacent properties that would include excessive building setbacks and eliminating opportunity for placement of buildings on a property. Therefore, the ADAC recommended such properties not be included in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Mr. Cheran referenced the May 27, 2015 Frederick County Board of Supervisors meeting at which time the eight 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal Districts totaling 11,425 acres were adopted. He noted forty-six (46) parcels totaling 87 acres were not included in the adopted Agricultural and Forestal Districts. These 46 parcels were each less than 5 acres and were not participants in the County's Land Use Assessment Program. Mr. Cheran reported, as a result the Board of Supervisors requested each of these parcels be given further consideration and the property owners be given an opportunity to participate in the evaluation. Mr. Cheran reported, on June 24, 2015 the ADAC held a meeting to consider the inclusion of the 46 parcels of less than 5 acres into the County's Agricultural and Forestal Districts. He Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3236 Minutes of July 15, 2015 noted, the 46 property owners were invited to participate and 10 properties were represented at the meeting. Mr. Cheran shared the comments from the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) and the comments are as follows: Importance of Agricultural Districts and to welcome all who wish to be included Important to recognize those properties that were part of the original creation of the Districts, without which the District may not have qualified Important to recognize that inclusion in the Agricultural District creates impacts (greater setbacks) on adjacent properties, therefore it must be deemed appropriate to include a parcel if it is not directly contributing to farm use Mr. Cheran noted, the ADAC recommended approval for inclusion of all 46 parcels into the Agricultural District program. Mr. Cheran reported, Staff notified the 46 property owners as well as the adjoining property owners. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the 46 parcels were organized into three groups and are as follows: Group 1 — Parcels not adjacent nor encapsulated by existing Agricultural Districts Group 2 — Parcels adjacent to existing Agricultural Districts Group 3 — Parcels encapsulated by existing Agricultural Districts Commissioner Thomas inquired what the impact to the 46 parcels is if they would not be included back in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Mr. Cheran noted, there would not be any impacts. He continued, if the parcels were in the Land Use Assessment Program there may be tax impacts; however, these 46 parcels are not in the Land Use Assessment Program. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the Agricultural and Forestal District definition. Mr. Cheran reiterated, the Agricultural and Forestal Districts are established to protect Agricultural and Forestal operations, recognizes and promotes our agricultural economy, preserves open space, utilizes a tool in land use actions, and once adopted the Districts become part of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Dunlap noted, in the event we recommend approval of the 46 parcels to be included, his concern is the 200 ft. building setback and would there be any form of relief for these property owners should they want to construct an additional structure and the 200 ft. setback be a factor. Mr. Cheran explained, the relief that would apply is an application for a Variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Commissioner Marston inquired what the minimal amount of acres is for an Agricultural District to exist. Mr. Cheran responded the creation of an Agricultural and Forestal District starts out with a core of 200 acres and within a mile radius of that other property owners may choose to join in. Commissioner Marston asked if taking any of the 46 parcels out would jeopardize the existence of any of the Districts. Mr. Cheran noted, without the 46 parcels in question today, it would leave a total of 11,513 acres in the eight Agricultural and Forestal Districts and all could remain intact. Commissioner Thomas commented, it appears none of these parcels could meet the intent of the Agricultural and Forestal District. He noted, you're not going to farm on a tenth of an acre, you're not going to farm on a half -acre that has a house on it, and therefore it would not be preserving farm or forest land. Mr. Cheran explained, when assembling the Agricultural and Forestal Districts that is when Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3237 Minutes of July 15, 2015 all of the 46 parcels in question were included. He noted, knowing the setbacks were changed to Rural Area (RA) study; it did appear it would be a hindrance on adjoining property owners. Commissioner Thomas stated, it appears for those half -acre or even up to 2 acre parcels this would be giving them control of land two and three times the size of the property they own; for example, they may own 1 acre but control 3 or 4 acres of someone else's property. Mr. Cheran noted, given the setbacks that statement would be correct. Commissioner Crockett commented, looking at the aerial photos provided, most of the 46 parcels appear to be residences. Mr. Cheran concurred; they are mostly single family dwellings. Commissioner Crockett stated, he is in support of preserving agricultural land but also the rights of the adjacent property owners cannot be ignored. Commissioner Marston commented, his concern is the County may be headed down a wrong path should all of the 46 parcels be put back into the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. He stated the clean-up down the road may be lengthy. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. The following citizens came forward to speak. Mr. John Toney of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to speak. Mr. Toney presented a photo of the Carter Hall property that has an adjacent property which is part of the 46 parcels being discussed. He commented he does not believe a residence and work shop should qualify to be put in an Agricultural and Forestal District. Chairman Wilmot requested Mr. Cheran identify this parcel (79-A-IOF) via the onscreen map. Mrs. Joyce Earhart of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to speak. Mrs. Earhart owns the property being referenced by Mr. John Toney. She explained, at the last ADAC meeting it was noted they were not required to be in the Land Use Assessment Program to be part of an Agricultural District, therefore they do not understand why their parcel was removed. She stated, as an owner of a small parcel and a larger adjoining parcel they feel they should be grand fathered in due to the fact they have been part of the Agricultural and Forestal District for years. She concluded, they respectfully request their property remain in the Agricultural and Forestal District. Ms. Sandra Ritenour of the Opequon Magisterial District and the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District came forward to speak. Ms. Ritenour explained her property is one of the 46 parcels in question. She noted, she is grateful this decision is being revisited by the County. Ms. Ritenour explained her property was part of the family farm which still surrounds her property. She concluded her request is that the Planning Commission take each parcel individually and reconsider their placement. Mr. Larry Earhart of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to comment. He stated his property has been in the district for years and should remain there. He noted the adjacent neighbors had the opportunity to complain or dispute years ago and no one did so; therefore, he feels no one should complain now. Mr. William Schuller of the Shawnee Magisterial District came forward and stated he would like his property to be put back into the Agricultural and Forestal District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3238 Minutes of July 15, 2015 Chairman Wilmot asked if there were any other citizens who wished to speak. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Mohn commented he sees the need to look at a lot of these parcels individually. He is concerned with the groupings and wants to be sure what is being viewed graphically is accurate. Mr. Cheran elaborated on the photos noting, they are just an overview and if the parcels are viewed individually the graphics will be accurate. Chairman Wilmot explained the 3 grouping to ensure everyone is clear and asked if there were any questions. There were not questions at that time. Commissioner Thomas commented, Group 1 (not adjacent to or encapsulated by Agricultural District) should not be included in the Agricultural and Forestal District. He elaborated, Group 2 (adjacent to existing Agricultural District) should be evaluated individually and Group 3 (encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) should be included. Supervisor Hess provided a background of what transpired at the recent Board of Supervisors meeting. He explained, the night of the meeting it was already a couple days past the expiration date for the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The proposal that was presented and was advertised for the public hearing did not include the 46 parcels. He noted there was no option left for the Board of Supervisors to add any of the 46 parcels back in to the Districts. The Board of Supervisors approved the Agricultural and Forestal Districts with these removed and noted the property owners of the removed 46 parcels had not been notified. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence commented, Mr. Hess explained it well. He noted in order to get to tonight all advertisement was complete in all legal aspects, invites were sent to the 46 property owners as well as legal notifications sent to adjacent property owners. Mr. Lawrence noted every effort has been made to make sure the public is properly notified and aware of what is going on. Chairman Wilmot reiterated the Groupings to ensure all Commission Members are clear and able to proceed. Commissioner Marston inquired if a parcel is removed can that parcel be put back in the Agricultural and Forestal District after 5 years. Mr. Cheran responded yes, by going through the process again. Commissioner Thomas made a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Triplett to exclude Group Knot adjacent or encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) and include Group 3 (encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) in the 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval to exclude Group Knot adjacent or encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) and include Group 3 (encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) in the 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting) The remaining 19 parcels, Group 2 (adjacent to existing ALricultural District) were voted on individually and the results are as follows: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3239 Minutes of July 15, 2015 PIN(s) 31-A-170 and 31-A-171 A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 85-A-132 A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously approved to include this parcel in the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 44 -A -28C Commissioner Thomas clarified the buffer does not extend across the road. Commissioner Kenney noted that not much agriculture activity can take place on this property. Commissioner Mohn commented to leave the property in and the impacts are not severe. A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Manuel and passed by majority vote to include this parcel in the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN55-A-115 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kenney and unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 55-A-117 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kenney and unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 55-A-14 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN(s) 55-A-177 and 55 -A -178A Commissioner Thomas clarified the buffer does not extend across Valley Mill Road. Commissioner Mohn commented these parcels are contiguous to the Agricultural District and it would be appropriate to keep them in. A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Marston and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 44D-2-6 A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Manuel and approved by majority vote to include this parcel in the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN(s) 73-A-27 and 73-A-28 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 74 -A -10F Commissioner Thomas clarified the buffer does not extend across the road. He also noted the property across the road is not developed; therefore, if included it would give this parcel control of property that is not theirs. A motion was made by Commissioner Dunlap, seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 73-A-34 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kenney and unanimously approved to exclude this property from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN(s) 73-A-30 and 73 -A -30E A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Molden and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3240 Minutes of July 15, 2015 PIN 73 -A -30A Commissioner Thomas commented this appears to be a single family dwelling. A motion made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Molden and approved by majority vote to exclude this parcel from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 73 -A -64A Commissioner Marston commented he knows this property is completely agriculture. A motion made by Commissioner Marston, seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously approved to include this parcel in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. PIN 61-A-44 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously approved to include this parcel in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV — Agricultural and Residential District, Part 401— RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.2 Permitted Uses, Article II — Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, - Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.22 Farm Wineries, Article I — General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101— General Provisions §165-101.02. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to include farm breweries, farm distilleries as permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Action — Recommend Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is an ordinance amendment to update the farm winery text to include farm breweries and farm distilleries as permitted uses in the RA (Rural Area) District pursuant to the Code of Virginia. Ms. Perkins noted the changes included with this revision are as follows: • Addition of Farm Breweries and Distilleries, with updated and new definitions; • Removal of provisions currently regulated by the Code of Virginia (noted. this was a major change); • Addition of tours, kitchen and catering activities; • Addition of an allowance for providing light refreshments and appetizers (food preparation beyond this, excluding catering for special events, shall require a Conditional Use Permit for restaurants); • Removal of the site plan requirement and addition of an illustrative sketch plan requirement; • Revision to the events allowance to decrease the number of people permitted onsite without a festival permit from 150 to 100 (consistent with the County Code requirement for festival permits). Ms. Perkins explained for clarification, the Code of Virginia permits farm wineries, breweries and distilleries to conduct the following (exempt from local regulation): Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3241 Minutes of July 15, 2015 • The production and harvesting of agricultural products for the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages; • On -premises sale, tasting, or consumption of wine, beer, alcoholic beverages during regular business hours within the normal course of business; • The direct sale and shipment of wine, beer, alcoholic beverages to licensed wholesalers and out -of —state purchasers; • The storage and warehousing of wine, beer and alcoholic beverages; • The sale of product -related items that are incidental to the sale of wine, beer or alcoholic beverages; • The sale of product -related items that are incidental to the sale of wine, beer or alcoholic beverages; Ms. Perkins noted the DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting and sent the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on May 20, 2015; the Planning Commission agreed with the changes and sent the item forward to the Board of Supervisors for review. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their June 10, 2015 meeting and agreed with the proposed uses; however, it was requested that Staff remove the provisions currently regulated by the state. 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. There were no questions or comments from Commission members at this time. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV — Agricultural and Residential District, Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, § 165-401.2 Permitted Uses, Article II — Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, - Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, § 165-204.22 Farm Wineries, Article I — General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 — General Provisions § 165- 101.02. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to include farm breweries, farm distilleries as permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Part 802 — Site Plans §165-802.01 Activities Requiring Site Plans, §165-802.02 Site Plan Applications; Review, §165-802.03 Site Plan, §165-802.04 Required Improvements, Article I, General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 — General Provisions, §165-101.02 Definitions & Word Usage. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to update the site plan requirements. Action — Recommend Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3242 Minutes of July 15, 2015 Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to part 802 of the Zoning Ordinance to update the text to include provisions for minor site plans as well as the inclusion of an illustrative sketch plan. Ms. Perkins noted minor site plans have commonly been submitted and approved; however, the term and requirements for these plans has never been codified. Ms. Perkins explained, for illustrative sketch plans this is a new inclusion; these would be applicable to agricultural businesses such as farm wineries, distilleries and breweries. She also noted this would be an exercise the property owner could complete themselves and it would not need to be sealed by a licensed professional. Ms. Perkins reported a minor site plan would constitute a revision that increases an existing structure area by 20% or less and does not exceed 5,000 square feet of disturbed area. She also noted minor site plans have a reduced submission guideline and a reduced site plan fee. Ms. Perkins clarified an illustrative sketch plan would not have a fee associated with it. Ms. Perkins noted, the DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting and with minor revisions sent the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on May 20, 2015; the Planning Commission agreed with the changes and sent the item forward for review by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins stated this item was discussed by the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 2015 and sent forward for public hearing as drafted. 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. There were no questions or comments from Commission members at this time. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Part 802 — Site Plans § 165-802.01 Activities Requiring Site Plans, § 165-802.02 Site Plan Applications; Review, § 165-802.03 Site Plan, § 165-802.04 Required Improvements, Article I, General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101— General Provisions, § 165-101.02 Definitions & Word Usage. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to update the site plan requirements. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting) Cancelation of the regular meeting on August 5, 2015 Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission's August 5, 2015 meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3243 Minutes of July 15, 2015 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the August 5, 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Molden and unanimously passed. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Dunlap to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ne ilmot, Chairman EriE awrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3244 Minutes of July 15, 2015