PC 02-20-13 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES' _
OFIRE
FREDERICK; COUNTY PLANNING ,COlVI1VIISSION
ie;Fiederick .County Administration B Ildii g at, 1,07 North .Kent Street inHe1dEintheBoardRoomHof, ill -.
Whicliester, Virginia on 'February 20; 20::13:
PRESENT: June M., Wilmot, Cliairinan /Member at -Large; Roger:. 'L.;. Thomas, Vice 'Chainnan7
Qpeguon District; Brian Mad'agan, Opeguon 'District; Gary R Oates,` - Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett; Stonewall District, Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District, ,1`I. `Paige- Manuel; ShaW,ijee
District Charles, E. Triplett, .Gainesboro Distract; Kevin Kenney,, Gainesboro D stricf Gieg La Ungger;
Back- Creek District,: Kevin 0. Crown; Back Creek -District;, Christoplid M. Mohn, ;Red ,Bud ..District;,
Roderick B. Williaiiis, County Attorney; and,David-Shore, Wintlii2ster Planning,Commission Liaison.
STAFF 'PRESENT: Eric. R ., Deputy Planning
Director;, Mark R. Cheran, Zoning: &• Subdivision Admin4 rator; John A Bishop, Deputy Director-
Trailspo , at on; Candice:E Perkins, Senior Planner; Dana: Joli,nsibn,.Zoniiig Iiispector* acid Renee' S.
Arlotta, :Clerk.,
CALL TO ORDER,& ADOPTION'OF AGENDA
i Clidirman Wilmot called the =meeting to order" -at 7:0"0 p m.. A motion Was made by'
Cominissio>>er Oates, ,seconded `by ,Commissioner'Thomas, and,.unan`imously pas 'sed to, adopt the agenda
for this.evei ing's meeting aspresente.d.-
MINUTES'
Upon- mot ionmade by'Coinm ssioner Oates and seconded; by ,, ommissioner Crockett, the
minutes of`December 5„ 201'2, and January '2,, 201 were uni ffii iously app " roved as presented:
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Tr•.ansgortation,Cominittee :R2 /,f9 /.1SMtg::
Commissioner Oates reported; three 'items on the:Trarisportation: Cominittee "s. agenda :. 1)
Private; Streets 'n the R5.' D str ct -moved 'forward to the Board of Supervisors; 2) Presentation on
VDOT's Route 37 Work = "engineered drawings Of'approxi'l ate needed right, Of - Way 3)'D`i "scussion
r. Fi
of'l-
dk Cuty Ptaig:Cornniissione
Page °29.37
Minutes of'February 20;'- 20!1;.3:
2 —
81 Corridor Coalifion - D,eci"sibi to reinove `Frederick 'C_ ounty ,as an. individual member; the Cou»ty' is
already a regional ,member,
Comprehensive Plans::& Pro6rams..Committee (CPPC) = 2/11/1'3 Mfg.
Commissioner Molin ;reported the CPPC; discussed'. a Com:preherisive Policy :Plan
Amendment request, which was: initiated `by the Board of Supervi'sor;.s -for the Light Property in, the
Northeast Land U'se Plan (NELUP), area, north of`Brucetown.'The discussion,focused particularly o»_
adjusting the Sewer and Water,Serv'ce Area (SWSA) boundary -=to enable subsequent, entitlement so the
property:can be prepared as,a "sh6N /A ready" site for industrial Use: Coinmissi'oner Mohrr said_`th.ere. were
questions and d'i`scussion.<andahis iteiii, will be coming back_.to the CPPC,nextmonth.
Sanitation_Author-ityJ— 2/19/43.1VItg.
Commissioner Unger'reported rainfall for January w.as 3.7 in hes, which was up by 2.8'1
inches from the month prior. ` Water usage at the Dielit..Plant was ,1. Tiiibd; water usage at the Anderson.
Plant was :2.05 mgd; and slightly over 3%4. Mgd, was purchased from. the. City,. The daily average use is
g p from, the> previous month .and most :likely, due to the five house fires thatabout4.6- ni d which s u
occurred, in Frederick County. The Diehl- Qparry elevation remained cor stdrit, at 655 feet, the Anderson
Quarry, elevation rose about four feet.;
Comm- ioner`Unger next: reported on the, Sanitation Authority's discussion with area
water haulers. He.said'the water liaulers waiitto work with` tlSe, S- anitationrDepartment ;for,extended'hour.s.
in the evenings and on weekends to, accornnodate area construction workers and. to serve customers
remain
of
e ilandphe lwere g pppls.and cisterns.
meters onetheir trucks
ers 1 equested. that at beast four hydrants
p y g to moiiftor usage.
Winchester City'Pl"annri is '0
Commissioner Dave Shore, Liaison from the Wmcl- stet City Pl"a11 mg 'Commission;
reported a xezoniiig application was' forwarded to the City .Council for 132 apartment units that would be,
located on;Cedar Creek Grade ai the Frederick Comity line.
Commissioner $hore',noted that in li'ght.ofthe -re- opening of`the,Loudotn Street Mall, the
Gginrnssion consolidated all, of the:warious mall regulat`ions by several, City offf &s: and the Downtown
Deuelop iaent- Board, »ito.one _s etNof`regulatons and.tliis was sent forward as'an; amendrnei tto the zoning,
ordinahce IwQity Council:
Fre ie>>ck Counfylpl- anningtiCommission Page
Minutes o_fTebruary,20; 204 1
F
Iii additiM5' Cornrilissione p Shore T said- 'Commission,- `has been receiving, and,
considerrig ;a number 'of applications froth, telecommunications. companies.`wantilg to place cellular•
antennas - -on buildings or tr:iple,the, size.of "the existing ii-stalhitions:
Committee, Appointments;
Chairmann Wilmot aiiriounced committee,appointme-ii _for tlie'Conpreliensive Plans:and
T- rogramss, Committee (,CPPC) and: the Development Review ,and,. Regulations Committee. (DRRC).
Chairman Wilmot encouraged ert z ' s m Fredeiick'Qounty° who iniay he interested in helping out on
either of these two cominittees itO c'Oiitact-,tlle.-Plaiiiiiiig:Departmejit, staff,'
4 Comprehensive Plans and. Programs Committee members: Ch ristopher Mohn, ;Chairman; Red .Bud
District, ,Ga_r'y Oates, Vice ,Chairrnah Stonewall District;. Paige ,Manue'l, ;Shawnee: Ristrict Lawrence
Ambrogi;, Sh;awriee D,istr ct; :Roger Thomas;, ex- officio, .Opequon District; June Wilmot; ex- officio;
Planning Commission ,merinbei At Large;?. James, W.. Golladay; Jr citizen and former Planning
Com mission, ibeiiiber; and Kay`,Dawson°, citizen i_neinber.
Devel 'opm'ent Revi'ew and 'Regulations Coinmitfee :memberss Greg; Qnger:, Chairman; ,Back. Creek
u District- Kevni: Kenney,, Vice Cliajnrian Gainesbora District; Kevin Crosen, Back ,Creek District Gary
Oates, Stonewall Distract `RogerT nas, ex- officio, Opequon District, June Wilmot; ex officio Planning
Commission :member, At, Large' Jay Banks; citizen. member; ,Back° Creek `D;i "strict; Whitney Wagner,.
citizen, rrieniber, Stonewall District;: and Dwight Shenk, citizen member representing the Top of'V,irginia:
CITIZEN,COMMENTS,
Chairman Wilil of called for citizen'- conaments,on any issue not on this evening's ageinda,
No one carne forward to speak and 'Chairman. Wilmot closed the 'Cif -14en Comments. portion -of the
meeting. ,
PUBLICJUARING
Conditional Use ;Permit #01-13, of Judy Tingle for. a revision to, the re--q--p- irements, under Conditional,
Use `Perm "it #09 -i0 enabling an In- )FIome, Family Day Care _Facility ;at. 284 Tyler Drive. The ,request
is for t}ie purlio "se of ncreasi 'rag, the number of children being cared for at any given trine. The
property i°s'id'entifred °with PI.N. W,j1A 2 18 in the,Stonewall'Magesterial District.
Action - _Recornniended Approval with Con`ditiofs;
the re uir`_..
Zoning Inspector ,Dada M. Jolnston„ reported this app'l'ication :is a request for. a revision, to;
q ements under Conditional:iJse Permit (.,CUP) #09 -1'0 approved by the.Board of Supervi'socs on
J,anuaiy 26 201 1;. 'arid ,enabled' an In -home 'Family Day Care Facility., Mr. Johnston said ,this new CUP
F. &denck C- Pla ining'Commaasion. Page 293 -9
Minutes of'Februar }% 20, 20;13
request is for the. ,purpose of increasing the nurhNr -' of children, being cared for by Mrs: Tingle at any
IT, from 8 to 12.. Mr. Johnston stated the Departrnent ofjSocial Services granted approva'1 to allow
Mis,Tuigl6 to, increase tier daycare capacrty<to include aivaxrmuin of 12 children. He "noted' he Health
Department has^ no objections to this requesi, Mr, Johnston. commented, that staff has not received 'any
complaints about the property as t, relates to the in= home.day care,facility:
Ivlr. Johnston stated iNhe Planning Commission finds this revision•to be appropriate the
staff suggests revising C'ond tron: #5 as °follows: "Other than hose .chrldrei residi ig`.on the,property .there
shallbe no:rnore l an 12 childreI being cared for•at any given tii Q::
Connr issioner `Thomas - nquii•ed if .the Social Servi•ces`permrt` was :related -or, tied to the
age of'chil'dren under'care,n any. way'. •Mr.J,olinston said he wa "s, ;not aware of this in his discussions with
the; S,oci`al , Services Manager.,
Iv1rs., Judyy'. Tmglne, the applicant and owner of the,'propety, said she was licensed fo care
for children from,six weeks up'to age .10. Mrs. Tiiigl'e said, slie - has,one efnployee. She said the reason `for'
her requestto increase.'the•.nurnbef,6f children was that some,of the parents had babies . aril they did not.
g p y Mrs. Tingle said there were three additional children thiswantto" o to two, se agate day care centers,.
year: She'sard she° recer'ved a letter of.'authori`zation from her Soetal Services State Supervisor °stating she
is allowed °to have up to._12 c1' ddrei .
Chairman W it not called for anyone :in tfie. audience wishing to speak either in favor or
p , pp q man Wilmot ;closed the public
0 osrtror 'to this :,re vest No one 'carne forward to s ;eak and' Chair,
comrent;portion of the.l earing-
i Xo other;; questions,or;issues were raised by the Commission.
Upon motion »lade by Commissioner Crockett annd isecoi ded by' Commissioner Oates
BE IT RESOLVED the: Frederick Coun Planning Commission unaniniously.r'eco ninends approval ofty
Conditional Use Permit #01 -13. of Judy Tingle for a revisioh,to the requirements under Condifional Use
Pei'inrt #09: =1'0 enabling- an Tn -Home ;Family Day Care Facility at 284 Tyler Drive with the following
cord' -Ons
1. All review agency cotrin eats -and requiremi nts shall _e compliedwith at all times:
2. H'o.urs of operation shall be permitted -from .6 a.m., to 7 p.m: Monday th *ough.Friday.
3:., The. ,applicant shall satisfy_tlie;.liceixsing, requirements' of tlie, Vrrgn!ia' Department of'':S:osial
i S:ervices.and the' County of Frederick
1 •
4,. 4,6 business'sign.assoc ated with this conditiol- al.use permit shall'be =exec "ted onthe-0 property.
5., Other than those clnldren res dirJg, on', the: property, there shall be no more than 1 =2 ch''ildren being
cared, "for _at any"gruen tiJme,.
r .,..
g p P rty6 _ Other tllan those persons "resrdn
l
on the ro .e . there ahal'l be ro more than :one:' employee
working, at the day t acarean y time.
Frederic Count} Punning Coinmi'ssion. Page 29'40
Minutes of February 201:2013
5-
7., Any expansion.or`cliange of'use willii`equire;a new condrtronal use permit.
ordinance. to amend the F,rederick.Coun Code -CAnty hapter'l'65, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural
and Residential ;Districts, Part 40;1, `RA (Rural Areas) District. 'This ordinance:,amendment will;
remove a waiver opportunity in then . RA (Rural, Areas) V strict _ which allows 'the Board 'of
Supervisors-fo red ucesetbacks ; for existinbAots,,
A 'tion --- Recommended Approval ,
Senior Planner Candice 'Perki'ns, reported' 'the staff has been; asked to remove the waiver
opportunity currently :contained in th& ,RA (Rural Areas)" ,Zoning ,District which allows the, Board of'
Supervisors to reduce the setbacks for'an, existing, lot of record, if an und'66hardship- exists:- Ms..Perkins
said `this`waiyer should be eliminated because these "types of requests sli,ould'be'handled by the Board of
Zoning;Appeals.
Ms. Perkins stated this item was Aiscussed by 11'6 DRRC. '(Developinent Review and
Regulations Committee) at their October 201'`2 iileeting aril the; P anm g Commission discussed thi''s at
their meeting on_Decemb.er 5 2012.•'She.•said the Board :of Supervisors .discussed-this item onJanuary'9;,
20:1'3;A eB;oard l ad no changes and, forwarded the•item to theTIan nn`g Commission for-apublic hearing.
Chairman `Wilmot, opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone
in "the,audence who wished 'to speak either in'favor or opposition: to this;or "dinance amendme»f: No one
came,forward to speak, and Chairman Wilmot closed "the public comment' - rtion of the. hearing.
There were no,.questions or issues raised by the Planning;Commissioi.,
Upon mot1on, made, by Commissioner Thomas and ,seconded by Commissioner Oates
BE fT RESOLVED, the Fred&,ick County Planning. Cominissi`on, does hereby t,ecomrriend'approval of the
ordinance to' amend the; Frederick County Code, "Chapter 165: Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural' and
Residential, Districts, Part 4.0,1; RA (Rural Areas) District. This ord!nan6e•amei-drneht will remove. +a_
waiver opportunity it) tl e RA (Rural' Areas).D.istrict which allows the Board. of Supervisors to ,reduce
setbacks for existing,lots.
Tl e %4jbrity vote was,:
YES ,(To..Recommend', Approval)- M'ohn, Triplett, Madagan, Tloii-ias;, 'Wilmot, Oates, Crockett,
Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger
NO: Kenney .
Ti;edei ick'County. P, g;Cornmission Page 2941
Minutes of February 20,.20'13;
An :ordinance to; amend the Frederick 'County-, Code, Chapter ,165,. ;Zoning, Article VIII,
Development Plans. ;and' Approvals, ;Section .801; Master Development Plans. Thiis •ordinance
amendment will revise and update the master development gtan ,(MDP.),submission and ;processing`
requirements. This re8d9ion also odifies'a; number, .of MDP references thfoughout Chapter 165 `tom
conform to: the Section `801 revision, `
Action:— Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkiiis;1reported !this 'proposed` amendment is for a, number of
changes that revolve ,around how the staff processes and .reviews master -development, plans ('MDP); Ms
Perkins; said currently, Freder'i'ck County does not process; MDPs as ouflined iii Part. 801 'of the. zoning
ordinance: Specifically, °the' z ni7g ordinance requires the P ann`ing . Commission .to make
recommendations on pI.a st to, the Board.of Supervisors and- 'then the Board, under code, is required to
approve or deny MDPs. However, due to the fact that MDPs demonstrate cor_rtpliance with the County
Code; they :are pot scheduled-,for review until they have satisfied all County agency comments and Nall
staff requirements. Ms. Perkins said, MDPs musf`be in furl compl''i.ance b.efore,fhey are brought; before the
Planning Commission arid, ttie ,Board of Supervisors; therefore, MDPs ar°e presented as informational.
items only and, action isnot taken.
Ms. Perkins sfated, a:'uumber of changes to Part- 801':weie drafted; to update' the :MDP
requireiiients and revise; how they are• ;processed; some 'reor"ganizat` on of the .text was .made for clar":ity as
well. She said this amendment;was discussed ;by the: Planning.Commission on December 5, 20,12;and by
the Board of Superu "sons on January 9, ,20`.1 -3. 'The :Board se' iit.'the pr.. "oposed amendment 'forward for
3 publichearin'g.
Chairman Wilmot o erred, the ubl,ic hearing: and called for anyone in the aud'ience.whoPP
wished-to, speak regar'dung this proposed amendment. T,he fo•] OWIhg person came forward to; speak:
Dr. Mark Byrd, ,Back; Greek, Disti`ict, came forward`, to speak art opposition "to fire proposed
amendment changes. Mr Byrd had`nurnerous concerns which ingluded ;tlie proposed' changes will leave
tire; detenl ination of. MDPs solely, to he P;lanning'Department Director'.and the County Administrator'
with 'no PI`annirig Commission overs'i'ght, .tlie. potential exists for issuesAo; occur with no oversight and no
public input; the information °the developer must provide; such: as •a history of past .land divisions,
ownership, ;and uses, ,is difficult for 'the developer- to tract down .and' 'is, already available in County
records;`the instructions are vague,'the`re +are-ii.o- tiiiie lines for tlhe•County to meet; and th'e amendment is
am biguousand is abusive "to theAevelopgr, as well as county residents.
No one else came foi yard to speak and .Chairman Wilmot closed the public 'comment
portion of`the hearing.
Chai'rinai, Wi mot commented, this amendment was discussed, and passed forward by thei -
Development Review4nd.Regulatio s Comrnhtee.
Nb_quest'ons or issues were raised`by.iinen tiers of the,.PlanniiawC'ommission.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commiss'i'oner - Crockett;
r
f
F, redenckCounty ':Planning;Coiiiinissi'on Page 2942
Minutes'of'February 20, 2013
7_
BEi,IT RESOLVED, the Frederick.;County Paannrng :Commission does'`liereby unanimously "recomme»d
approval, of `air ordinance to amend• the Frederick County Code; Chapter 1,65, Zoning, Article VIII,,
i Developriment.Plans and Approvals, Section 801, Master Development Plans: This ordinance amendment11-1
wi l firevise, `and 'update the master .development .plan (MDP) submis "sion and processing requir- ements;
Th's revision also 'modifies. a,number of MOP references throughout Chapter 165 to conform to tire'
Section' 80:1 rev `isi'on.
PUBLIC MEETING
Rezoning: #,09 42 °of Clearbrook Retail Center,;•submitted by GreyWWfe,anc:, to rezone 14:53 acres
from RA.,(Rural;Areas) District, to B2-(B,usiness General)• District with 'proffers. The property is
located, on: Martinsburg Pike (Rt. '' -ll), 700'-feet south of the intersection with Cedar hIi11 Road,.(Rt.
67t);, fronting •lZogte 1.1 and. I -81 `The property is further ideniined With'P LN. 33 -A -125 in the
Stonewall Magisterial .L);istrrct. (,This item w'as. tabled .,for 4&days from the Planning Commission ?s
January 2,2013 meeting)!,
A—dio i — Recoinmend' Denial
Commis -mef :Oates "said lie would abstain from all discussion and 'voting oil this'
rezonitcg application due to a`possible. conflict of interest-
Deputy Rlanning Director, Michael "T. Ruddy, reported, tins application was tabled by the
Planning °Comm "ission oil, January. 2,;.20,13, to allow,the applicant the opportunity to claiify the perce wed.
disconnect between the .LOS (Level oIf Service) within the, TI .A ,(Transportation Impact AnAlysis) and the
maximum daily trips prioffered', and;. `m addition, to allow trine for the, applicant: to. carry out more
discussi'on`s w,. ith the adjoining property- owners on, the. to t eir properties. It was also,pointed out
bysiaff at,the previous meeting- that•,tlie' applicant'•'s, proffered approach of studying;and engineering: plans
for improv.ements,to.,ihe intersection of.Ro.ute 1l and,Hopewell ai d Brucetown Roads was similar' "fo the
approach proffered with - Rezon_ii g; # 18 =06 of Woodside Coriat . - -. al,
Mr. Ruddy, stated the .applicant has now clarified the TIA- and' the number of trips
inW'eled,'is accurately consistent wtth'the;maximum'num'ber df lolly trips ,proffered. The,applicai t has
also revised their proffer statement, dated .January'28, 2013; In consideration of neighboring properties.
Proffers '5.b. and 5..c. have been added fo the :modified' proffer statement to 'ad'dress future inter= par.,cel
access ai d zti'ini' g; of coiiatruction activities on the, site.
f
Mr
heua d'
l cait land ahe tad•agent ro erti`es ha
el
beei co
with
sid
this request hay e gerej;ally
been addressed by t pp J p P et ed to_a extent iiig
this.rezoning.applrcatioi With regards to the `transportation impacts, -rt s - recognized the "applicant as
p p s aimed at 'addres5iig tho "se :impact's identified' m the immediate, vicinity of the site.
Howeee the EommissIon, should evaluate f the appli "cant's. proffered ,approach of studying; and
g gPen' ineer n lans for rmp ovements't'" Elie intersection, of Route 11 and-Hopewell and Brusetown Roads
y
gs
the nnpacts identified at this intersection. He noted, the accepfab`le LOS C or bettersufficlentl'` addresse
is;not achieved atth`ia in "terseetron as identified in the applicant's T1A:
Page 2943He-de- I ck Count, PIanning,Com,niss'ion
Minutes of,Februai-_y 20„ 20.1;3 "
Comm'ssioner Thomas rased, an ,issue '-with ;the tinnig.'of devel'opm.eiit events. He said
the applicant's trip :generation calculation is 6 000`tpd, the, projected build =out is 2015, and the applicant.
has proffered en`g neeri ig: studies 36.,month out:;; .Commissioner Thomas pointed ouV 'the traffic
until .201.6,. and construction or mod f cation at the intersect om wou d not come, opt
not be available. congestion, cquld otential'l be',ex erienced:m 2014 the en meerm s' olutions would
optimistically;, unti'l,,a;
year`later. He suggested th'e possibrlrty4d ``esignating,asphase'd=in development, possibly starting, at 21QQQ
tpdt11e. fist ,year; with, ,000.tpd a year "later. `Commissioner Thomas..asked ,if the existing, intersections
would account for the,traffic at; air acceptable level:
Deputy Director- Tran'sportation,, John. A. Bishop; °stated! there, were a number of • events
taking: pace of the Brucetown /Hopewell; iiiterseet on,. inc an ,econom. c development access
application; followed by,another' one w- ith'the anew fiscal year this summer: Mr. Bishop said. there. was a
realistic, aid good - chance the County ,cou°ld. get ahead of the applicant'§ time line, particularly the
engineering.,,,He said the tr"affic,congestion,at the - existing intersections•lias been,a:concern and could be a
problem with the addition6t wgff c.
Mr. Tim Stowe; "with Stowe Engineering, PLC was representing this application, and he
came forward to-'address the three Issues raised in the st aff s report. Mr. Stowe referred to Table 4 from
the TIA to clarify the perceived disconnect between the TIA and'the proffers 'He, said Table-4 in the TIA
shows °where the ,number of vehicles (5` -,734) ,is derived, and this .correlatesrelates with,'P,roffer 43'. He said the
table also shows,tlie'am/ pin "peak hour raffic movements entering, and leaving °the project:.
Mr.. Stowe next addressed ;'the° second', issue, -which; _involved meetings with the; adjoining
ro "e owners.. ;Mr, S'rowe reui'ewed tfieNhisto of correspondence which had alread. occurred startingp . p rty rY :. P y g.
with letters to, the adjoining property, „owners back to May 12, 201'1:, followed with letters on July 12,
2011'=; July 19, 20.1 ] ,August 19; 201 1., and May 1,6; 2012. He described the`Jeiails of 'the, correspondence
and.`noted' the adjoiniilg,property' owrie_rs')yere provi'd "ed with copies of-the proffers and application. Mr._..
Stowe said during• this time; three neighborhood meetings were held an,d`_one meeting was .held• in early
January. Re said there were diseussions on selling property and,'transfeiring property , one' 'way, or ,thee
rather. _ 'He said it was hi 's Undefstabdi:ng3 that no firm offers or :firm acceptance of those offers were
provided. On January 8,'2013; following the C- ornmissi'on,'s last;meeting whewthe application was tabled
another letter' was sent to: the .adjoin ng property owners On January 1` ,,, 20:13_, a copy of the ,updated
proffers, !in response; to what„ was .heard -at the Commission "'s meeting,, was provided to the property
owners to address oise is. "sues., 'Mr Stowe;said -the applicant has,gone"through.quite, extensive.len2ths to
communicate with the, property` owners about their concerns and `to 'incorporate their concerns .into the
project.
Mr k Stowe continued; referring to the third issue: in ahe: staff's ,report dealing with, the1.
dupl_icahon of proffers between, this project„ and the= UVoodside..Commer ial Center (Rezoning, A,4- 13°),
periaming io the study, engineer.,ing, •and° design ,of the improvements at the4ntersection of Hopewell ,and
Brucetown Rados:.Mr. Stowe said this issue has "the duplication removed!.
In - response 'to Comm' ssroner '.Thomas' question, concer_riing the timing of ,the traff c.
features, Mr. Stowe said; the 36 month time, frame was used because they anticipate rt''will be three, years
to get?plans;approyed through'-' .,DOT.
4 j
Proper to .thhe "soluth
ma
Mr
Stowet
actinowledaed th'
scc
He said the! orofferssfor thep is
property, t
gh another
p_ ,p _ rty • _, _ _ t _ g perry to the south,
include a.cornmon, shared. enttdn' &ewith access through their property..
i
v
Ere'derick,County'Planning Commission Page 2944
Minutes "of February 20, 2013"
Commissioner 'Thomas inquired about the , nter - parcel- connections for the surrounding
properties, particularly the Driver's, and Martm,':s "properties,, .wh ch were bound' by the 2;% acre "no
disturbance "area:, 'Mr. Stowe replied.
tlae4 "no,:disturhantell area "was establ;ished to. protect their;drainfel'ds
y s' Mr. Stowe- said 'the',,applicant will` need to modify this .area inwhichcurrent] exist under easement
order to "provide those properties with, access. Mr,.:Stowe,,:commeiited. ihis obviously is all' predicated,'on
those,property owners connecting to the Treder`ick County Sanitation.Authority's'Water'and Sewer
System so„th&drainf'elds can be abaiidgne6d:,
Chairmaji Wilmot: announced,ahe'Pl oilning .Comiriissjon,'already`held;a. public hearing'for
this application at their prev.ious;meeti`rig, ,however; she would allow comments from anyone .who waited
to ,address, the changes that "Were made. to the proffers and application. 'The, following persons came
forward to speak:
Mt&- Debra Driver, :awadjoining, property, owner in: the Stonewall District; did not believe
this latest version of the proffer and application 'Was. any better for•the adjoining property owners. Ms.
Driver said the applicant offered' easements to the proposed ,access. road-, :However, the adjoining, g property
owners will not have access unless they ,pay to rezone their °properties and pay to replace the neighbors'
draunfelds,. She said this.putsthe,fn'anci`al burdenxightbaek onth`e adjoi'ningpropertyowners. She said
the applicanthasoffered';h s propeityfor sale:to the _adjoining property ownersat;$1„ 250,OO.Q. Ms: Driver,
said she made ,a request'. to "the applicant's representative ':for 'the, ,duiiip, site` behind. the pine trees to; be
reinoved::She "was assured ihis wouldbe oaken :care of; however,, as .of`today,: the dump site -1iad not been
removed. Ms. Driver raised the,issue: of traff c problems "that ,would be created - because, the. property has
is currentlyaand ;lo.cked: She asked. why thenoacessto,R0 to Cedar Hill Road, or 'Route 81,, and' .
County would want to destroy :a residential urea "when all the pieces •are ,not yet in place. She asked wliy
potential customers wo.uldw.ant, to drive through &.B3 zoned property"fo shop at a B2 =zoned property.
She sai&this ap plication. is about an muestor wanting to°make money in; Frederick'County with• no regards
to, the quality of life for the ,adjoining; property owners. Ms. Driver asked for her Stonewall_ District
representati've.and the entire,. anningCommission to denythisapplication. -
P letter ofMsElizabethRegan,, Stonewall, Distric"t said he was resent; to., read, a lett
opposition from Ms. Elaine °McGee, an adjoining property, owner, who was unable to attend' tonight's;
meeting. The primary issues stated. :in Ms: MaGee's letter were. this rezoning application does n_ot
t m rove or " rotect the livm ; enyironment. for the'ad'omP ro e , owners and isq ontry . to one of theppgJgPPD
primary goalso of the Compielienswe Po1icy,Plan trans ortatibr has not been ade uatel addressed. the-
traffc signal at the Brucetowi /Hopewell intersection has not improved the traffic, traffic
eorigesiion,.is Vorse if-there, is! an accid'ent;,on I -81 'and. tr "affic. is diverted.fo Route 1I.; concern about
possible damage to, foundations during construction; and problems with access.
1VIr,. "Mark Regan, an ad oi.gmg property owner Ip "`the Stonewall District, was opposed to
the rezoning arid. believed then application had gotten worse *Ith the :revisions. Mr. Regan said the
j Jackhammer noise at the new warehouse; located about 3/4. mil`e;,fr_om his home, continued.aast evening.
Mr. Regan saide`:he.notified the .Sheriff, who indicated there was nothing he could do, "Mr- Regan
rpr arked; that the noise coming, from this construction site,at all 'hours ;of tlie. day and night, `s cr..iin nal.
Mr. Regan„ implored; the Commission to consider tSe adjoining property `owners; who are taxpaying.
citizens, and to. representlthein in their opposition to this:rezoning.
i
Fred'enckdCounty Planni " "ng- ,Commi"ssion Page 2945'
Minuies,o'f-`February 20, 2013.