Loading...
PC 08-17-22 Meeting Agenda1.Call to Order 2.Adoption of Agenda – Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting. 3.Meeting Minutes 3.A.June 15, 2022 Meeting Minutes 3.B.July 20, 2022 Meeting Minutes 4.Committee Reports 5.Citizen Comments 6.Public Hearings 6.A.Ordinance Amendment - Monetary Guarantee - (Mr. Klein) Revision to Chapter 143 Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment, Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, and Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance to codify the County's adopted Monetary Guaranty and Performance Agreement policy, ensuring the monetary guaranties and performance agreements for various land development process within Frederick County are reviewed, and approved in conformance with the adopted policy. 7.Information/Discussion Items 7.A.Frederick Water - (Mr. Lawrence) Frederick Water Executive Director, Eric Lawrence will present the mission and structure of Frederick Water, their capital plans, and other factors related to the AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2022 7:00 PM THE BOARD ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PC08-17-22MinutesJune15.pdf PC08-17-22MinutesJuly20.pdf PC08-17-22OAMonetaryGuarantee.pdf 1 Planning Commission's business. 8.Other 8.A.Current Planning Applications 9.Adjourn 2 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 17, 2022 Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes Title: June 15, 2022 Meeting Minutes Attachments: PC08-17-22MinutesJune15.pdf 3 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3929 Minutes of June 15, 2022 MEETING 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 June 15, 2022. PRESENT: John F. Jewell, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; William A. Orndoff, Stonewall District; Justin Kerns, Stonewall District; Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; Mollie Brannon, Back Creek District; Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; Charles Markert, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District. STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; John A. Bishop, Assistant Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jewell called the June 15, 2022 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Jewell 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 Orndoff the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Orndoff, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the May 18, 2022 meeting. ------------- 4 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3930 Minutes of June 15, 2022 COMMITTEES City of Winchester Commissioner Burnett, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the Commission tabled an Ordinance to rezoning three acres on Commerce Street . She continued they are going to hear an Ordinance to conditionally rezone approximately eleven acres around Fairmont Avenue, Wick Street, and Braddock Street to change from limited industrial district to high density residential for a planned unit development and approximately 262 apartments and townhouses. Board of Supervisors Supervisor Ludwig reported the Board of Supervisors approved four out of seven items of the school budget. He continued, an ordinance for backyard chickens is being returned to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and they heard a proffer modification for Snowden Bridge Station. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Jewell 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 Jewell closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #03-22 for Christina Boyer – continuation of the Public Hearing from the June 1, 2022 meeting. Submitted for a dog kennel/boarding use. The property is located at 409 Brill Road, Star Tannery, Virginia. The property is identified with Property Identification Number 69-5-1-7 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (APPENDIX 1) Action – Recommend Approval Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, reported this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the operation of a kennel. The property is located at 409 Brill Road in the Back Creek Magisterial District and is zoned RA (Rural Areas). He shared a location map of the property. Mr. Cheran explained, a kennel is allowed within the RA (Rural Areas). The Zoning Ordinance (§165-101.02) Kennel: A place prepared to house, board, breed, handle, or otherwise care for dogs for sale or in return for compensation. One litter of dogs of breeding for compensation per household per year shall not be defined as a kennel and will be considered a home occupation. Mr. Cheran noted, Zoning Ordinance (§165-204.10) Kennels and Additional Regulations for Specific Uses: A. All dogs shall be confined to secure pens or structures B. Category C, separation buffers and screens shall be provided in relation to surrounding properties containing residential uses 5 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3931 Minutes of June 15, 2022 Mr. Cheran reviewed how the Applicant intends to conduct this proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP): • This proposed use will take place within the residential dwelling. There shall be no more than three (3) dogs for boarding. The pick-up and drop-off of dogs is by appointment only. • This use will have dog training that will be by appointment only for a two (2) week camp and receiving two (2) one-on-one training sessions per day. • This proposed use is by appointment only with hours of operations of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • There will be no employees with this use. • The number of clients will be no more than ten (10) per month. • This kennel will be operated within the residential dwelling. Mr. Cheran concluded, should the Planning Commission find this application to be appropriate Staff would recommend the following conditions be assigned to this CUP: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. This CUP is solely to enable the boarding and training of dogs. 3. No more than six (6) dogs not owned by the applicant shall be permitted on the property at any given time. 4. No employees shall be permitted with this CUP. 5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 6. All dogs mut be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. 7. Hours of operation for the public shall be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 8. Any expansion or change of use will require the approval of a new CUP. Mr. Cheran noted, there were e-comments sent in that were forwarded to the Planning Commissioners today. Commissioner Thomas asked if Staff could tell if most of the e -comments are neighbors or customers. Mr. Cheran stated not at this time and Staff is working to have that addressed. Ms. Christina Boyer, the Applicant, came forward to answer questions and address concerns. Commissioner Brannon asked what the business is. Ms. Boyer read a statement explaining her business. She noted she has had her business license since 2016; in 2018 she created the pet sitting and pet training to add to her business portfolio. She continued to explain what brought her to applying for this CUP. Ms. Boyer commented she received correspondence from Supervisor Graber stating there was a lady from the Planning Commission wanting to tour her pr operty; she was unable to accommodate the date and time requested. She requested the party’s information from Supervisor Graber so she could speak to them directly and schedule a tour and address their concerns. Ms. Boyer noted to this date she has not received the information requested. She explained why the 9:00 p.m. time was chosen as the business cutoff time; she assumed this time was chosen to follow the noise ordinance for Frederick County. Ms. Boyer addressed noise concerns and how they would be enforced; any complaints should be sent to the Sheriff’s Office for their enforcement. In regards to the e-comments, she noted, the online system asks each person for their address and magisterial district when making an account to submit any comments. She presented a copy of her original application submitted to the Planning Department which has a petition that is signed by 14 neighbors on Brill Road which states they do not have any issues with the business continuing. 6 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3932 Minutes of June 15, 2022 Commissioner Brannon read the definition of a kennel “A kennel is a place prepared to house, board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for dogs for sale or in return for compensation.” Ms. Boyer state she is allowed to do hobby breeding which is one litter per year, and she has her personal animals all licensed with Frederick County. Commissioner Brannon shared her concern with traffic on Brill Road; she noted, a neighbor has a sign in their driveway stating he is not the dog business. She asked about the Facebook page that states she does dog rescue. Ms. Boyer explained the dog rescue is when a family has one of her puppies and has decided to rehome the dog; she asks for the first right to find the dog a new home, so it does not end up in the shelter system. Commissioner Brannon asked if she is compensated for the rehoming of the dog. Ms. Boyer stated no, she gets compensated for the breeding. Commissioner Brannon inquired about the number of dogs involved in the breeding. Ms. Boyer explained, the CUP and the business license for breeding are two separate things; if the CUP is denied the business license for hobby breeding will continue and her personal animals will continue to be on her property. Commissioner Brannon stated she is trying to determine that the CUP applied for actually represents the business that the Applicant is running. She asked how the rehoming process works. Ms. Boyer explained, the current owner reaches out to her if they can no longer care for the dog; they request help in finding the dog a new home. She stated she networks the dog, then she sets up a meet and greet for the families. Commissioner Aikens requested clarification, is the rehoming dog part of the three dog total limit? He continued, the CUP says no more than six dogs not owned by the Applicant shall be permitted on the property at any given time. He noted, if Ms. Boyer is abiding by what is outlined and as long as her CUP does not exceed six dogs, she should be allowed to do as described in the CUP. Mr. Cheran commented that is correct. Ms. Boyer commented a rehoming dog would be included in the total number of dogs allowed. Commissioner Thomas asked is her intent is to not have dogs running loose on the property. Ms. Boyer explained, she has a run area for her own dogs already set up. She is fencing in the front yard and right now she uses a 50’ leash and does not let the dogs run loose that she cares for. Commissioner Thomas inquired about the dog grooming. Ms. Boyer stated there is not a separate grooming business, it is just an add on for a dog she may be training or pet sitting. Commissioner Thomas noted the CUP is for 409 Brill Road; he noticed she is part owner of 431 Brill Road and there could not be any dog training at 431. Ms. Boyer commented her residence is 409 Brill Road and all the dogs would be there. She noted, the Zoning Administrator explained early in the process this CUP is for 409 only and if any change would occur, she would have to reapply. Commissioner Thomas noted regarding Ms. Boyer referencing a noise ordinance; he clarified this is a rural area and there is not a noise ordinance. Chairman Jewell requested clarification on the number of personal dogs on the property and do they stay pinned up at night. Ms. Boyer responded there are a total of fourteen and they are all pinned up inside at night in the house or in the building on the property. Chairman Jewell stated there is the potential of having twenty dogs. Ms. Boyer stated that is correct and she has had that many there before and there have not been any complaints that she is aware of. She referenced the signed petition again. Commissioner Thomas asked if personal dogs roam on both properties. Ms. Boyer responded no, they do not roam free. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Supervisor Graber came forward and shared his concerns. He stated regarding the e- comments sent in, he has done some research and the four e-comments are not direct neighbors of this property; the two letters received from Mrs. Link and Mrs. Monk are direct property owners. He continued, the neighbor at 450 Brill Road stated to him that he did not want to proceed forward with the petition that he signed. Supervisor Graber commented, speaking as a neighbor, think about fourteen dogs 7 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3933 Minutes of June 15, 2022 and adding six more. He has received multiple complaints and he has tried to keep the peace. He stated he does hear dogs barking and traffic on the road is a concern. He concluded, he asked Staff what the business license was for in 2016 and was told off-site grooming. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas requested that all e-comments, letters, and the petition be included with the official minutes of this meeting. He stated he appreciates the Applicants enthusiasm for her own pets and the pets of others, and we do not limit the number of personal pets one can have. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct we do not limit. Commissioner Thomas stated we are not going to be able to tell how many dogs are on the property and that would be hard to enforce. He noted we cannot do anything about dogs barking as there is no noise ordinance and he cannot find any reason legally that we can turn this down. Commissioner Aikens agreed with Commissioner Thomas, and that we need to be paying strict attention to the CUP as presented. Commissioner Brannon stated she does not understand the law and what falls under this CUP. Mr. Cheran commented, the CUP is what needs to be considered and not the Applicants number of personal dogs. Commissioner Brumback asked if Staff has received any noise complaints. Mr. Charan stated not that he is aware of. Ms. Boyer shared a video tour of her home and of the outside showing her operation. Chairman Jewell gave an overview of the discussion. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Brannon and seconded by Commissioner Brumback BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-20 for Christina Boyer submitted for a dog kennel/boarding. The property is located at 409 Brill Road, Star Tannery, Virginia. The property is identified with Property Identification Number 69-5-1-7 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Note: Commissioner Triplett and Commissioner Manuel were absent from the meeting) Rezoning #03-22 for One Logistics Park, L.P. submitted to rezone 3.16+/- acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The property is located approximately one mile east of I-81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50), east of Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) and Coverstone Drive (Route 1538), and west of Arbor Court and Pendleton Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-83B. Action – Recommend Approval John A. Bishop, Assistant Director, reported this is an application to rezone 3.16 acres from R4 (Residential Planned Community) to M1 (Light Industrial) with proffers. The property is located approximately one mile east of I-81on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50), east of Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) and Coverstone Drive (Route 1538) and west of Arbor Court and Pendleton Drive. He shared a location map of the property as well as an image of the Generalized Development Plan. Mr. Bishop continued, this application proposes to adopt the proffers of the surrounding One Logistics Park from rezoning 01-21 which rezoned the surrounding 277.16 acres to 264.7 acres of M1 and 12.5 acres of B2. He noted, by adopting these proffers, the subject application allows no additional changes to the transportation network, no additional square footage of development, and as a result no additional trips. Mr. Bishop explained, the requested zoning is generally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in its current form but, is consistent with the proposal approved as part of rezoning 8 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3934 Minutes of June 15, 2022 01-21. In addition, the property is within the airport support area which discourages residential development. Randy Minchew of Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, representing the Applicant came forward and explained how the application has changed. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Kozel and seconded by Commissioner Dawson BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #03-22 for One Logistics Park, L.P. submitted to rezone 3.16+/- acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The property is located approximately one mile east of I-81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50), east of Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) and Coverstone Drive (Ro ute 1538), and west of Arbor Court and Pendleton Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-83B. (Note: Commissioner Triplett and Commissioner Manuel were absent from the meeting) Conditional Use Permit #04-22 for Justin Boyce submitted for the establishment of a slaughterhouse on 110.89+/- acres of RA (Rural Areas) zoned property. The subject property is located at 160 Flickertail Lane, Star Tanner, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 69-A-50 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Approval M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the establishment of a slaughterhouse (commercial) on 110.89+/- acres of RA (Rural Areas) zoned property. He shared a location map of the property. Mr. Klein continued, this application proposed a 4,800 square foot (SF = 60-feet by 80-feet) commercial slaughterhouse facility (structure) to process up to 50 animals per week. The Applicant also proposed three (3) 10-ft by 10-ft freestanding freezer units next to the mail facility. He noted, existing and proposed access to the site is provided from Richard Lane (Route 790) via a private driveway (Flickertail Lane). The application does not propose any improvements to the private driveway or connection to Richards Lane. Mr. Klein concluded, Staff recommends to the following conditions for this CUP: 1. All review agency comments provided during the review of this application shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered minor site plan, in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted to and subject to approval by Frederick county prior to the establishment of the use. The site plan shall address additional regulations for specific uses outlined in §165-204.17 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 3. The on-site commercial sale of meat and poultry is prohibited. 4. Any expansion or modification of this land use will require the approval of a new CUP. 9 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3935 Minutes of June 15, 2022 Mr. Klein shared, the Zoning Ordinance prescribes the following additional regulations for specific uses (§165-204.17): A. It shall be unlawful to operate any slaughterhouse, abattoir, rendering plant or establishment where animals or fowl, dead or alive, are processed or where food or feed is manufactured or processed, unless such place or establishment is maintained and operated in a clean and sanitary manner at all times. B. The entrance of insects and rodents; the doors, windows and other openings thereof shall be fitted with screen doors and wire window screens of not coarser than fourteen-gauge mesh. C. The work “slaughterhouse”, as used in this section, shall not be construed to prohibit persons who are actually farmers from killing their own cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and fowl for their own family use. D. All buildings, animal unloading/staging areas, and animal pens shall be a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines. E. Total building(s) square footage should not exceed 20,000 square feet. F. All operations must be under roof and screened from view from adjoining properties and public streets. G. Additional buffering and screening may be required as specified by the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Orndoff asked if Richards Lane is gravel and if that road would be wide enough for large trucks and equipment. Mr. Klein responded, it is gravel, and the width of the road will not be an issue. Mr. Justin Boyce, the Applicant, came forward to address questions and concerns. Commissioner Brannon requested Mr. Boyce explain how the carcasses will be handled. He explained, there will be a cold room to keep all rendering products. He noted there will also be a wastewater treatment system in place. Mr. Boyce commented, VDOT has approved the entrance and road leading to the farm; they have also had tractor trailers on the road many times. Commission er Kerns asked what type of livestock will be slaughtered. Mr. Boyce commented beef, lamb, and pork. Commissioner Brumback commented she visited the property, and this project sits right in the middle of the property; no one will be able to see the facility from any location. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Supervisor Graber came forward and commented regarding the carcasses. He stated he is in support of this application. Commissioner Kerns and Commissioner Thomas commented the need for this type of operation in Frederick County. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Brumback and seconded by Commissioner Orndoff BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #04-22 for Justin Boyce submitted for the establishment of a slaughterhouse on 110.89+/- acres of RA (Rural Areas) zoned property. The subject property is located at 160 Flickertail Lane, Star Tanner, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 69-A-50 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 10 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3936 Minutes of June 15, 2022 (Note: Commissioner Triplett and Commissioner Manuel were absent from the meeting) Conditional Use Permit #05-22 for SPBJJ, LLC submitted for the establishment of an indoor recreation facility. The subject property is located at 210 Fort Collier Road, Winchester, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-A-81C in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Approval Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, reported, this a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a commercial indoor recreation facility. The property is located at 210 Fort Collier Road and is the Stonewall Magisterial District and is zoned M1 (Light Industrial). He shared a location map of the property. Mr. Cheran continued, this proposed use will be conducted within 5,000 SF space of the 16,000 SF building with access from Fort Collier Road (Route 1322). The use will be for a martial arts gym. He noted, the hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. Weekend hours will be 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He shared, this use will have nine (9) employees and the class size will be 15–30 students. Mr. Cheran concluded, Staff recommends the following conditions for this Conditional Use Permit: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and Saturday and Sunday 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. 3. No more than nine (9) employees with this use. 4. A shared parking agreement shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County prior to the use of the property as a Commercial Indoor Recreation Facility. 5. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Cheran explained Condition #4 for the shared parking agreement; the Applicant will have to obtain a shared parking agreement before this application can be finalized. Commissioner Brumback asked if this has been completed yet and Mr. Cheran stated not yet, once the hours of operation are established then the Applicant can move forward with obtaining the shared parking agreement. Commissioner Orndoff asked if the 54 spaces are for the whole facility and this CUP will need approximately 20 of those. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct. Chairman Jewell asked if the same person owns all of the units. Mr. Cheran commented yes, and they are leased out. Chairman Jewell requested confirmation that if the Applicant wants to grow the business and needs more than nine employees, will he have to come back for a revised CUP. Mr. Pearson stated that is correct. William Potter, the Applicant, came forward and gave an overview of the business. He shared the plan for parking and described the class times and the number of employees and students during those times. Chairman Jewell asked if part of the lease depicts the number of parking spaces allotted for each unit. Mr. Potter stated the lease is very vague. Mr. Williams, County Attorney, clarified the shared parking agreement is with the adjoining business owner and not the landlord. Commissioner Brannon asked if restrictions have to be put on the number of employees. Commissioner Thomas commented the Applicant cannot expand unless they come back before the Planning Commission and the number of parking spaces is not for the Planning Commission to decide, it is for the Applicant and the adjoining property owners. Commissioner Brannon again asked why the number of employees is being restricted to nine. Chairman Jewell stated the numbers of employees was provided by the Applicant. 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3937 Minutes of June 15, 2022 Commissioner Aikens commented it is not the Planning Commissions job to dictate the Applicants business plan and he then asked the Applicant if he was satisfied with the conditions. Mr. Potter stated he would like to see the Saturday and Sunday hours changed. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas shared, he feels this is a good business and recommended the hours be changed to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Sunday and to remove the condition for the number of employees. Mr. Pearson explained the original intension for the number of employees was to set the bounds for how they could work with the business owners to negotiate a shared parking agreement and it provides a firm setting for what they need in regards to parking. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Orndoff and seconded by Commissioner Dawson with modified hours of operation of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday thru Sunday BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval Of Conditional Use Permit #05-22 for SPBJJ, LLC submitted for the establishment of an indoor recreation facility. The subject property is located at 210 Fort Collier Road, Winchester , Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-A-81C in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Note: Commissioner Triplett and Commissioner Manuel were absent from the meeting) ------------- OTHER Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, reported the NELUP is up and active and he requested that everyone try to get the word out about this. He noted, there are no items for the July 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and it will be canceled. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Thomas adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Orndoff and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ John F. Jewell, Chairman ___________________________ Wyatt G. Pearson, Secretary 12 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3938 Minutes of June 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2022 = Appendix 1 13 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3939 Minutes of June 15, 2022 14 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3940 Minutes of June 15, 2022 15 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3941 Minutes of June 15, 2022 16 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3942 Minutes of June 15, 2022 17 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3943 Minutes of June 15, 2022 18 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3944 Minutes of June 15, 2022 19 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3945 Minutes of June 15, 2022 20 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3946 Minutes of June 15, 2022 21 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3947 Minutes of June 15, 2022 22 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3948 Minutes of June 15, 2022 23 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3949 Minutes of June 15, 2022 24 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3950 Minutes of June 15, 2022 25 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3951 Minutes of June 15, 2022 26 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3952 Minutes of June 15, 2022 27 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 17, 2022 Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes Title: July 20, 2022 Meeting Minutes Attachments: PC08-17-22MinutesJuly20.pdf 28 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3953 Minutes of July 20, 2022 MEETING 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 20, 2022. PRESENT: John F. Jewell, Chairman; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; William A. Orndoff, Stonewall District; Justin Kerns, Stonewall District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; Mollie Brannon, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Charles Markert, Red Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Kayla Peloquin, Planner I; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jewell called the July 20, 2022 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Jewell commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Orndoff the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kozel and seconded by Commissioner Orndoff, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the June 1, 2022 meeting. ------------- 29 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3954 Minutes of July 20, 2022 COMMITTEES Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee – Mtg. 07/11/22 Commissioner Triplett reported the committee discussed the Northeast Land Use Program and it will be coming forward to the Planning Commission. Historical Resources Advisory Board – Mtg. 07/19/22 Commissioner Molden reported the Board discussed the upcoming Fruit Hill rezoning, which consists of three homes on the property, two of which are possibly historical; the Lewis Solenberger House and the Carter House, both will step into Phase 2 of the historical research. He noted, the developer has agreed to repurpose the houses if possible and will move on to Phase 2 of the architectural survey. The second item was a review of the Metromont rezoning application. This consists of two parcels of land, totaling 44.74 acres; the parcel on Route 522 is the most noted by the historical board, as it adjoins the Battlefield Foundation land and also the Star Fort land. The HRAB wants to make sure to mention the buffers between the two and that most of it be left in natural vegetation state; the developer has agreed to this. City of Winchester Commissioner Tagnesi, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported in June the Commission approved a development on Commerce Street consisting of 32 townhouses. Also approved was a development on Fairmont Avenue that would have 262 unites. He noted, the land clearing on Cedar Creek Grade will be an assisted living called Hampton Manor. Board of Supervisors – Mtg. 7/13/22 Supervisor Ludwig reported the Board of Supervisors approved applying for safe streets and road grants; approved a 20% match in outlays for SmartScale applications; approved funds to conduct three Transportation studies. He continued, the Board met with federal representatives about advancing County transportation chances of obtaining grants and appropriations; given the new commitment to providing matching funds from the County budget there are a lot of opportunities to explore. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Jewell 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 Jewell closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- 30 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3955 Minutes of July 20, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #04-22 for 84 Lumber Winchester submitted to rezone 2.21 acres from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers, and 8.69 acres from the B3 District to the M1 District with proffers, totaling 10.9 acres. These properties are located northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Yardmaster Court and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-75F and 44-A-75G in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Approval M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this is a proposal to rezone 2.21 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers, and 8.69 acres from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers, totaling 10.9 acres. This rezoning application modifies approved land uses associated with REZ #02-05. He noted, the intended use of the proposed M1 zoned parcels is a manufacturing facility (84 Lumber – truss plant expansion). Mr. Klein shared a zoning map as well as a long range land use map of the property. Mr. Klein explained, this site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan envisions this area of the County as “business.” He noted, the site will have commercial access from Yardmaster Court, as required by approved REZ #02-05 proffer and there is no potential impact to existing road network. Commissioner Orndoff asked if the existing parcel was previously rezoned to M1. Mr. Klein explained, it originally was zoned B3, the rear parcel was then rezoned to M1; this is now a request to rezone the front two parcels to M1 for the expansion. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Orndoff noted, it is the Planning Commission’s role to make a recommendation following the Comprehensive Plane, however this goes along with the previous rezoning, and he feels it is fair to move this forward in that direction as well. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Orndoff and seconded by Commissioner Dawson BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #04-22 for 84 Lumber Winchester submitted to rezone 2.21 acres from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers, and 8.69 acres from the B3 District to the M1 District with proffers, totaling 10.9 acres. These properties are located northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Yardmaster Court and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-75F and 44-A-75G in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Note: Commissioner Aikens, Commissioner Markert, and Commissioner Thomas were absent from the meeting) 31 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3956 Minutes of July 20, 2022 Ordinance Amendment – Backyard Chickens and Chicken Coops, the proposed amendment would allow chickens in the RP (Residential Performance), R4 (Planned Residential Community), and R5 (Residential Recreation Community) Districts. Action – Recommend Approval with Revision M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to allow backyard chickens and chicken coops as a by-right use in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District (and the R4 and R5 Zoning Districts). The Board of Supervisors previously held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 13, 2021 and did not approve the proposal. He explained, the Board of Supervisors at their June 8, 2022 meeting directed Planning and Development Staff to bring the Ordinance Amendment back for public hearing. Mr. Klein continued, currently, the keeping of chickens is only allowed in the County’s RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The proposed amendment would allow single-family detached (SFD) lots 15,000 square feet (SF or 0.34 acres) or greater to have up to a maximum of six (6) chickens by-right. He noted, the keeping of chickens would continue to be prohibited in townhomes, duplexes, multi-family buildings, garden apartments, and single- family detached lots less than 15,000 SF. Mr. Klein shared the additional supplemental use regulations for backyard chickens as proposed include: • Prohibiting the keeping of roosters, turkeys, guinea fowl, and peacocks • Following setback and building requirements for accessory structures (coops) • Prohibited from front yard setback and not visible from public or private road rights-of-way • Area designed for chickens shall be completely enclosed; no free range chickens • Requirement for secure feed storage containers and waste management • Requirement for an application/permit ($25 fee) to Frederick County prior to establishment of use Mr. Klein noted, private covenants and/or homeowner associations may further restrict keeping of backyard chickens/ chicken coops. He presented maps reflecting the RP, R4, and R5 parcels containing 0.34 acres or larger with dwellings, 0.40 acres or larger with dwellings, and 0.50 acres or larger with dwellings. Commissioner Molden asked how this is going to be enforced. Mr. Klein replied, it would be on a complaint basis and having the permit requirement will help with the enforcement. Commissioner Molden responded he does not support this. Commissioner Brumback inquired, of the 5,600 lots, do we know what the HOA’s restrict. Mr. Klein responded Staff did not proceed this far and do not know regarding the HOA’s. Commissioner Triplett commented he has heard concerns that the keeping of chickens will become to open range. Commissioner Kozel asked how citizens are to keep the chickens out of view of being seen. Mr. Klein commented it would have to be a board on board fence of screening. Commissioner Kozel asked if this would be part of the application process. Mr. Klein noted yes and it would be determined on a case by case basis. Commissioner Kozel asked if there was any idea of how many have showed interest outside of the RA that makes this such a big push to change a zoning ordinance. Mr. Klein explained, there have been a few resident in the Shawneeland and Mountain Falls area that have requested this; handling phone calls in the department a couple times a month; and the Zoning Administrator periodically gets a violation and or complaint. Commissioner Kerns inquired as to what type of volume is there of the people that have chickens right now that are not in compliance. Mr. Klein noted, not a great volume, just a handful this year. Commissioner Brannon requested to view the other maps of the .50 acres or greater lots. Mr. Klein 32 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3957 Minutes of July 20, 2022 noted, if you increase the acreage requirement it will cut the number of eligible lots significantly. Commissioner Brannon commented, she understands the interest in this, however, she is not sure the lot size proposed is appropriated. She stated she would like to see a compromise and feels a .50 acre should be considered. Commissioner Kozel asked what the lot sizes are in Snowden Bridge. Mr. Klein responded the lots are smaller than the threshold and they have HOA covenants. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Ms. Doretha McDonald who lives in Gore, VA came forward and shared her thoughts. She was surprised her subdivision being in the RA and 5+ acre lots and could not have chickens. She would like to see the Ordinance changed with parameters. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman Jewell commented he feels 15,000 SF of property with chickens is too close to neighbors; he could live with something over an acre. Commissioner Kerns commented he grew up on a farm with chickens and he appreciates being able to raise them. He now lives in a neighborhood where the lots are about 1/3 of an acre. He continued, when you make a decision to move into a neighborhood like that, you know you have to give up certain things. He noted, he could support this if it were 1 acre or more but cannot support as written. Commissioner Orndoff commented he could support this if it were at a minimum of 1 acres, and he agreed with Commissioner Kerns comments. Wyatt P. Pearson, Director, asked the Planning Commission members if they felt the Supplementary Use Condition as written are still appropriate and necessary in their current form if they choose to go with 1 acres minimum. Commissioner Brannon asked if chickens could be put outside in a run of sorts. Chairman Jewell stated yes, as long as it is fenced. Commissioner Triplett commented he agrees with it being 1 acre or more. Mr. Pearson commented his primary concern with the 1 acre is the screening requirement; it is a lot more area to ensure coverage and that chickens cannot be seen. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Brannon and seconded by Commissioner Dawson with an amendment of one (1) acre or more required and a request that Staff review the Supplemental Uses to ensure they are appropriate BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment – Backyard Chickens and Chicken Coops, the proposed amendment would allow chickens in the RP (Residential Performance), R4 (Planned Residential Community), and R5 (Residential Recreation Community) Districts. (Note: Commissioner Aikens, Commissioner Marker, and Commissioner Thomas were absent from the meeting) ------------- 33 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3958 Minutes of July 20, 2022 OTHER Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, reported the on 2 current planning applications: Red Bud Solar have submitted a site plan application for review and noted that make the 3rd utility scale solar project in the County; Snowden Bridge has an approved MDP for the second portion of the project which would extend down to Snowden Bridge Boulevard near where Rutherford Crossing dead ends around Milburn Road. He concluded, the August 3rd Planning Commission meeting will be transitioned into a work session to present the NELUP and a brief presentation from the Economic Development Authority to inform everyone of who they are and what they do. Mr. Pearson introduced a new staff member to the Planning Department, Ms. Kayla Peloquin. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Orndoff adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Molden and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ John F. Jewell, Chairman ___________________________ Wyatt G. Pearson, Secretary 34 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 17, 2022 Agenda Section: Public Hearings Title: Ordinance Amendment - Monetary Guarantee - (Mr. Klein) Attachments: PC08-17-22OAMonetaryGuarantee.pdf 35 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendments – Monetary Guaranty and Performance Agreements DATE: August 4, 2022 Proposal: These are proposed amendments to Chapter 143 – Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control, Chapter 144 – Subdivision of Land and Chapter 165 – Zoning to codify the County’s adopted Monetary Guaranty and Performance Agreement policy, ensuring the monetary guaranties, bonds, and performance agreements for various land development processes within Frederick County are reviewed, and approved in conformance with the adopted policy. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Monetary Guaranty and Performance Agreement policy on May 25, 2022. Current Ordinance Standards: Monetary guaranties are required for public and certain other physical improvements as shown upon subdivision plats, site plans, or other documents. Improvements include, road, curb, gutter, sidewalk, trails, storm drainage, traffic signalization and control, landscaping, erosion and sediment control, and any other site-related improvements required by Frederick County Ordinances for vehicular ingress and egress, for public access roadways, for structures necessary to insure stability of critical slopes, and for stormwater management facilities. The County is authorized to require monetary guaranties (also referred to as “bonds”, “performance bonds”, or “monetary guaranties”), as defined in Chapter 143, 144, and 165 of the County Code, in conjunction with the approval of subdivisions, erosion and sediment controls, stormwater management facilities, site improvements, and items specifically proffered, and any similar items, all in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and Virginia Code Sections 15.2-2241, 15.2-2286, 15.2-2299, 15.2-2309, and 62.1- 44.15:57. Meetings Summary: The Board of Supervisors received a presentation on these ordinance amendments on July 13, 2022 and offered no comments. The item was sent forward for public hearings. 36 OA – Monetary Guaranty and Performance Agreements August 4, 2022 Page 2 Conclusion and Requested Action: The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes as drafted by Staff. Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on these proposed ordinance amendments. MTK/pd Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in track changes. 2. Monetary Guaranty and Performance Agreement Policy 37 Chapter 143 – Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control §143-240 Performance bonds. A.Prior to the issuance of any permit, the owner or permittee shall execute and file with the Administrator a Frederick County erosion and sediment control and stormwater management performance agreement and cash escrowmonetary guaranty or irrevocable letter of credit (or other form of a performance bond as approved by the County attorneyin such form as is in accordance with the Frederick County Bonding Policymonetary guaranty and performance agreement policy adopted by the Board) and in an amount determined in accordance with the Frederick County bond estimate worksheet which shall be equal to the approximate total cost of providing erosion and sediment control and stormwater quality and quantity improvements as required by this chapter and shown on the approved plans in addition to a 25% contingency of the total bond amount. B.The Frederick County erosion and sediment control and stormwater management performance agreement and performance bondmonetary guaranty is to ensure that measures could be taken by the County at the applicant's expense should he fail, after proper notice as outlined in § 143-225, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate actions which may be required of him by the permit conditions because of his land-disturbing activity. If the County takes such action upon such failure by the applicant, the County may collect from the applicant for the difference should the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount of the security held. C.Upon successful completion of the land-disturbing activity, to include submittal of the construction as- built drawings of permanent stormwater management facilities described in § 143-165 and prior to termination of the VSMP permit, the owner or permittee must provide written notification to the County in accordance with the Bonding Policy. Upon verification of adequate stabilization of land-disturbing activity in the project or any section thereof, the Administrator shall reduce, return, or terminate the required bond, cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit to the owner within 60 days.take action upon the monetary guaranteey and performance agreement in accordance with the Bonding Policy. D.If the applicant/owner fails to comply with the approved SWPPP as documented through the site inspections described herein, and after proper notification, the Administrator may determine that the performance agreement is in default, and the performance bond or escrowmonetary guaranty may be used to execute the plan. Reference: § 62.1-44.15:34; 9 VAC 25-870-104D. 38 Chapter 144 – Subdivision of Land Article VII Improvements and Guarantees § 144-40 General requirements. All improvements shown on the subdivision design plan and the final subdivision plats shall be provided by the applicant. In order to obtain approval of the final subdivision plats, all improvements must be constructed or sufficient guaranties and performance agreements must be provided in such amount and such form as is in accordance with the monetary guaranty policy and performance agreement policy adopted by the Board. in accordance with the Bonding Policy.so that the improvements will be constructed within an appropriate length of time. Such guaranties are required to assure the timely completion, competent construction and maintenance of all physical improvements (streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, aboveground facilities, underground utilities and facilities, recreational facilities, drainage systems or other improvements) located within an approved subdivision. The applicant is required to post a bond or other acceptable surety, and execute a performance agreement before the final subdivision plats and deeds of dedication are finalized by the Subdivision Administrator. All performance guaranties and agreements shall be in a format and amount that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator.as specifically set forth in the Bonding Policy. § 144-41 Forms of guaranties. Guaranties for required improvements shall be in one of the following forms: A.A certification to the governing body that the construction costs have been paid to the person constructing such facilities. B.A certified check or cash escrow in the amount of the estimated costs of construction. C.A corporate or property bond, with surety satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of such facilities. D.A contract for the construction of such facilities and the contractor's bond, with surety satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator, sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of such facilities. E.An irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or savings and loan association on certain designated funds satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator. § 144-42 Amounts of guaranties. The applicant shall provide guaranties at an amount that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. The applicant shall provide the Subdivision Administrator with sufficient proof that the performance bond will cover all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of all improvements. Sufficient proof of cost may be in the form of a signed statement from a registered engineer, copies of all bids associated with construction costs or some other means acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. At a minimum, the amount of the bond shall cover the cost of construction and maintenance of all improvements in the subdivision. The Subdivision Administrator may require the amount of the bond to be greater than the projected cost of the subdivision improvements to cover the costs associated with price inflation and potential damage to improvements. 39 Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance Article VIII Development Plans and Approvals Part 802 Site Plans § 165-802.04 Required improvements. A. All improvements and construction on the site shall conform with the approved site plan or illustrative sketch plan and the requirements of the Frederick County Code. [Amended 8-12-2015] B. The Zoning AdministratorDirector of Planning and Development may require a bond with surety or other acceptablemonetary guaranties guaranty and performance agreement in accordance with the monetary guaranty policy adopted by the Board,Bonding Policy to insure ensure the completion of required improvements. Such guaranties and agreements shall be in the estimated amount of the required improvementsconform to the specifications set forth in the Bonding Policy. Such guaranties shall be for a period of completion set by the Zoning Administrator with consultation with the applicant. Such guaranties shall be released when the required improvements have been completed. 40 § 144-43 Period of guaranties. Any bond, escrow, irrevocable letter of credit or other performance guaranty required by the County shall be good for a minimum period of one year. The guaranty must be submitted in a format specified by the Subdivision Administrator. Guaranties will be required to have automatic renewal provisions placed on them. The provisions will stipulate that the instrument containing an expiration date will be automatically extended for an additional six months from the present or future expiration date, unless 60 days prior to such date the bank or financial institution issuing the instrument notifies the County, in writing, by certified mail, that it elects not to renew the instrument for such additional period. If the applicant fails to maintain the performance guaranty as required, the Subdivision Administrator shall undertake necessary actions to enforce the guaranties. At the time of renewal, the Subdivision Administrator may require the applicant to provide sufficient proof to ensure that the performance guaranty will cover all costs associated with improvements. § 144-44 Reduction of guaranties. The Subdivision Administrator shall make provisions for the partial and final release of any bond, escrow, irrevocable letter of credit or other performance guaranty required by the County. The applicant shall submit a written request to the Subdivision Administrator for any partial or final release of any performance guaranty, which will be acted on within 10 working days of its receipt. The Subdivision Administrator may conduct an inspection of any improvements prior to the partial or final release of the performance guaranty. Periodic release of any portion of a performance guaranty may not occur before the completion of at least 30% of the bonded improvements or after the completion of more than 80% of said facilities. The Subdivision Administrator shall not be required to execute more than three partial releases in any twelve- month period. The complete release of the performance guaranty shall occur upon the receipt of the final engineered construction documents and final completion and acceptance of the public facilities for operation and maintenance by the state agency, local government agency or other public authority. § 144-45 Maintenance bonds. In the event that Frederick County has accepted the dedication of a road for public use and such road, due to factors other than its quality of construction, is not acceptable into the secondary system of state highways, then the subdivider or developer shall be required to furnish the County with a maintenance and indemnifying bond, with surety satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the maintenance of such road until such time as it is accepted into the secondary system of state highways. In lieu of such bond, the Subdivision Administrator may accept a bank or savings and loan association's irrevocable letter of credit satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator or accept payment of a negotiated sum of money sufficient for and conditioned upon the maintenance of such road until such time as it is accepted into the secondary system of state highways. "Maintenance of such road" shall be deemed to mean maintenance of the streets, curbs, gutters, drainage facilities, utilities, street signs or other street improvements, including the correction of defects or damages and the removal of snow, water or debris so as to keep such road reasonably open for public usage. 41 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 17, 2022 Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items Title: Frederick Water - (Mr. Lawrence) Attachments: 42 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 17, 2022 Agenda Section: Other Title: Current Planning Applications Attachments: 43