Loading...
PC_01-05-05_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE ® FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 5, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R, Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2005 Election of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman The Chairman declared nominations open for Chairman. 0 The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., for Chainnan was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. The unanimous vote on the election Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 2005 was taken by Vice Chairman Thomas. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1429 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -z- BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2005. Election of Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2005 Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Vice Chairman. The nomination of Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Conunission for the Year of 2005. Election of Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary for 2005 ® Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Secretary. The nomination of Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2005. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2005 Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors meeting room; the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee on the second Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room. n Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1430 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -3- Committee Assignments for 2005 Chairman DeHaven requested that Commissioners who are now serving on either the CPPS (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee) or the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee) continue in their current positions. In addition, Chairmen DeHaven renewed appointments to the following committees: Commissioner Kriz to the Transportation Committee; Commissioner Gochenour to the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board); Commissioner Thomas to the EDC (Economic Development Commission); Commissioner Unger to the Sanitation Authority; and Commissioner Ours to the Winchester Planning Commission. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 12/2004 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed changes to Section 165- 37D(3) of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with waivers to buffer distance requirements and Section 144 -11 of the Subdivision Ordinance dealing with preliminary sketches. Commissioner Thomas noted that these items are on the Commission's agenda for this evening. L1 Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 12/2004 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS has provided anew land program called the "Ten in Five" for the Board of Supervisors' consideration and this concept is on the Commission's agenda for this evening's discussion. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRABI — 12/21/04 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed the North Stephenson rezoning proposal submitted by Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering. She said the discussion included the historic Red Bud Road and the possibility of it being re- routed; they also discussed the possibility of a historic road overlay. Commissioner Gochenour said the HRAB also had a brief introduction to a potential project behind Brook subdivision, bordering Abrams Creek. Fredrick Count} Planning Commission Page 1431 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -4- • PUBLIC MEETING & DISCUSSION Discussion of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144 -11, Preliminary Sketches, in order to bring this section into conformance with current State Code requirements regarding vested rights. Action — Referred Back to the DRRS for Continued Study Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that the DRRS recommended changes to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144, Section 144 -11, Preliminary Sketches, at their meeting of December 9, 2004. Administrator Cheran reported that this proposed ordinance change will bring this section into compliance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2 -2307, and the vested rights adopted by Frederick County on April 10, 1996. He explained that preliminary sketches are used to show a general layout of a proposed rural preservation subdivision and a sketch plan does not vest the property. Commissioner Gochenour inquired if subdivisions had been approved in the past without a preliminary sketch. Administrator Cheran replied no; he said the preliminary sketch plan only refers to the Rural Preservation Subdivisions which are located in the rural areas and do not require a master development plan. Chairman DeHaven said that his understanding of this amendment was that it was a house- keeping chore designed to clarify current policy as well as confirm the State Code. Chairman DeHaven referred to the Commission's legal counsel for further comment. Legal Counsel, Lawrence R. Ambrogi said that the State has preempted localities by defining within the State Code what is considered to be vesting; he did not believe the County could enact this proposed ordinance because the State has preempted them. Mr. Ambrogi believed this was a judicial issue and the administration of the County will have to make determinations on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Ambrogi's particular concern was with inserting the final paragraph because he did not believe it was necessary. Mr. Ambrogi stated that this paragraph has created considerable concern, misunderstanding, and confusion and, in his opinion, could not be codified. Commissioner Light asked if a simple fix might be tojust require a master development plan for rural preservation subdivisions. Other Commission members liked this idea and suggested that a recommendation to the Board be postponed until this matter could be worked out as part of the Rural Issues Study_ Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, a landowner in the Stonewall District, raised concern about the possibility of the County not recognizing the preliminary sketch plan as a legitimate "plan of development" in the subdivision process and the possibility of the County's designated agent rejecting the plan after considerable sums of application fees had already been paid. He estimated the amounts of $32,500 required under the proposed new fee schedule for the subdivision of 20 lots and approximately $100,000 an applicant could have invested into the process when they submit their preliminary sketch plan. He did not agree that this proposed ordinance merely brought the County Code in compliance with the State Code. Mr. Stiles stated that if an E Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1432 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -5- ® applicant complies with the Code on the date of submission, then that should be the ordinance that applies to the application submitted. He said that the concern of many people is that this proposal is an effort to discourage or prevent people from doing what they're legally entitled to do with rural subdivision lots before, if, and when the rules of the subdivision ordinance are changed. Chairman DeHaven stated that there needs to be a strong correlation between the existing vested rights policy statement and the language in the County ordinance, and it would certainly have to comply with the State Code. He suggested that this proposed amendment be sent back to the DRRS for further study to determine if it is worth considering any steps at this time. By a consensus of the Commission, it was agreed that this proposed ordinance amendment should be sent back to the DRRS for further study. Waiver Request of Lisa Sarle Turner to consider an exception to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144 - 31(3), to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. This property is located at 199 Vintage Lane and is identified with P.I.N. 59 -A -78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that Mrs. Lisa Sarle Turner is requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. Administrator Cheran reported that the property is located at 199 Vintage Lane. He noted that a letter, dated June 7, 2004, from Mrs. Tuner to the Big Horn Hunt Club, the adjoining property owner, requesting that the hunt club grant, convey, or sell her a 50 -foot right -of -way has been included in the Commission's agenda. Administrator Cheran reported that the Board of Directors of The Big Horn Hunt Club declined all three of Mrs. Turner's requests. He added that the requested waiver would only apply to the creation of a single lot. Mrs. Lisa Sarle Tuner, the applicant, stated that she and her husband want to build a single - family home on five acres of her parent's 117 -acre property so that they can be involved in the day -to -day activities of the family's farm winery. Mrs. Tuner said the property has been in her family for nearly 50 years and it is their hope that by becoming involved in the famt winery, they will be able to keep the property in her family for another 50 years. She added that she has received an approved perk site from the Health Department and a plat has been drawn. Mrs. Jennifer Sarle, Lisa Sarle Turner's mother and co -owner of the 117 acres, said that her husband, Charles, and she purchased this land in 1959. Mrs. Sarle said that her family intends to remain on the property and continue to operate as a viable farm. She said that having her daughter and her daughter's husband, Jeff, there will help to ensure that the farm continues to operate. It was her hope that her family will remain on the farm another 45 -50 years. Mr. Michael M. Artz of Artz and Associates, PLC, the applicant's land surveyor, described the location of the property for the Commission. Mr. Artz stated that the issue is that in order to divide the Sarle property, whether it is a family division or a five -acre lot, a 50 -foot right -of -way is required from a State - maintained road; he said that the Sarles only have a 30 -foot right -of -way. He explained that the Tuners are asking for a waiver for the right -of -way across Vintage Lane, from the road line at the beginning of the Sarle property, out to Laurel Grove. • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1433 Minutes of January 5, 2005 A member of the Commission asked what would prevent the Sarles from coming back next year ® and requesting the subdivision of yet another five acres or what could prevent the Sarles from selling the entire 117 -acre property and subdividing it into five -acre lots, if they decided that grape- growing was not what they wanted to do. A comment was made that the adjoining property owner, The Big Horn Hunt Club, may have concerns about this type of scenario. Mr. Artz replied that under the current regulations, no further development could occur on this property without coming back to the Planning Commission for a waiver. Mr. Artz also pointed out that a common misconception by the public is that a right -of -way created the means for a state - maintained road; however, if the land the right -of -way crosses is not owned, it can not be dedicated to the state. Members of the Planning Commission commented that they have been reluctant to grant waivers on substandard width right -of -ways in the past, because of the problems experienced as a result. However, they believed that, in this particular situation, where a family member wants to locate on the family farm to become involved in the family farm business, it would seem to be warranted. Members of the Commission did not believe further restrictions on the property were necessary. It was noted that this is the type of situation in which a waiver was intended to be used. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one else came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Waiver Request of Lisa Sarle Turner for an exception to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144- 31(3), to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. This property is located at 199 Vintage Lane and is identified with P.LN. 59 -A -78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. DISCUSSION Discussion of Section 165- 37D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for waivers to the buffer distance requirements. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that on December 9, 2004, the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed a request from Greenway Engineering to amend Section 165- 37D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow waivers to the distance requirements for zoning district buffers. Administrator Cheran stated that Section 165 - 371)(3) currently requires the establishment of a category `B" buffer when B 1 and B2 -zoned properties are developed adjacent to RA -zoned properties which are primarily used for residential use; the existing ordinance does not allow waivers for buffers and screening. Administrator Cheran said the staff would recommend that waivers be limited to distances, not to screening. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering stated that most ordinance amendment requests are sparked by a specific situation and, in this case, the particular issue that came before the DRRS was in regards to Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1434 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -7- a recent rezoning that was approved for an office building in the Albin Rural Community Center. Mr. Wyatt explained that when they were working on the site design layout, they couldn't meet the parking requirement setback because of the buffer requirement. He said that they worked with the adjoining property owner and obtained a legal agreement for provision in the zoning ordinance for a common shared buffer and a screening easement agreement. Mr. Wyatt said they later discovered that this option was not available and they pursued an amendment request. He said that when they met with the DRRS in December, the DRRS was not comfortable using the common shared buffer and screening easement agreement provision in this type of situation. However, he said the DRRS did believe there should be flexibility provided in the ordinance for the possibility of different situations that could arise and the Commission should have the ability to determine if the request was appropriate on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Wyatt believed the proposed ordinance as written by the staff will give the Commission that opportunity. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following person came forward: Mr. Fred Stronko, a resident along Martinsburg Pike in Clearbrook, was concerned that the proposed amendment may create a precedent, especially in his neighborhood. Mr. Stronko complained of excessive noise from trucks because all the trees had been removed; he questioned whe&r these businesses sought County approval before they bulldozed trees and buildings down because he has newer been notified of what was about to take place. He complained of vermin running across his property; he also heard there was to be some type of cement - mixing plant near him and he was concerned whether it would be screened. Chairman DeHaven replied that the amendment should not set a precedent; he said the language proposed would require the affected adjoining property owner's consent and would be considered on a case -by- case basis. Chairman DeHaven added that the waiver options within the ordinance are there to offer an opportunity to address special circumstances or unusual conditions, and to add the potential for flexibility and judgment to be exercised. He advised Mr. Stronko to meet with the staff about his particular circumstance. Commissioner Thomas said that he was not really in favor of this proposal as a general precedent, but he believed it was workable in the way in which it was worded. Commissioner Thomas's concern focused primarily on a potential situation where the owner of the adjacent affected property would be the same person as the owner of the B 1 or B2 property. In a case such as that, he said the Commission would have the prerogative to turn it down. He said he would not like to see a developer, who owns both properties, giving away the buffer and then developing both properties. Commissioner Thomas advised that the Planning Commission would need to be vigil to make certain that type of situation does not occur. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend forwarding the proposed amendment, consisting of changes to Section 165- 37D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for waivers to the buffer distance requirements, to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. The motion was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE) Triplett, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt NO: Gochenour, Straub (Note: Commissioner Kriz was not present for this vote; Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the . meeting.) Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1435 Minutes of January 5, 2005 �] Discussion of the conclusions from the Rural Areas Study. The Land use and development policies applicable to the rural areas will become a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and guide future development in the rural areas of Frederick County. Action — Forwarded to the Board of Supervisors' January 12, 2005 Meeting for Discussion Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy stated that the Rural Areas Study has been carried out by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) for the last year and a half. She said the CPPS endorsed new policies for the rural areas at their meeting of December 13, 2004. She pointed out that the proposals made by the CPPS were included within the Planning Commission's agenda packet. Planner Eddy said the Rural Areas Study was the topic of a Planning Commission work session held with the CPPS and the Board of Supervisors on January 5, 2005. Although Planner Eddy gave an overview of the proposals at the work session held earlier in the day, for the benefit of those citizens present and for those watching at home, she proceeded to give the presentation again. Chairman DeHaven called for public conunents and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, a property owner and dairy farmer in the Stonewall District, stated that a significant factor in the new proposal, which was the idea of allowing only ten lots every five years to be subdivided, was an idea that came about after the public meeting process was over and was never discussed with ® the public. He believed the proposal constituted a major dowm- zoning and it would depress values of rural property. Mr. Stiles suggested the idea that the Conunission simply require a preliminary subdivision plat for rural areas instead. It was his opinion that any requirement for rezoning constituted a false option; to say he had the right to subdivide his 300 -acre parcel over the next 30 years did not mean much to him because he was not likely to live that long. He added that the suggestion the county is retaining the one -lot -per- five -acre density with the proposal as submitted was not candid as a practical matter. Mr. Stiles also stated his opinion that the 60% set aside was excessive; however, he said he would support raising the set aside from the current 40% to 50 %. He noted that the 60% may significantly limit how the property could be developed, not only in lot yield, but in good planning. Mr. Stiles also questioned why the family variance would be limited to two lots and require a waiver for others; he asked why notjust follow the State Code and specify that family variance lots are allowed as designated in the State Code for qualifying family members and keep it simple. He also commented about the section requiring ownership for a set period oftime to discourage abuse. Mr. Stiles did not believe it was legal for the County to require ownership of property for any length of time. Mr. Stiles also raised the issue of off -site road improvements; he argued that developing at a density of one lot per five acres was not going to generate sufficient revenue to make any significant off -site road improvements. He said that in order to generate the amount of revenue required to accomplish the kind of road improvements such as those in the Urban Development Area (UDA), high- density development is needed. In addition, he questioned why State roads should be required in rural subdivisions; instead, he said why not require the roads be built to State standards for right -of -way, drainage, and slope. He predicted good roads would be constructed, in order to protect the value of the lots. Mr. Stiles commented that a month or so ago, the local newspaper reported that some members of the General Assembly said they intended to investigate turning over Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1436 Minutes of January 5, 2005 WE maintenance of secondary roads to counties because the increasing number of new subdivisions coming into the ® State system has depleted the State's maintenance funds. Mr. Stiles was also opposed to requirements in the proposal concerning buffers. He argued that potential buyers would have to purchase an additional quarter of an acre that they could never use. He said that not only would it look irregular to have homes set back 150 feet, adjacent to existing homes which are set back 35 -50 feet or alongside the road, it makes the process problematic. He believed it would cause less land to be available for the set -aside parcel and would make some of the best land unusable. In conclusion, Mr. Stiles said that he, along with other large -lot landowners in the County, are looking into subdividing their farms now in order to protect their density rights from the County. He believed that the proposal as presented would affect how Frederick County's large -lot landowners would spend the remainder of their lives. Mr. John Goode, a resident in the Stonewall District, said that he agreed with Mr. Stiles on many of the issues he raised. Mr. Goode agreed with Mr. Stiles that a rezoning alternative was a false option as a practical matter; he said that in order to rezone his parents' farm, they would probably need about' /. of a million dollars to get started on a process where there would be no certainty of approval. Regarding road improvements, Mr. Goode was also of the opinion that the County requires roads to be overbuilt in new subdivisions, capable of handling ten times the amount of traffic they will receive, and he believed it was a waste of resources, whether it be public or private resources. Secondly, he said the State has to maintain the roads with limited resources. He also believed there was possibly too much faith going into the ten -in -five concept as a way to control or phase growth; he said it would have a dramatic impact on a few landowners that have large parcels. ® Regarding the proposed buffers, Mr. Goode said there are already subdivisions in the County with houses that sit way back off the road; he said a common reaction is a question on why the houses were placed so far back. It was Mr. Goode's opinion that any requirement on the nature of buffers or setbacks does not account for the fact that parcels come in different shapes and sizes and have different topography and orientation to a public road. He said that a one - size -fits -all approach to any regulation will not fit all and the end result will be a development, because it's still worth more as a lot than it would be as a farm, which will be less than what it could have been if a more positive approach was taken. Mr. Goode said that he was in favor of the Rural Area Preservation Subdivision concept in place today; however, even with Waal preservation, he believed land was still being wasted. He commented that it was difficult to design a good subdivision under the current regulations because of the two -acre minimum lot size and other requirements. Mr. Goode suggested that the regulations be liberalized, not to allow more lots, but in the way developments can be designed, so that more open space can be preserved, and to allow developments to be oriented in a more aesthetically pleasing way than can be done presently. Mr. Webb Koschene, a landowner in the Stonewall District, said that he was under the impression that the justification for initially taking on the Rural Areas Study was for environmental protection and preservation of open space and he thought there was a disconnect between what is being proposed and what was originally advocated. Regarding the issue of road improvements, Mr. Koschene stated that VDOT was bankrupt and did not have the funds to take care of all the subdivision roads that were being taken into the State system. He said that the impervious surface needed to build a state road creates run -off, collects dust, does not recharge groundwater, and is bad for the environment. Regarding the setback issues, Mr. Koschene believed good planning involved forming housing clusters within existing topography and not placing homes 250 -300 feet off a Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1437 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -10- state - maintained road; he commented that there's nothing wrong with one acre lots in 25 and 30 -lot • configurations, allowing 60 -70% of the property to be open space. In addition, Mr. Koschene was opposed to applying the phasing concept only to future developments and not the existing ones. Mr. Koschene believed that each of the goals that were initially brought forth were achievable through reworking the existing ordinances to enable modem land - planning and design. He believed the existing ordinances are out -dated and have driven the cookie- cutter - designed subdivisions that exist today. Mr. Robert (Bob) Boyd, a local farmer and property owner in the Back Creek District, and his wife, Mrs. Claire Boyd, were opposed to the proposals being presented. Mr. Boyd believed the new regulations would devalue his property and he was considering selling his property now, before the regulations went into effect. Mrs. Boyd added that she and her husband have been concerned for a number of years about the possibility of new laws going into effect which would restrict what they could do with their land. She questioned why the farmer was being penalized for decisions made in the past that have not been fruitful for the County. Mrs. Boyd said that under the new proposals, it would take about 30 to 80 years for their farm to be subdivided through by -right development; she believed this was effectively saying they had to go through rezoning. Subsequently, subdividing more than two or three lots off their faun would subject them to a public hearing and she believed the adjacent residents of Stonebrook, Roscommon, and Long Meadows would come out and speak in opposition, simply because they liked the green space her farm provided. She said the residents of these subdivisions are affluent and can afford to hire lawyers. Mrs. Boyd said her only choice would be to sell to developers because they can afford bigger and better lawyers; she said that she and her husband could not afford to take on the debt load of a rezoning process. Mr. Gary Oates, a property owner in the Stonewall District and a professional designer, said that he supported the design standards being proposed and he wished they were presently in effect. He said that he is currently designing two rural preservation subdivisions and he would much rather design these two projects under • the proposed design standards than under the existing requirements; he believed the 60% and one acre would create a better design for his clients. Mr. Oates hoped that the proposed design standards would not get postponed due to the other issues under debate, such as the rolling five or ten; he said that whatever happened with those issues, he would still like to see the design standards move forward. Another citizen, who did not provide his name, wanted to go on record that he was opposed to the proposals presented. Mr. Kenneth Stiles returned to the podium and stated that when the rural areas study was first initiated, the reasons given for the study were to protect the County's local building industry and to protect local people from the onslaught against major national and regional developers. Mr. Stiles believed the regulations proposed played right into the hands of these developers. He stated that the more expensive the process became up- front, the less local farmers could be involved; he added that many of the local builders and developers couldn't be involved at that level. He also questioned how much would be achieved to phase the remaining land in Frederick County, given the number of existing five -acre lots in Frederick County that will not require phasing. Mr. Stiles concluded by stating that those fanners in Frederick County who have tried to farm for as long as possible, because they have enjoyed it and it was good for Frederick County, are the ones who are going to be penalized by the proposals being presented. Mrs. Wendy Wright, co - owner of a family farm in Frederick County, agreed with the opinions made by the previous speakers. Mrs. Wright reported that the position of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, which she represented, was that the proposed regulations are not acceptable for the most part. She said that each r� L Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1438 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -11- ® time a revision has occurred, the process became more cumbersome, more involved, more technical, and more expensive; she said the process needs to be kept simple. Ms. Wright said that these proposals were making local fanners apprehensive; she asked that a financial burden not be placed on the farmers which they could not afford. There being no other person wishing to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Light, speaking as chairman of the CPPS, said that the CPPS was given the task of studying the effects of development in the rural areas and how that development could be handled. Commissioner Light said the goals and direction of the CPPS changed numerous times as a result of feedback and compromises were reached. He said that ultimately, this proposal will go to public hearing for additional input. Commissioner Light commented that the proposal needs to move forward in the process and he then made a motion for the proposal to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Gochenour read a statement for the record concerning the availability of water. (Please see attachment.) Commissioner Watt mentioned the issue that was raised at the work session concerting banking of lots under the ten -five rule and said he would like to hear other people's opinion of that option. Conunissioner Morris believed that the Rural Areas Study was one of the most difficult issues faced by the Planning Commission during his tenure on the Commission. He said the issue was initially brought forward by the statistic that 30% of development in the County takes place by -right in the rural areas without any • type of oversight. Commissioner Morris said he was encouraged by the feedback received from the Commission this evening that ordinance changes for design standards would be a good way to achieve the goals sought for the rural areas. Commissioner Morris believed it was time to send the proposal forward through the public process and see what will result. Chairman DeHaven believed the current proposal was a good middle - ground compromise from all the discussion and feedback that took place to this point. Chairman DeHaven believed there was not anyone who was involved in the decision - making process that did not have concerns about the rezoning option. He also expressed his opinion that any proposal that forces a landowner to sell his property before he's ready must be flawed. He said that the study group has gone about as far as they possibly can and he alsolbelieved it was time for the issues to be considered and decisions made. The Planting Commission voted unanimously to send the Rural Areas Study to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item at their January 12, 2005 meeting. (Commissioners Kriz was not present for this vote; Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.) Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1439 Minutes of January 5, 2005 -12- ® ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I P Chart s S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric /fit. Lawrence, Secretary • • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1440 Minutes of January 5, 2005