Loading...
PC_08-02-06_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES 0 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 August 2, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. l�J CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of June 21, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of July 5, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1813 Minutes of August 2, 2006 -z- COMMITTEE REPORTS • Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 07/27/06 bltg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed the RA setbacks. He said a proposal will be brought to the full Commission in the next few months to simplify that section and make it easier to administer. Commissioner Thomas said the subcommittee also worked on a definition forcommunity centers and what constitutes a community center. Transportation Committee — 07/24/06 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee held a public hearing on the 2007 -2008 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. He said there were no citizen comments and the Committee recommended approval of those plans. Commissioner Kriz reported there was also an update on the Eastern Road Plan. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) — 07/27/06 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CEA is working towards methods of negotiating a Memorandum of Agreement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). He said that due to the Committee's fledgling status, they are still trying to work through various issues. Commissioner Light said that prior to this, a meeting was held with the Clarke County Conservation Easement Committee on ways the two groups could work together in the future. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 07/10/06 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS had a work session with the Board of Supervisors to review the seven Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment applications. He said the Board elected not to proceed at this point, until they had time to study the requests and ask questions. Development Impact Model (DIM) Oversight Committee (OC) — 07/24/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DIM -OC received information on the make -up of the model, current figures within the model, and the status of the updating procedure. He said that work will be continuing over the next several months. 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1814 Minutes of August 2, 2006 -3- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #03 -06 of Rebecca and Edward Arnette for a landscaping contractor business located at 819 Redbud Road (Rt. 661). This property is identified with P.I.N. 55 -A -2 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry, reported that the proposed landscaping contracting business will take place on a two -acre tract of land in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District; the property contains an abandoned dwelling and one shed, which will be used for storage. He said the applicant has indicated there will be no more than eight employees and the site will contain no more than seven vehicles at any time; no sale of nursery stock will be permitted, and the business will not be open to the public. Mr. Henry said that since the proposed use is commercial in nature, staff would recommend a 50 -foot buffer along Redbud Road (Rt. 661) and the adjoining residential lot. He said the buffer would be similar to a zoning district buffer with Category `B" landscaping, which will require three trees per ten linear feet, and will aid in shielding distinctly different land • uses in this area. Mr. Henry said the staff is also recommending that the entire site be screened with a six -foot tall, board -on -board fence to shield the storage of equipment associated with the business. Mr. Henry continued, stating that the proposed business is adjacent to a DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area) as indicated in the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. He said there were I 1 parcels within a quarter of a mile radius of this property that are within the Redbud Agricultural and Forestal District. Furthermore, special attention is warranted due to this commercial use taking place along a scenic byway ( Redbud Road). Mr. Henry said that higher standards of development should be taken into consideration within these specified areas. Mr. Henry further added that the conditional use permit (CUP) application was applied for in response to a zoning violation and the landscaping business is currently being operated from this property illegally. He explained that the zoning ordinance specifies that storage of heavy equipment is not a permitted use in the RA Zoning District. In addition, he said there was a storage trailer on the property, which also violates the provisions of the code. Mr. Henry next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. In conclusion, Mr. Henry said the staff does not support this CUP. He said the applicant has been in violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance since February, 2006; the CUP was applied for as a means to resolve the zoning violation. Mr. Henry said that since February 24, there has been a consistent increase in business activity on the property. He said approval of the CUP will not be consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Morris suggested that since the business is currently operating in violation, it may • be prudent to establish a time frame for the applicant to accomplish the conditions of the CUP. Mr. Henry replied that a 60 -day time frame could be established with the approval of the CUP. A brief discussion next ensued on the definition of heavy equipment. Mr. Henry commented that the County allows heavy equipment to be stored on a Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1815 Minutes of August 2, 2006 — 4 — bona fide farm with an agricultural component; he said this lot is not in agricultural use. • Chairman Wilmot inquired about the health system. Mr. Henry replied that the applicants will need to apply for a pump and haul permit; the Health Department has indicated that this is the only type of health system available at this location. Mr. Henry noted that the applicants will need to receive approval from the County Administrator for the pump and haul operation. The applicants, Mr. Edward Annette and Mrs. Rebecca Arnette, residents of the Stonewall District, came forward to address the Commission. Mrs. Amette said they met with the County Administrator and he indicated he would approve the pump and haul system, but he wanted to wait until the CUP was further along in a stage of approval. With regard to vehicle parking, Mrs. Arnette said that some of the employees carpool and they are only on the property for a few minutes a day to park their personal vehicles and pick up a truck. She said she and her husband are in the process of restoring the dwelling to make it habitable for lease. She noted that the house does not have a septic system; the individual that lived in the house previously used an outhouse. Mr. Annette explained that most of the business is done at the job sites; he said they simply need someplace to park employee vehicles and pick up work vehicles. Mrs. Annette said she was not aware of the ordinance prohibiting the storage of heavy equipment; she thought if they applied for the CUP, the violations would be negated. Mrs. Amette wanted to point out that they had an appointment with the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator and the Planning Technician in regards to the CUP process prior to any violation being recorded. Commission members had a number of questions for the Arnettes regarding their business. The Arnettes responded that they did have a business license; they did not plan to have an office at this location; they had five employees and four of the employees carpool; two personal vehicles are parked on the property; the Amettes owned four trucks, a Kubota, a couple Bobcats, and trailers. Commissioners asked the applicants if they understood and agree to cant' out all of the I 1 conditions read by the staff, the Amettes said they were unsure about the condition regarding the storage of heavy equipment. Commission members were concerned about making a recommendation of approval on a CUP without an approved health system. Commissioner Morris asked the Amettes how long they thought it would take them to provide all 11 items listed in the conditions for approval, such as the landscaping, the board -on -board fence, parking, the site plan, etc., and whether or not the 90 days would provide enough time. The Amettes were not certain how long it would take to accomplish the engineered site plan, however, they believed the other items mentioned could be accomplished within a 90 -day time frame. Chairman Wilmot next called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak either in favor or opposition to this CUP request. The following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Bernard Schwartzman, a resident at 1105 Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, said he was opposed to the proposed CUP because he did not believe it met the necessary criteria of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Schwartzman said Section 165 -15F of the Zoning Ordinance states that"... a CUP shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located." However, he considered the applicant's business activities to be far from confomung. He said the applicants were cited by the County after the neighbors complained about the operation of the business. Mr. Schwartzman believed the applicants would fail to meet the requirements of their CUP. He noted that the applicants were cited for a sea container in March, for example, and have still not removed it, even though a CUP will not allow it. Mr. Schwartzman reported the applicants selling outdoor woodstoves in early summer and now the applicants are hauling logs and producing fire wood for sale. He thought it was clear this was an expanding business and the Amettes need to locate to commercially -zoned property. -0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1816 Minutes of August 2, 2006 -5- • Mr. David Gregg said that he and his wife, Kathy, live at 1203 Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Gregg was opposed to the CUP application because he did not believe it met the necessary criteria of the Comprehensive Policy Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. He said Section 165 -15B of the Zoning Ordinance states, "a conditional use shall be in harmony and not adversely affect surrounding properties." Mr. Gregg said the surrounding properties are residences and farms and a commercial enterprise did not St in with the existing community. Mr. Gregg stated that the rural and historical nature of Redbud Road is a primary reason the state designated Redbud Road as a scenic byway; one of the criteria for this designation is a lack of development along the proposed byway. Mr. Gregg said the proposed CUP is not in harmony with a scenic byway or with an Agricultural and Forestal District. Ms. Susan Courneya said that she and her family reside at 1347 Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Ms. Courneya said she was opposed to the proposed CUP application because it did not meet the necessary criteria of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor the Zoning Ordinance. She said that Section 165 -15D of the Zoning Ordinance states that a CUP should not adversely affect the natural character and environment of the area. Ms. Coumeya reported that the Arnette's business began in February by clearing the trees and stripping the top soil from the site; the applicants constructed a berm that concentrates their runoff onto the adjoining residential lot; the applicants next filled the garden with shale and constructed a new driveway in a dangerous blind location. Ms. Courneya said the applicants planted a number of trees along Redbud Road that have since died; she guessed it was because they lacked a sufficient water supply. Consequently, she did not believe the Amettes would be able to maintain the vegetative buffer the Planning Department has requested. Ms. Courneya was not pleased with the Planning Staffs recommendation for the installation of a six -foot tall board - on -board fence because it would be visually unappealing and detract from the scenic byway, the Agricultural and Forestal District, and the residential area. is Mr. Gary Oates, a resident of Redbud Road in the Stonewall District, was also opposed to the CUP application because he did not believe it met the necessary criteria of the Comprehensive Policy Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Oates said that Section 165 -15A of the Zoning Ordinance states that a conditional use shall not tend to change the character of the area; he said this use is not consistent with the farming community known as the Redbud Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Oates said this area consists of small residences and medium -to -large farms. He said the neighborhood has gone to great lengths to create the Redbud Agricultural and Forestal District in order to prevent subdivisions and businesses from moving into the area; he believed that introducing commercial use would lead to the demise of the farming communities, thus changing the character of the area. He added that a pattern of development for commercial use is not present and the community does not want it. Ms. Donna Werdebaugh, a resident at 188 Marquis Court in the Stonewall Magisterial District, was opposed to the CUP application because she did not believe it met the necessary criteria of the Comprehensive Policy Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Werdebaugh said that Section 165 -15E of the Zoning Ordinance states that a CUP shall be approved if adequate facilities, road -safe access, and drainage are provided. She said that since this property is well outside the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), adequate facilities are not available and the only alternative is a pump and haul system. Ms. Werdebaugh stated that the roads were too narrow and not adequate for commercial traffic; she mentioned that the speed limit along Redbud Road was recently reduced to 40 mph and farm tractors, the occasional draft horse pulling a buggy, school buses, and family automobiles do not need the commercial traffic this site will generate. She added that the access for the site is located in a blind "S" curve; therefore, nothing less than a state - approved, commercial entrance would be acceptable for safety reasons. Ms. Werdebaugh also had concerns about drainage from the site. Ms. Werdebaugh added that she sold this property to the applicants and she apologized for all the discontent it has caused. • Ms. Connie Oates, a resident at 1071 Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, said she was opposed to the CUP application because she did not believe it met the necessary criteria of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Oates said Section 165 -15C of the Zoning Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1817 Minutes of August 2, 2006 • Ordinance states that a CUP shall be in accordance with the policies expressed in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said the Eastern Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates the Redbud Road area to remain rural; she said businesses, such as this one, would best be served in the SWSA, not in this rural community. Ms. Oates said that since the business has moved in illegally, the community has watched it expand with seed containers, tractor trailers, mulch delivery, increased trucks, trailers, and equipment. She believed the applicants would soon outgrow this site and recommended they move to a commercial district now. Ms. Oates said the neighborhood has tolerated this operation and has been patient for many months while this County has pursued the applicants for illegal activity. She said the neighbors have complained to the Planning Commission since February and would like to see the business removed from the community. Ms. Oates stated that the Comprehensive Policy Plan clearly shows the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA lines avoiding this area in order to maintain its rural character. Ms. Trudy Dixon, a resident of Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, was also opposed to the CUP application. Ms. Dixon said that since February, the use of the property has been commercial; she said the application did not comply with any of the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. She described the property as an eyesore containing fill dirt, gravel, and woodchip piles; dead trees on an overgrown berm; piled -up logs; and a condemned house. Ms. Dixon said the community has worked hard to create an agricultural district to preserve the rural nature of the community and now, the applicants want to create a commercial property in the area. Ms. Dixon believed this type of business belonged on land zoned for such and not in a rural area. If the application is approved, she asked the Commission to place a restriction on the proposed bam; she said a reasonable height would be 18 feet, rather than the permitted 35 feet. In addition, until the existing house is renovated to a habitable condition, she recommended that any barn be considered the primary building for setback purposes. • Mr. Wayne Seipel, stated that he and his wife, Penny, were residents at 271 Morgan Mill Road, which intersects with Redbud Road and they lived about 1 1 /: miles away from this site. Mr. Seipel said he and his wife have lived on their farm for 34 years and in 1972, when they moved to this area, the house on the Amette's property was vacant. He believed the access to the house was dangerous because it was located on a curve and he did not think this was a good location for a nursery. He said the commercial business did not fit in with an Agricultural and Forestal District, the scenic byway, and the residential use. He was concerned that approval would set a precedent for future commercial rezoning. He also questioned the viability of the business without proper utilities. Ms. Nancy Hulver, a resident at 1023 Redbud Road, described two close calls she had on Redbud Road involving a truck and a tractor - trailer. She thought it would be a safety hazard on Redbud Road with trucks going in and out of this business. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Edward Amette returned to the podium to address some of the comments made. The Amettes said they met several times with the people they purchased the property from and discussed their intent for the property; they believed that Mr. Miller lived in the house until the mid -to -late 80's; they noted that VDOT had been to the property and granted approval for their entrance; it was not the Amette's intent to use the property as a nursery and no wood was for sale; they had not observed any run -off from the site; and they commented that the property was overgrown with brush and poison and they simply cleaned it up. The Arnettes said they spoke with their immediate neighbors and no issues were raised by those neighbors; the Amettes said this was the first they heard about so much opposition. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1818 Minutes of August 2, 2006 -7- • Commission members asked the applicants if they stored or sold mulch on the property. Mr. Annette replied that the mulch and wood stored on the property was for his own personal use and they do not sell anything from this site. He explained that the workers meet at the site in the morning, get into the work trucks, and leave for the job site. Commissioner Thomas again asked the applicants if they understood all of the conditions recommended by the staff. Commissioner Thomas did not see how the applicant could operate the business at this location due to the conditions regarding the storage of trailers and heavy equipment. Again, there was some discussion on the definition of heavy equipment. Mr. Amette said that he used 30- horse power tractors; he said it was his understanding that they would be allowed to store their equipment on the property, as long as it was inside a building and they abided by the numbers. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that a 30 -HP tractor, a bobcat, or a front -end loader would be acceptable. Mr. Lawrence said that when staff is referring to heavy equipment, they are talking about full -sized bull dozers, back hoes, or other large -scale equipment. Commissioner Light raised the issue of the requirement for an engineered site plan and entrance. He commented that if the applicant was going to have nursery stock or mulch delivered to the property, it would have to be delivered in tractor trailers; he said this would require a site - engineered commercial entrance. Commissioner Light also noted that a Category `B" buffer can be very expensive to install. Mr. Annette explained that 95% of his business is erosion control; he said they do a lot of construction clean -up. Responding to the concern about delivery of materials, he said any nursery stock they need is delivered directly to the job site. Commissioner Light believed the applicants had good intentions, but maybe did not get the . guidance they needed when they first purchased this property. Commissioner Light was concerned about the amount of opposition from the community. He was also concerned about the absence of an approved health system. Because of the lack of support from the community and the absence of an approved health system, Commissioner Light moved for denial of the CUP application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 403 -06 of Rebecca and Edward Amette for a landscaping contractor business located at 819 Redbud Road (Rt. 66 1) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Oates, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #07 -06 of Orrick Commons, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to develop 55.67 acres with a mixed use commercial/ residential development at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny and Greenwood Roads, with frontage on both roadways. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 55 -A -201 in the Redbud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval • Planner Candice Perkins reported that the master development plan (MDP) for Orrick Commons is a proposal to construct a mixed -use development; the site was rezoned in June of 2006 and consists of 22.06 acres of B2 (Business General) and 33.61 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property. Ms. Perkins Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1819 Minutes of August 2, 2006 said access to the site will be via one entrance on Senseny Road and one entrance onto Greenwood Road; included will be the extension of Farmington Boulevard through the site from the Steeplechase subdivision into the • Lynnehaven subdivision. Ms. Perkins added that the commercial portion of the site will accommodate a maximum of 158,000 square feet of floor area and the residential portion will accommodate 175 proffered age - restricted residential units. Ms. Perkins next proceeded to point out some of the more significant proffers, such as the 8,000 square -foot tree -save area, the provision of a traffic signal at the entrance on Senseny Road, and the construction of a site access on Senseny Road utilizing a boulevard design. Ms. Perkins said a 3.5 -acre park, which could possibly be dedicated to the County for public use was proffered, along with a ten -foot asphalt pedestrian bike trail along Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Ms. Perkins further added that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 144 -24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow subdivided commercial lots to be served by private streets because all of the roads in the commercial area were private. Therefore, two actions were required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. was representing the Orrick Commons MDP and the owners, Orrick Cemetery, Inc. Referring to the requested waiver, Mr. Sowers explained that public street frontage is required for a commercial lot. He said the development scheme has three lots, so the waiver would allow those three lots on the internal, private street network. Commissioner Thomas inquired who would retain ownership of the streets and maintain them. Mr. Sowers said maintenance of the streets would be the responsibility of the commercial property owners association and the residential portion would have public roads. Mr. David Hamer with Paramount Development said that Orrick Cemetery, Inc. owns the entire 21 -acre commercial tract and they will ground lease the 8.52 acres for the Food Lion. He noted that assigned easements, covenants, and agreements have been established and Orrick Cemetery, Inc., as the owners, developers, and operators of the shopping center, will maintain those roads and all of the individual commercial users will have to pay their individual pro -rata share of maintenance, snow removal, lighting, and landscaping. Mr. Hamer explained that each individual user is responsible for the roads on their particular parcel; however, the owner would be responsible for the main access, the boulevard access, the access roads, and the Food Lion parking lot. Commissioner Unger inquired if the road will continue to be maintained and snow removed, if the Food Lion moved out in ten years. Mr. Harper replied yes, because they will have obligations to the remaining 25 tenants. Chairman Wilmot opened the public comment portion of the public meeting. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of this meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a waiver of Section 144 -24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow subdivided commercial lots to be served by private roads. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of MDP #07 -06 of Orrick Commons. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1820 Minutes of August 2, 2006 W • BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the waiver, requested by Orrick Cemetery, Inc. for Orrick Commons, of Section 144 -24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow subdivided commercial lots to be served by private roads and does also hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 407 -06 of Orrick Commons to develop 55.67 acres as a mixed -use, commercial and residential development located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny and Greenwood Roads. (Commissioners Mohn, Oates, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence said the Bylaws Committee ofthe Planning Commission has made some recommendations to amend the Bylaws and also established a Roles and Responsibilities document which documents administrative exercises the Commission may operate under. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to review the components of each of the documents with the Commission. Commissioners had questions about the staff application briefing under the Roles and Responsibilities document; they asked when staff anticipated those meetings to be held. Mr. Lawrence stated that the briefing could occur at a meeting when there is a light agenda. The Commission expressed concern about • having a dialogue on an application during a formal meeting. Mr. Lawrence suggested the Commission may want to adjourn their meeting first and then have the briefing afterwards; Commissioners believed they would be more comfortable with that arrangement. Some Commissioners expressed some concern about the Ex -Parte Communications section under the Roles and Responsibilities document; if a Commissioner is invited to review an applicant's proposal from the applicant's perspective, which is entirely verbal for example, how will the Commissioner share that information with the remaining members. The Commission expressed concern about what they could or could not do and what the consequences of not sharing were. it was noted that the intent of the section was to make sure all of the Commission members have the same information. A suggestion was made to change the word "will" to "may" in the last sentence under the Ex -Parte section. This sentence would state, "To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing." All the Commssion members agreed with this change. Under Section 8 -3 -3 of the Planning Commission Bylaws, a Commission member pointed out that the statement does not recognize the fact there were two representatives from each magisterial district on the Commission. It was suggested that the second sentence of that section should be rewritten to state, "If both district representatives are absent or decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act." All the Commission members agreed with this change. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the 07/14/06 version of the Planning Commission Bylaws with the amendment to Section 8 -3 -3 agreed upon by the • Planning Commission as follows: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1821 Minutes of August 2, 2006 -10- is -3 -3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the application's magisterial district. If both district representatives are absent or decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the 07/14/06 version of the Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities with the amendment agreed upon by the Planning Commission as follows: Ex -Pane Communications Any new written materials provided by the applicant to anyone Commissioner shall be made available to all Commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Oates, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned by a unanimous vote at 8:30 is p.m. Respectfully submitted, M. Wilmot, Chairman Lawrence, Secretary • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1822 Minutes of August 2, 2006