Loading...
PC_07-16-08_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE 0 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 16, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Richard C. Ours, Opcquon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District, Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chaimran/Opequon District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director — Transportation, Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Amber Powers, Planner I; Dana Johnson, Zoning Inspector, and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Connnission unanimously adopted the agenda for the July 16, 2008 meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting minutes of June 4, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 7/14/08 Mtg. Connnissioner Kriz reported that the CPPS discussed two submitted CPPAs (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments) and made recommendations. He announced a Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission work session on August 5 to further discuss the CPPAs. r- I L Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2282 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -Z- Commissioner Mohn, Chairman of the Community Small Area Study Group of the CPPS, reported that his committee is continuing their work on the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) revisions. He said they met last Friday, July 12, with the Transportation Committee and are continuing to work side -by -side. Commissioner Mohn said his committee will then focus on the land use component, probably through August and September. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 1. Commissioner Kriz reported that James W. Golladay, Jr., the chairman of the Community Facilities Subcommittee, said his committee had met and they are waiting for input from some of the departments regarding their needs, particularly for the Northeast Land Use Plan. Commissioner Kriz added that his group is moving along with the Natural Resources component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan as well as a rewrite of the Historical Resources Advisory Board's submission. City of Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 7/15/08 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC discussed a site plan request by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates for the proposed Walgreens pharmacy on Amherst Street. He said concerns were expressed, particularly because this was the original location of the home of Admiral Richard Byrd and three 100 -year old maple trees on the property are considered to be very historic. He said there was considerable discussion in attempt to preserve as many of those trees as possible. The site plan was recommended for approval based on relieving ten percent of the required parking spaces and some other things that will, hopefully, save two trees. The second item of business was the approval of a request by the George Washington Hotel for a conditional use permit for nightclub use. The nightclub will only be open until 10:00 p.m. at night and will not include any of the out -of -doors parts of the George Washington Hotel. In addition, Commissioners Ours reported that the WPC • recommended approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance as it pertains to Medical Center Districts, he said this request came from Valley Health. Commissioner Ours said Valley Health was requesting the sign amendments to accommodate changes to their logo and colors. Sanitation Authority (SA) — 07/15/08 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of June was 4.4 inches, which is about an inch above average; quarries are doing well and are up from this same time last year; plants are operating normally, with only minor excess material from HUD and the SA is working with HUD to take care of the situation. Commissioner Unger reported that the Parkins Mill construction is continuing and is anticipated to be completed in 2009. He added that the Stevens force main wag completed and the facility on Tasker Road will be named after the former engineer /director, H. Wellington Jones for his many years of work for the SA. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject that was not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2283 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -3- PUBLIC HEARING • Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Definitions and Article V, Design Standards. The amendment includes: changes to decrease the permitted lot density from one unit per five acres generally to one unit per ten acres in all of the RA District; a change to the general minimum lot size in all of the RA District, except for family division lots and rural preservation lots, from five acres to ten acres; and revisions to the family division and rural preservation subdivision requirements. The changes are as follows: • Section 165 -49 — Purpose and Intent — Revision to change the lot density generally in all of the RA District from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres. • Section 165 -52A — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to change the lot density generally in all of the RA District from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres and to clarify that the density is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section). • Section 165 -52B — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to change the exception to permitted density generally in all of the RA District, currently allowed for lots containing between seven and ten acres, to allow the exception for lots containing between seven and twenty acres; revision to clarify that eligibility for the exception is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section), revision to change the lot density generally in all of the RA District from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres; and revision to provide that rural preservation lots count against the permitted density of a rural preservation subdivision. • Section 165 -54A — Permitted lot sizes — Traditional five acre lots - Revisions to change the general • minimum lot size in all of the RA District, except for family division lots and rural preservation lots, from five acres to ten acres. • Section 165 -54B — Permitted lot sizes — Family division lots — Revision to clarify that eligibility for the exception is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section). • Section 165 -54C — Permitted lot sizes — Agricultural lots — Revision to eliminate the provision for five acre agricultural lots as a permitted lot type in the RA District. • Section 165 -54D — Permitted lot sizes — Rural preservation lots — Revisions to change from 40% to 60% the minimum percentage of the parent tract that must be preserved as a rural preservation lot. • Section 165 -55A — Setback requirements — Traditional five -acre lots — Revisions to change traditional five acre lot to ten acre lot. • Section 165 -55D— Setback requirements — Accessory uses — Revisions to change traditional five acre lots to ten acre lots. • Section 165 -56B — Maximum depth — Revision to make rural preservation tracts exempt from the requirement that the maximum depth of any lot shall not exceed four times the width of the lot at its front setback line. • Section 144 -2 — Definitions and word usage — Revisions to the definition of major rural subdivision and minor rural subdivision to change traditional five acre lots to ten acre lots and to remove references to five acre agricultural lots. • Section 144 -31B — Major rural subdivisions - Revisions to remove reference to five acre agricultural lots. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2284 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Section 144-31C— Minor Waal subdivisions -Revisions to change traditional five acre lots to ten acre • lots and to remove references to five acre agricultural lots. Action — Recommended Denial Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided a description of the major changes to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lawrence said the three major points encompassed by this proposal include an overall decrease in the density in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District from a one unit per five -acre density to a one unit per ten -acre density; an increase in the minimum traditional lot size from a five -acre lot to a ten -acre lot minimum; and an increase in size of the preservation tract for rural preservation lot subdivisions from 40% to 60 %. He said the proposal will count the preservation tract towards density; currently, the preservation tract does not count towards density. Mr. Lawrence explained that the proposal continues to enable rural preservation lots (cluster development) on lots as small as two acres. In addition, he said the proposal does not impact existing lots of record or existing family lot provisions. Mr. Lawrence stated that this proposal compliments Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan's efforts to direct growth towards the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He explained that UDAs are planned growth areas within the County which are positioned to most effectively and efficiently provide the necessary public services; for example, the public roads, bicycle paths, sidewalks, schools, parks, and fire and rescue services. He noted that development in the rural areas has intensified over the past decade, along with an increase in growth rate over the past five -to -six years. Mr. Lawrence said that growth in the rural areas impacts the agricultural community, it impacts the view shed and rural landscape, and it impacts the demand for community services. Mr. Lawrence stated that earlier this year, the staff was directed by the Board of Supervisors to draft an ordinance amendment that dealt with the rural preservation ordinance, specifically to decrease the overall density in the rural areas, as well as establish an increased minimum lot size. The Board further directed the staff to schedule a public hearing, to solicit public comments, to seek a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and present all of the information at the Board of Supervisors' meeting on August 13, 2008. In addition, two dates have been established by the Board for those persons who have already been through the start of their subdivision process, via a sketch plan and recordation, and those projects will be recognized under the existing ordinance provisions. Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment is an effort to preserve the rural character and open space of the community; it works towards improving the rural view shed, and it furthers the belief that preserving the rural character and view shed enhances the community's attractiveness and value. He said it discourages residential growth in rural areas and redirects residential growth from the rural areas to the UDA. He commented that the proposal is not an effort to stop growth, but growth is redirected and managed. He pointed out that the proposal is also an effort to reduce the future traffic impacts on existing rural roads. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to show a synopsis comparing surrounding communities' rural area densities with the proposal for Frederick County. Commissioner Oates voiced his concern about the increase in minimum lot size from five acres to ten acres; he said it seemed like a waste of land. He said the change to a one -to -ten density will not allow a subdivision unless a property owner has at least ten acres. Under the existing ordinance, he pointed out, a rural preservation subdivision can be accomplished with a minimum of 20 acres, and that rule is not being changed with this proposal. Commissioner Oates said that if a property owner has 20 acres or more, he could do a rural preservation subdivision, create a two -acre lot, and keep 18 acres. Commissioner Oates said he would advise a • client not to do the ten -acre subdivision, but if they qualify, he would recommend a rural preservation subdivision and only cut off a two -acre lot, not ten acres. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2285 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -5- Commissioner Unger asked staff for the Board of Supervisors' reason for pursuing the ten -acre lot size, rather than five acres. Commissioner Unger pointed out that preservation of the rural areas was studied in depth about three years ago and was placed on hold. He said it hasn't been discussed for a long time, until now. He was concerned about rushing this ordinance through a public hearing process so quickly without sufficient discussion or analysis. He said he didn't remember discussing the ten -acre lot size three years ago. In addition, he raised the issue of the July 1, 2008 cut -off date when the public hearing for this amendment is this evening, July 16, 2008. Commissioner Unger's fear was that people may have already spent a good deal of money starting this process and may not even get their subdivision through. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called names from a list of citizens who had signed up to speak. Mr. Mark Grim, Opequon District, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Grim stated that this proposed change would devalue the land owned by farmers. He said farmers are not seeking to subdivide their land, but do.rcly on selling a five -acre portion during poor economic times to help pay bills and continue farming. He didn't think a farmer would be able to get twice the value for a ten -acre lot. He was also concerned about going through a whole subdivision process, just to sell off five acres. Ms. Janet Chapman, Red Bud District, spoke in opposition to the ordinance amendment. Ms. Chapman did not feel the Board of Supervisors had the right to arbitrarily cause undue hardship on rural area landowners by devaluing their land; she said land is the rural area property owners' investment for their future. Ms. Chapman said the rural area landowners work hard for what they have and are present this evening to protect their investments. Ms. Chapman suggested the County work towards the goal for people to be able to afford to both live and work in Frederick County. She believed that if ten acres became the minimum lot size, the number of families that could afford to both work and live here will be reduced and local commercial and business development would also suffer. Ms. Chapman continued, stating that a portion of this amendment was piggy- backed with a proposal to change the Waal area preservation lot size from 40% to 60 %. She believed this proposal needed to be sent to the Development Review and Regulations Subcomnuttee (DRRS) for further review and discussion. Ms. Chapman agreed there needed to be other alternatives for RA development. She mentioned the Conservation Easement Authority for voluntary placement of land for protection and benefits; she suggested the provision of greater incentives for ten -acre subdivisions. She also suggested impact fees for rural area development to assist with costs of infrastructure improvements. Ms. Chapman also thought PDRs were a fair alternative for landowners. Mr. Michael Perry, President of the Top of Virginia Building Association ( TOVBA), representing over 235 business members, said the TOVBA is not in favor of changing the rural preservation homestead lot from 40% to 60 %. Mr. Perry, said the TOVBA supports the DRRS's recommendation of not changing a portion of the ordinance without studying the ordinance in its entirety. In addition, a sound policy needs to be developed to support and justify any change in the ordinance. Mr. Perry said the TOVBA supports the revival of the Rural Areas Land Plan Study commissioned over three years ago which encourages the clustering of lots and community sewer systems. The TOVBA also does not support the by -right density change from five to ten acres. He said if part of the ordinance is to be changed, it must be supported by sound policy that is fair and equitable and, at a minimum, does not diminish the stakeholders existing equity. Mr. Perry believed that if the goal is to protect the rural integrity of the County, this proposal was not the best land- planning approach. Additionally, he said the reduction in density takes affordability out of the equation for the majority of potential home buyers and folks just wanting to live in a rural setting. He commented that members of the local building industry are the major builders and developers of the rural areas, not the nationals. He said the economic is hardship would not only be felt by the landowners, but by the local building industry and economy. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2286 Minutes of July 16, 2008 • Mr. Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District, said he owned 30 acres in the Gamesboro District. Mr. Carpenter said he constructed a home there in 2000, strategically placed so that if he had to, he could subdivide four five -acre lots and maintain his home. Mr. Carpenter said if this ordinance is passed, and because he did not have the forethought to plot them before July 1, he would lose the ability to subdivide the five -acre lots. He thought this proposal could be considered discriminatory against landowners who don't live in the Urban Development Areas of Frederick County. Mr. Carpenter asked the Commission to reject the proposal or at least send it back for further review and study. Mr. Shotsie Bayliss, Gainesboro District, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. Mr. Bayliss said with the decrease in land value, the impact will fall directly on the landowner. He questioned the absence in the staff's presentation of figures showing economic impacts and/or decrease in land values. Mr. Bayliss said he would like to see this proposal sent back to committee. Ms. Lisa Frank, Opequon District, was opposed to the proposed amendments. Ms. Frank stated that home and property is a most significant investment and many families purchased homes and land in the rural areas with the intention of living off their land. She said living off one's land is expensive when all the equipment, livestock, and crop purchases are considered. Ms. Frank said that in times of drought or economic stress, landowners often have to borrow against the equity of their farms to continue operations. Shebelieved the proposed amendment would cause many small farting operations to fail. She commented on a statement made by the staff that there were not as many five -acre subdivisions as rural preservation subdivisions in the past. She questioned whether this could be because the actual impact for the change is on all of the small Farmers, and the few who need to use the equity for their farms. She said the impact to services from these five -acre subdivisions is minimal, compared to the development within the UDA. Ms. Frank encouraged the Commission to do further research and investigate the significant impact to the farming community and citizens, and recommend denial of • the ordinance change. Mr. Gary McDonald said he operates in multiple districts within Frederick County and he was opposed to the ordinance amendment. Mr. McDonald said the biggest problem he sees is the imbalance between the RA (Rural Areas) and the UDA (Urban Development Areas). He suggested having both areas under the five - acre rule and if a developer in the UDA wants five houses per acre, they should purchase that right from the property owners. He said this would put all the land in preservation; he said the landowner could negotiate his own terms about what he would accept for his rights, since he owns the property. Mr. McDonald reasoned that the property owner could sell one tract or ten tracts, for retirement or health reasons, because he owns the property, not the Frederick County Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McDonald said his farm is 119 years old, well over a century, and the seventh generation male is currently on the farm. He said the family wants him to stay there and not be removed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Kim Messick, Back Creek District, said she was a member of a fourth generation farm family. Ms. Messick said it was sad to learn that the ground her grandfather walked over in his bare feet behind a horse and plow could be devalued by a mere vote on the proposed amendment. Ms. Messick said it seemed almost by design the fanner is being pushed out of Frederick County. Ms. Messick commented that with the state of the world today, she believed the local farmers will soon be playing an important role in the community. Mr. Randal Anderson District, said he recently purchased a house with ten acres. He said the ten acres was attractive to him because of the potential to divide and sell it, if needed. Mr. Anderson said he understood the need of County officials to manage public lands and common utilities and business infrastructure. On the other hand, he did not understand how elected representatives, who are supposed to • represent his and other landowners' interest, could dictate what he does with his land. He suggested that the speed and growth of Frederick County be determined by the citizens who own the land in Frederick County. Mr. Anderson said there was a reason why our founding fathers' first draft of our national motto was, "life, liberty, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2287 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -7- and land;" they understood that whoever controls the land determines the quality of life and the reality of its • liberty. Mr. Anderson asked the Commission to vote no on this amendment. Ms. Anna McDonald, President of the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors, said she was present this evening to represent over 650 realtor members who were opposed to this change. Ms. McDonald encouraged the Commission to rethink changing lot requirements and the rural preservation requirement from 40% to 60 %. She said this change will impact a large number of people in this community: specifically, the farmers who would want to sell their parcels to possibly retire or supplement their farms today; the children, who can barely afford to live here now; first time home buyers; and local builders. Ms. McDonald stated that a balance is needed between preserving land and protecting property values. She asked the Commission to conduct further research, consider other alternatives, and to think about articles that have been written in the Winchester Star referring to purchasing development rights (PDRs). Mr. Robert (Bob) Carpenter, owner of 156 acres in the Gainesboro District and Chairman of the Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County, provided written comments to the Commission. Mr. Carpenter stated that this evening's public hearing seemed to be the result of directions from the Board of Supervisors to ram through a major change to the rural areas ordinance without opportunity for deliberation or debate. Mr. Carpenter said the proposal before the Commission amounts to a down zoning of all of the land in Frederick County zoned RA (Rural Areas). He said if the primary objective is to divert growth to the UDA, the impact of this proposed ordinance change will dispossess rural landowners of about $500,000,000 in land value without making a significant change in the County's housing patterns. He commented that given the 20,000 rural lots potentially available today, cutting that number in half will not change residential patterns for decades. Furthermore, literally thousands of lots have already been platted and not developed and will mean that no real savings will accrue to the County in most of its citizens' life times. Mr. Carpenter believed this proposal was a gross injustice to the people who cost Frederick County the least amount in services. Even more disturbing to him as a citizen, is that he heard in recent days that at least one Supervisor did not care what happened at this evening's public hearing, the Board planned to vote on this matter in August. He said as late as today, he heard that another Supervisor is offering a plan to vote on the ten acres, but will consider allowing the five acres to stand if property owners would rezone. It was Mr. Carpenter's observation that extreme pressure was being applied to the Planning Commission to make an affirmative vote and he questioned the Board of Supervisors' motives. He said three years ago, he served on an ad -hoc committee which presented a compilation of ideas received from a cross section of stake holders to address concerns of rural property owners, agriculturalists, and preservationists. He said the committee's recommendation preserved flexible options in order to minimize impacts for all; it provided standards reflecting the various circumstances and interests of individual land owners. Subsequently, a presentation was provided that prescribed alternative wastewater treatment systems that would allow clustering of homes on less than two acres. He said the committee strongly urges the Commission to study this matter further; and if this is not possible, to recommend denial this evening. Mr. John Gavit, Gainesboro District, came forward to speak on behalf of Preserve Frederick, of which he was a Board member. Mr. Gavit said Preserve Frederick's mission is to promote compatible development that strengthens the community, protects the natural and historic resources, and preserves rural heritage. He said Preserve Frederick supports the protection of rural lands within Frederick County which are critical to its agricultural, wildlife, forestry, and water resources. He said increasing lot density in rural areas supports the concept of growth in UDAs and decreases the need for services, police, fire and rescue services, schools, and water, etc., in outlying areas. Furthermore, it maintains the spirit of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan by continuing to preserve large open parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas, and prime agriculture and locally significant soils. Mr. Gavit said Preserve Frederick supports this, as well as other initiatives that will help maintain the rural character of Frederick County • in the short run. He said the fact remains, however, that all rural lands are at risk to further development over time through the rezoning process. He noted as pressure from more homes and commercial development continues, Frederick County is poised to lose the very essence of what has made this County such a wonderful Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2288 Minutes of July 16, 2008 place to live. He said the County is also at risk for losing our local base for agriculture and other resources that will become increasingly important as transportation costs continue to rise. He said the members of Preserve Frederick are advocates for permanent protection of agriculture, wildlife, forestry, and waterways through conservation easements, purchase of development rights (PDRs), or other legislative means. He said Frederick County government must make a commitment, both financial philosophical, to take a more active role in that regard. Mr. Gavit said he wanted to end on a personal note and explained why he thought the land should be returned in the same and better condition for future generations and why he had put his properties into conservation easements. Mr. John Goode, Jr., noted his family farm in the Gainesboro District, established in 1952. Mr. Goode and his family were 100% opposed to the proposed ordinance changes. He said the unintended consequences of any action are often not discussed until they have manifested themselves in real -world problems that are often impossible to reverse and he wanted to address three of those unintended consequences this evening. Mr. Goode said first, it will be harder to gamer open space easements to protect property in perpetuity from development. He said part of the dynamic of open space easements for many potential donors is the value of the tax deduction and the tax credits. He said when the value of property is decimated with the proposal this evening, the value of those deductions and credits will go down. Mr. Goode said the second unintended consequence is that the adoption of this change will provide rocket fuel to propel the subdivision of large parts of the remaining rural areas of the County. He explained that if a person loses 50% of his life's savings in less than 60 days, they will ponder how they can protect the remaining 50 %. He said if the holdings are land, the only solution is to immediately sell or subdivide the remaining portion. Mr. Goode said the third unintended consequence is that future rural subdivisions will not be as environmentally or view shed friendly as they should, because Frederick County's Subdivision Ordinance does not allow it. He said that while the staff's presentation was positively expressed, particularly on something that does not allow quality rural development, a better job can be accomplished with smaller lot sizes and community septic systems. He was not in favor of a rezoning • compromise by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. John Light, Stonewall District, a former Plamming Commissioner, said hewas very involved with this issue for two years and he had two points he wanted to make. Mr. Light strongly believed the single, ten -acre lot size was a waste of land; he recommended that the Commission not endorse it and he suggested the Commission send a resolution forward to amend the proposed ordinance to read, "two acres or more." He advised the Commission to let the market dictate the size so land was not wasted. He gave an example of a chopped up, five -acre subdivision with straight rectangular lots in Frederick County; he said if this is what is being promoted, he implored the Commission to start over and do something that promotes quality. Mr. Light's second point focused on how individual Board members would vote and he speculated about what the Board would do next, if this proposed ordinance amendment was not approved. He speculated that if the proposed amendment was not approved, the next logical step for the Board would be rezoning in the rural areas and he strongly opposed rezoning in the rural areas. Mr. Light advised the Planning Commission to state in the Comprehensive Policy Plan that development in the rural areas should be a by -right style of development and not a zoning style of development. He said everyone present this evening should be asking these crucial questions. Mr. John Betchum said he was opposed to the proposed ordinance change for the same reasons cited by Mr. John Goode. Ms. Charlotte Messick said her family has a fourth generation farm on 1,200 acres in the Back Creek District. Ms. Messick said she would love to see development slowed down in Frederick County; however, she totally disagreed with the method proposed for marry reasons. She said the one reason that is the most important to her is the environment. Ms. Messick showed photographs of the viewshed within one mile of her family farm. She showed a ten -acre lot located in the middle of a hayfield; the ten -acre lot was filled with thistle and weeds and she said it was a problem. She showed a photograph of the farmer's alfalfa field adjacent to the weedy lot; she said there was added cost and time to the farmer for the chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2289 Minutes of July 16, 2008 necessary to fight the neighbor's weedy field problem. Ms. Messick next showed photographs of a new . subdivision on a farm with 2%: acre lots. She said there are old apple trees that maintain the beauty of the rest of the farm; however, an environmental problem still remains. She said the average homeowner has no idea about how to take care of a big open field, nor does he have the special equipment needed or the knowledge about chemical and fartilizer use regulated by the EPA. Mr. Walter Aikens said that he and his partners own 258 acres in the Gainesboro District. Mr. Aikens said that he and his partners have no intention of selling; however, they would like to retain the right to sell in the future, if it was necessary. He said the ten -acre lot requirement devalues the land by at least 40 %. The housing economy today is about as bad as it has been in the last five to ten years and this proposed change will make things worse. Mr. Aiken said that farmers count on their land as their biggest asset; they don't have a lot of money in the bank. Mr. Aikens believed this issue needed to go back to a committee for further study and to develop something that will not hurt the farmers and will not hurt the landowners. Mr. Les Jones, Stonewall District, said he has owned property in Frederick County for the last 20 years and currently has a 23 to 24 -acre tract of land in Woodsmill. Mr. Jones said before he purchased this property, he conducted research on the property restrictions, the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and ascertained that five -acre lot subdivisions were permitted. He said through his purchase, he committed to follow the County's rules and regulations and he assumed he would have an implied promise from Frederick County that they would also abide by the same rules. Mr. Jones said the financial damage to him from this proposed ordinance change would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and he speculated that for some people, it would be in the millions of dollars. Mr. Jones mentioned that Route 37 will not be funded by the State; he speculated whether this zoning amendment might be a prelude to the Board of Supervisors down zoning property along the Route 37 right -of -way so they could purchase property at a cheaper price. Mr. Dan Redman, Opequon District, said he was opposed to the changes. Mr. Redman said he purchased his property to build a house and for a financial investment. Mr. Redman said he worked for a corporation that down - sized, but relied on his land investment to back him up if times got hard. Mr. Redman was dismayed how corporations and government change the rules without any regard for the impact on the people affected. He said the over abundance of homes in Frederick County has caused everyone's home and land values to decrease. He said a developer can purchase a ten -acre lot in the UDA and place about 30 homes on it; however, he can only place one more home on his 12 acres. Mr. William (Bill) Butterfield, Opequon District, said he owns 60 acres in Frederick County and he agreed with many of the continents made by the previous citizens who spoke. Mr. Butterfield was concerned about the speed in which this ordinance change was taking place. Mr. Butterfield implored the Commission to take time to study this change because it was so critical to people's future, their income, and their families; he said this change will impact many people in Frederick County. He questioned why the proposals raised three years ago by previous committees cannot be reconsidered. Mr. Butterfield thought there were some good ideas raised at the time and they need to be discussed. He said additional time was needed for everyone to study this issue. Mr. Al Shirley said he purchased a farm for $150,000 a few years back; a year later, it was assessed at $450,000 and he has had to pay high taxes ever since. Mr. Shirley said the only reason he bought the fame was to take care of his family. He said he wouldn't be able to give his children ten acres apiece; he said three acres was sufficient. Mr. John Marker, Back Creek District, said his family has owned land in Frederick County and . has been fanning here for over 100 years; he has farmed for most of the 61 years he has lived in Frederick County. He was also a Planning Commissioner for 12 years. Mr. Marker said he was aware of the problems with the impact of development on the rural areas. Mr. Marker said that 30 years ago, he was in favor of raising lot Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2290 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -10- sizes in rural areas to five acres (previously, it was one to three acres). He said he thought it would really slow down development in the rural areas. Twenty years ago, however, the County found out this didn't work; it just ate up land faster. He said the County formed a Rural Issues Committee to study this problem. After considerable discussion, it was decided that within the rural areas, it was much better to cluster development on smaller lots instead of spreading it out on five acres. Mr. Marker said the reason there has been more rural subdivisions in the last five -to -six years with the 40% rural preservation lot, is because of the bonus lot. Before that, most of the rural divisions were five acres. He said he realized that when a property owner decides to develop his property, there are affects on the County's infrastructure. He said this is why the property owner needs to pay some type of fee for the impacts the development will have on the system, however, the proposal before the Commission this evening is not going to solve this problem. He said all it's going to do is eat up the rural areas faster. Mr. Marker believed this proposal shows the Supervisors are very serious about this issue and something is going to be done -- that's great! Nevertheless, he said there should be some time for input from the landowners and ultimately, a proposal reached that will be supported by the majority of the people and the Board. Mr. Marker did not see the need for this to be approved in the next three -to -four weeks; he said land mid lot sales are moving at a very slow pace. He preferred that everyone take a little time; establish a deadline on finishing and do this right. Mr. Marker requested that the Planning Conunission recommend denial of this proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Don DeHaven, Gainesboro District, questioned the impact this proposed ordinance amendment would have on young people in Frederick County. Mr. DeHaven said it was hard enough for young people just starting out to get the money together to build or buy a house without having to buy five acres of land with it. He thought it would force young people to move outside of Frederick County, where it was more affordable and the ten acre -lots in Frederick County will be purchased by outsiders. Mr. DeHaven was against the proposed amendment and he urged the Commission to further consider this amendment before voting. • Mr. Marcus Adams, Gainesboro District, spoke about the preservation of the rural character of Frederick County. His definition of rural character was countryside full of small and large farms and maybe some communities; he wanted to see it preserved the way it has been for the last 50 -100 years, to some degree. Mr. Adams believed the ten -acre lot is a waste of the County's most valuable natural resource- -land. Mr. Adams said it was irresponsible, unethical, and unconscionable for a governing body to mandate a change that would only further degrade the rural character of the County. He asked the Conunission to focus on the individuals in the audience this evening; he said these people are the essence of rural life in Frederick County. He said many are multi - generation rural farm families, some going back as far as nine generations; he said these people are what make up the rural character. It's not rules and regulations made by folks sitting behind a desk who clearly don't understand it; it's not politicians who may vote in favor of it in hopes of more votes from the UDA; it's not over grown poorly- managed, ten -acre lots. Mr. Adams stated these people who have the desire and the know -how make up rural Frederick County and these people are the only ones that can truly preserve it. He said if the Board of Supervisors wants to truly preserve the rural character of Frederick County, to focus on preserving the citizens that make it rural. He believed that making changes that will cause further hardship on an already difficult life style is just another step in the direction of eliminating the rural character which most citizens say they want protected. Mr. Adams urged the Commission to table this for further discussion until a better alternative is found. Mr. Steve Parrish, Opequon District, said one of the issues the County faces is the maintenance cost of infrastructure, such as roads, and going from five acres to ten acres will create sprawl and the need for additional roads. Mr. Parrish said he purchased two lots five years ago and just recently purchased another 14.23 acres behind his house. He said under the proposed amendment, he would only be allowed to subdivide one lot off the 14.23 acreage, resulting in only two of his three children receiving a lot. Mr. Parrish urged the Commission to vote no, or at least remove the July 1, 2008 deadline, so that he could apply to subdivide his land 0 under the previous regulations Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2291 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -11- Mr. David Frank, with the Top of Virginia Building Association (TOVBA), said the TOVBA's • President, Mike Perry, spoke clearly about the position of this organization. However, Mr. Frank said he wanted to add one additional point. He said typically, when an issue of this magnitude comes before a community, there is a period of gathering stake holders, land planners, and building consensus, studying rational ideas and alternatives. Mr. Frank said since this has not occurred, he believed it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to respond to the Board of Supervisors with a reasonable affirmation or denial. Mr. Frank urged the Commission to table this matter and bring in the stake holders, to discuss the issue further, and to develop a realistic plan or at the very least, develop rational reasons why the Commission is either in favor or opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment. M r. Robert Engle, Back Creek District, stated that he and his wife own 66 acres on Brill Road in Star Tannery. Mr. Engle said they purchased this land and built their home here because they wanted to live in a rural, agricultural and forest area; he said they wanted to enjoy the environment of Star Tannery. Mr. Engle said in the three years they've lived in Star Tannery, they have already seen a significant deterioration in the quality of life as development has taken place around them. He was very concerned if the County stayed with the five -acre tract, Star Tannery will become just another big subdivision of houses lined up along every road in the County, he said it will have a very negative impact on everyone in the future. Mr. Engle said he would like to see the proposed amendment passed by reducing the number in half. He knew there were economic concerns, but he believed that over time, if the supply of land is available, at some point in time, the demand will bring the economics back into align with where they should be to make it appropriate for everyone. He urged the Commission to support keeping the rural environments mral and not having them look like subdivisions. Mr. Bobby Gibson, Opequon District, said he and his wife purchased 22 acres in the Opequon District, behind Sherando Park, in 1983 -84. Mr. Gibson said he protected two five -acre areas for a retirement nest egg. He said he will be turning 65 years old and with the cost of medication and the expense of keeping his property maintained, he was going to need the nest egg. Under the proposed amendment, he would not be able to subdivide the two five -acre parcels. Mr. Gibson said they don't have a 401K or an IRA; what they do have is their land. Mr. Dwight Dunton, IFI, Back Creek District property owner, spoke about family preservation of land for future generations. Mr. Dunton said his grandfather, a hard - working man, purchased land 50 years ago on Middle Road. He said before his grandfather passed away, his grandfather told his father to preserve the land for his grandchildren, which included himself and his brother. He said it was made clear the land was to provide for future generations of the family —true family preservation —to maintain the viability of long -term, multi - generational families. Mr. Dunton said they do not intend to develop their land, but they understand the land is there for future generations of his family. Mr. Dunton believed if this proposed ordinance was passed, it would cost his family about one million dollars. He suggested that the County purchase the land they want to preserve. Mr. Dunton urged the Commission to deny the proposed amendment. . Mr. Benjamin (Ben) Conner, Back Creek District, came forward and spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment on behalf of his wife and himself. Mr. Conner believed there was a rush to judgment on this matter. He questioned the short time line and said he had not had enough time to study the proposal. He said he has two contiguous parcels consisting of 8%: acres with a house and 16.75 acres. He said under the proposed amendment, the money they thought they might have with selling the property will certainly be reduced. Mr. Conner said they have more of their money invested in their land than they do in other investments such as IRAs, etc. Mr. Conner liked the idea previously raised which was for the County to pay the property owner for the preservation rights. Mr. Conner urged the Commission not to send the proposal to the Board of Supervisors without further study. n LJ Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2292 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -12- Mr. Robert Funkhouser, property owner in Gainesboro District, said property became very expensive in the last few years. He and a friend could not afford to purchase a five -acre lot separately, so they pooled their money and were able to purchase a larger parcel with the intent of subdividing the property, selling some of it, and retaining their own parcel, under the current regulations. Mr. Funkhouser said they came to Frederick County from Clarke County because of Clarke County's restrictions and the cost of land. He believed changing the minimum lot size would create the same situation in Frederick County and people are not going to be able to afford the large lots, which are difficult for some people to maintain. Nevertheless, he said people have a desire to live outside of the city limits or in small developments. Mr. Funkhouser said they were in the process of working with the County on subdividing their property when he received his notification in the mail. He said he received the letter on July 1 or 2, dated June 30. He said when he went to the County offices, they told him he had already missed the deadline, and he would be under the new regulations. Mr. Funkhouser said the new regulations are not even in effect, and yet, he,is being told he cannot continue with his subdivision. He said he didn't understand why the letter went out so late; he didn't think it was fair to the property owners. Mr. Mike Brill, Gainesboro District, said the previous speaker, Mr. Funkhouser, spoke about the issues he was going to raise. Mr. Brill said there are many people who have money invested in subdividing property and because they haven't been downtown to start the paperwork process with the County office, they are being told they can't subdivide. Mr. Brill said his letter was dated June 30, 2008; he said he has already built roads and obtained perk sites. He said he planned to use the money he received from the sale of his property to expand his business; he said if this proposed ordinance amendment is approved, it will decrease the money he would have received for his land in half. Mr. Brill believed the July 1 cut -off date completely by- passed how the Commission would vote and the deadline needs to be abolished. He said the property owners should be allowed to go to the County offices and start their paperwork. He said once this becomes a law, then the officials can say it's ten acres; however, until its voted on and passed, the property owners should not be denied the ability to subdivide under the existing regulations. Mr. Scott Gregory, Back Creek District, said his family owns a 100 -acre farm on Middle Road; he said they grow apples and other crops to pay the taxes. He said the land has been in his family for 98 years. He said the proposal being considered would essentially be like cutting farmers' 401 K in half. Mr. Gregory said his view shed has already been ruined with an elementary school on Middle Road and no one asked for his opinion beforehand. He was not pleased with the idea of changing the rules; he said small farmers have been struggling to keep their properties rural. He did not think the proposal was fair. Mr. Ryland Carper, Stonewall District, stated he owned land in the Gainesboro District and, although he had no intentions of subdividing the property at this time, there may come a time when he orhis heirs may choose to subdivide. Mr. Carper said this proposal would curtail some of the investment he has; he said it was just like any other commodity owned that a person may wish to sell at some point in time. He said doubling the lot size from five to ten acres certainly reduces the opportunity for making some profit on his land. Mr. Carper asked the Commission if they were willing to go on record as being in favor of reducing the real estate taxes on rural area property. He said he observed this same issue take place in Loudoun County and it created considerable confusion. Mr. Carper attempted to explain how the ten acres was too small to farm profitably and too big to maintain for the typical homeowner. Mr. Paul Anderson, Back Creek District, said that he and his wife own and farm approximately 100 acres which has been in his family for about 135 years; he said another family member owns an additional 150 acres of land. Mr. Anderson said he first wanted to speak on behalf of the Frederick County Farm Bureau. He said the Farm Bureau supports larger open space, which can be done with five -acre lots by reducing the lot size, using alternative septic systems approved by the Health Department, or by allowing easements on the parent • tract for the septic systems. He said the five -acre lot could continue, along with the 60% open space. Mr. Anderson said farmers need the flexibility of using land as a financial tool because most farmers invest their money in land. He said the proposed amendment will only cripple what farmers can do in the future with the land Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2293 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -13- they have, if they have to make a major decision to sell. Mr. Anderson next wanted to speak as a farmer. He said there has been much said about improving the quality of life and he questioned why that was relevant unless you wanted to improve the quality of life for people who are driving through the view shed. He said there is no better quality of life than life on a farm right now. He suggested if the reason is to improve the view shed for the public, then let the public pay for it; don't place the burden on the agricultural community. He said do not force agriculture to suffer the financial setback because the County wants to keep everything open and make a nice, pretty county for everyone else. He said there was a need to attempt to control development and some alternatives were mentioned; however, this proposed amendment is going through so quickly, no one has had the opportunity to present the ideas. Mr. Anderson believed this issue was being forced onto the Planning Commission. He said this needs more time for study and input needs to be received from the agriculture community and those who are farming full time and have their life and blood invested in their land. Mr. Henry Buettner, Gainesboro District, thought the proposed ordinance amendments were being pushed through too quickly and there has not been enough time to consider them properly. Mr. Buettner recalled back in 2005, when a group studied the rural areas and came up with proposals. He said those proposals were left inactive and now, all of a sudden, everyone is in a "hurry up" position to enact a very important change that will affect the value of land owned by many individuals, fanners, and their families. Mr. Buettner said these folks should not have to be rushed to make quick decisions to beat an arbitrary deadline. Commenting on the posted deadline, Mr. Buettner said it takes from nine months to a year to get a road ordinance approved and plans drawn by an engineering company and approved by VDOT; it can't be done in six months. He remarked that a person should not have to be pushed to preserve the value of their property; they should be able to do it when they want to and when market conditions make sense. Mr. Buettner stated there have only been 29 lots sold this entire year in the City of Winchester and all of Frederick County, including commercial, farm, small building lot, or five -acre lot. Mr. Buettner thought a mistake would be made if this ordinance change was pushed through; he presumed there was some agenda to get this pushed through quickly. Mr. Buettner presented an idea to the Commission for a 50 to 100 -acre subdivision using five -acre parcels, he said ten -acre tracts were not needed. Mr. Tim Sabin, Back Creek District, stated that his family owns eight acres of land in Star Tannery. Mr. Sabin said he was relieved to hear they would still be able to build on this land; however, he was concerned about the possibility, with the current economic conditions, that he may be unable to build in the near future. He questioned whether he could advertise this land as a buildable lot and secondly, he questioned whether he would even be able to sell it. Mr. Sabin suggested the possibility this change may take away all of his privileges for owning this land. He urged the Commission not to recommend approval of this change. . Ms. Betsy Brumback, property owner in both the Gainesboro and Back Creek Districts, thought a public hearing of this type should be held in a larger facility where everyone in the audience could see the PowerPoint presentation; she said she couldn't see the visual presentation from the back of the room. Ms. Brumback said this audience is largely composed of Frederick County citizens who own a majority of the rural lands that will be affected by the Commission's decision this evening. She said the people in this audience are not land speculators or land developers; she said these people are simply hard - working fanners, farm market owners, hay croppers, timber men, cattle farmers, orchardists, and some with other employmentjust to make ends meet. She said most of these people work 12 -14 hours per day, seven days a week, and are not looking to get rich quick or they would not be in these professions. Ms. Brumback said she was a state - certified real estate appraiser employed by Valley Farm Credit. Ms. Brumback stated that this proposed amendment change will cripple the farm economy; she said without equity, most farmers can't get their loans; they can't get operating lines of credit and maintain their operations. She remarked there may be some farmers who will be bankrupted because of this. Ms. Brumback questioned why the Commission and the Board would discuss or vote on this matter without involving rural experts; she asked why the Farm Bureau wasn't contacted; she said the Farm Bureau is the voice • of agriculture in our area. She asked why a farm lender or a bank was not contacted; she said they are the ones who hold the mortgage secured by the land to be impacted; she asked why environmentalists or green land planners were not contacted. Ms. Brumback predicted the proposed change would cause widespread concern over Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2294 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -14- liquidity, equity, and cause dire financial hardships. • Mr. Greg Hewitt, Stonewall District, agreed with the previous speaker and said the people in the back could not see the visual presentation. Mr. Hewitt said he was opposed to the ordinance change for the same reasons given by previous speakers. He asked the Commission to table this matter so the Board could not take action at their August 13 meeting. Mr. Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District said he did not own a large amount of acreage, but he was fortunate to be able to purchase 3' /z acres in a subdivision this past September. Mr. Aikens believed the mandate for the ten -acre lot size would cause an economic loss in the real estate taxes collected by Frederick County. He said the costs for infrastructure will continue to increase and additional taxes will be needed from the people in the audience. He asked the Commission to recommend denial of the proposed change. Mr. Michael Smith, Vice - President of Valley Proteins, said he represents about four separate districts in the County for land ownership. Mr. Smith wanted to speak with the Commission about alternative fuel. He said his company is heavily involved in alternative fuel and he believed all of the farmers present this evening will have answers to the country's fuel problems and dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Smith was concerned about taking this land out of farming because of the need to acquire additional alternative fuels. He was concerned about putting the farmer out of business, which in turn, takes his company out of business. Mr. Smith believed this matter needed additional discussion and was being pushed through too fast. He asked the Commission to recommend denial of this proposed change. Mr. Steve Zeibarth, Back Creek District, said he purchased a couple hundred acres, which the bank still owes because he is making payments. Mr. Zeibarth said he doesn't plan on subdividing his property; however, he would like to know that he could subdivide, if for unforeseen health issues he needed to sell his land for financial security. Mr. Zcibarth anticipated that after July 1, a property will be worth 40% less. If the property owner implements a conservation easement, he said the landowner is provided with 70 -75% of the appraised value; he estimated tax credits at about 72 cents per dollar, which further reduces the property value to less than half of what it was originally valued. Mr. Zeibarth asked the Commission to recommend denial of this ordinance amendment. Mr. Michael Artz, a surveyor and a landowner in the Gainesboro District, wanted to make several points involving the details of the subdivision amendment proposed. Mr. Ariz recalled a couple years ago, when there were many people involved with the RA Study and it was never quite finished. He said the UDA Study came out after that. He said at the time, there were some good planning practices put into effect and he would like to see the county continue with the process and pick it back up from where the group left off. Mr. Artz remarked that the proposal being considered by the Commission this evening is not the consensus the RA Study group had at the end of their study process. He proceeded to provide the Commission with a few details of what the County might look like in the future, if ten -acre minimum lots are adopted. He said a ten -acre lotmust have a minimum of 250 feet of road frontage, a 2,000 -foot depth is needed to get ten acres, plus a four -to -one ratio cannot be exceeded, which means the lot cannot be more than 1,000 feet deep. Mr. Artz said there were problems existing with these changes which have not been clearly thought through. For example, he said back- dating density does not work. He explained that if ten lots, or half the density, were subdivided off a 100 -acre property back in 1991, today 50 acres are remaining and if the applicant wants to back -date the density to 1991, he has no more land to divide, even though 50 acres remain —the landowner cannot subdivide further. Mr. Artz said another point was the cost of the rural preservation lot subdivision. He said back in May of 2008, the cost for Planning Department fees quadrupled; he said today, a 20 -acre lot divided into a nual preservation lot subdivision would cost about $7,000 in fees to the Planning Department. He said the cost will not change if the density goes • down to two lots instead of four. Mr. Artz said that due to the costs associated with the rural preservation lot subdivision option and the decreased number of lots a landowner will get, he predicted that no one will see 70% rural preservation lot subdivisions in the future; he said there will not be any. He anticipated strictly lcn -acre lot Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2295 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -15- . subdivisions. Mr. Artiz did not think that was the way we wanted our county to look. Mr. ATtz stated there is not a consensus on this matter and the proposals do not truly consider the consequences. Mr. Ross Hewitt, Gainesboro District, remembered when this issue was discussed three years ago, the consensus of the farmers and landowners was that if this change was going to happen, they would take steps to protect their investment. He reasoned that the Board of Supervisors dropped the issue because of the landowners' remarks and their fear of rampant development. Then all of a sudden, three years later, the issue comes back when the market is down. He said something is trying to be pushed through with a deadline that has already passed during bad economic times. Mr. Hewitt expressed his feelings that something didn't feel right and possibly, something under - handed may be taking place. No one else wished to provide any new information and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Chairman Wilmot next asked the Director of the Department of Planning and Development, Mr. Eric Lawrence, to respond to some of the specific issues that were raised. She said after Mr. Lawrence, the Planning Commission will discuss the matter at hand. Mr. Lawrence responded to some of the issues raised by the citizenry. At this point, Commissioners had questions for Mr. Lawrence and discussed the issue with each other. Commissioner Molm said it has been indicated that the Commission is expected to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors this evening. Commissioner Mohn said that by making a recommendation, it seems the Commission would be drifting outside of the noriial process. He asked Mr. • Lawrence if there was any clarification as to why the Commission is bound to provide a recommendation tonight, rather than potentially holding continued deliberations. Mr. Lawrence replied that the Board directed that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and bring their recommendation back to the Board by August 13, 2008; he said a clear date was given on when it was to go back to the Board. Mr. Roderick Williams, County Attorney, stated that Mr. LmATence's explanation was correct. He said on June 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare the proposed ordinance so it could go back before the Board on August 13; the Board followed up on June 25 with a resolution stating they had directed staff to do so and the resolution directs the Commission to conduct a public hearing. Mr. Williams said the Board has indicated it wants the Commission to have this matter back to the Board by August 13, 2008. Mr. Williams clarified the matter by saying that State Law provides for when such matter is referred to the Commission, the default provision under the State Law is the Commission has 100 days within which to act; if it doesn't act within 100 days, it is deemed to be a recommendation for approval by the Commission. However, he said the law goes on to say if the Board directs some other period, that period applies. Furthermore, Mr. Williams said if the Commission does not act in sufficient time to provide a recommendation to the Board by August 13, 2008, under state law it is deemed an automatic recommendation of approval by the Commission. Chairman Wilmot called a five- minute break at 9:45 p.m. Chairman Wilmot reopened the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Commissioner Kriz said the citizen tally was 41 opposed and 1 or 2 in favor; he told the audience they found out about the proposed ordinance change at the same time as the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Commission did not have adequate time to study this. Commissioner Kriz said he had hoped there would have been enough time to reorganize the old RA Study committee. He was totally opposed to the ordinance • change as presented, especially the ten -acre minimum lot; he thought the five -acre minimum lot was too large. Commissioner Kriz suggested clustering and reducing the lot size as small as possible, perhaps 3 /. to one acre in size; he said there is sufficient technology available for septic systems to handle this. Commissioner Kiiz was in Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2296 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -16- favor of the 60% set aside with the smaller lot size. • Commissioner Kerr agreed with many of the points made by Commissioner Kriz, although he was still undecided. Commissioner Kerr said his biggest issue is the speed at which this has been pushed through. He said this change could affect people's livelihoods, some of which run generations deep. He did not think a decision of this magnitude could be made on something that's been studied for only two months. Commissioner Kerr said he would like to see a study conducted, similar to the UDA Study, and receive citizen input He thought the matter should be tabled for at least 12 months. Commissioner Kerr was not in favor of the proposed amendment as presented. Commissioner Mohn agreed with the previous two Commissioners: Commissioner Mohn said that given the significance of this issue, the Commission has been given more time to deliberate a conditional use permit for a kennel; he said this was troubling from a process perspective. He said with this in mind, whatever ordinance comes out of this process, the Commission and Board needs to proceed through a planning process, in order to be valid and equitable for the community. He said the process was engaged a few years ago and the Commission and the Board needs to get that back. He urged the Board to consider the previous effort before taking action on this. He said it would mean going back and revisiting the analysis of the rural areas, what was discovered by the study, what was discovered by the Ad -Hoc group through its deliberations and communications with the community, and from there, policies developed and adopted with input from the community, and finally, adopt the ordinance. Commissioner Mobn said that whatever the outcome of the process, he would feel a lot more comfortable saying he could support it He remarked as it stands right now, the proposal is not anywhere close to being as comprehensive as it needs to be and it certainly doesn't deal with all of the multi- faceted parts of a rural areas community which deserves much more attention than provided by this effort. In addition, he found that, although admirable, trying to link this to the Comprehensive Policy Plan is uncomfortably general in terms of the policies and the goals. He believed the Commission needed to get back to the fundamentals before anything was done. Commissioner Mohn said he could not support this proposed ordinance as it currently exists. Commissioner Ours commended the audience members on coming out this evening to speak. Commissioner Ours said if he had any doubts about voting against this tonight, the citizens' continents have made him 100 %; he said the comments were very well done and it was very important for the Commission to hear this type of feedback. He said the Planning Commission has talked about this issue in the rural areas for a longtime; we've had the study, which is incomplete. Commissioner Ours did not understand why all of a sudden, the Board wants the Commission to make a decision in a short period of time, he said this is a very complex issue and it deserves and needs further study. Commissioner Watt said he took 45 cell phone calls today. Commissioner Watt said he has been on the Planning Commission for seven years, but he has been a farmer his whole life; he said he understood what the citizens are saying. He said his family has been farming for over 60 years in Frederick County and they have never developed a single lot, but at the same time, do not want to give up the right to do so. Commissioner Watt believed this was a straight down zoning with no compensation; there has been no discussion about any compensation to the landowners. He believed this could do more financial damage to farmers than a freeze or a hailstorm. Commissioner Watt said the farmers should not be in fear of the leaders in this County; the community leaders should be available to help the citizens. He said the landowners will have to go out and plat their land in fear of this and future Boards to protect their landowners' rights. He said the terminology, "by- right" needs the spelling changed by adding a "u" in there, because if you want to keep your right, you have to get grandfathered in and "buy" this right. However, if you don't have the money, you're going to lose it. He said a landowner should not have to protect his land by subdividing to protect it against future Boards. Commissioner Watt commented about all the work that has previously been done on this issue; he said other people need to have • input and work through this. Commissioner Watt agreed with many of the points made by Mr. John Marker, a former Planning Commissioner. He agreed that when development occurs in the Rural Areas, impacts are created and landowners should pay the way as developers, but not nearly as much as land in the UDA. Commissioner Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2297 Minutes of July 16, 2008 -17- Watt said he felt this issue was being piece milled; he said the focus is on density and not on roads, septics, or any • other issues. He did not like the idea of being on a time table; he said time was needed to work through this issue. Commissioner Watt remarked that the impact is being inflicted on the wrong group of people; he said the farmers are not the cause of many of these problems. He said many citizens here this evening have no intentions of ever selling their land; they just want to keep farming. He caged the Board of Supervisors to listen to the comments made by the citizens this evening. Commissioner Watt said he could not support this in any shape, way, or form. Chairman Wilmot said she had the pleasure of attending the meeting held at John Marker's farm. She said she came away from the meeting with the thought lhatjust a little more time was needed, because she felt the study group was not that far away. She said while the Chair is really not supposed to express an opinion, she believed this issue was workable and doable. She said the Planning Commission has the responsibility for land use; she was sure there was a way to reach a consensus for everyone. Commissioner Oates agreed the technology was available for using alternative sewage systems; however, the regulations in the State of Virginia must be followed. He said not every piece of property perks. He said as a land surveyor and an engineer, he does many rural preservation subdivisions. He said some properties get the maximum development, some do not get any. He said he did one in Gainesboro that was 148 acres and there was not one perk site on the entire 148 acres. Commissioner Oates preferred more time to study this issue. He said if it was up to the Planning Commission, he would like to see this presented to various stake holders, engineers, developers, and land landowners for input. Commissioner Oates did not agree with any of the deadlines posted; he thought the deadlines needed to be extended by a year or a year- and -a -half. He said that Mr. Buettner was correct when he talked about how long the various reviewing agencies need to respond to a request. Commissioner Oates said he had a subdivision plat that took 13 months just to get through the Health Department. Commissioner Oates believed the ten -acre minimum lot size was ludicrous and a waste of land. He thought even five acres was too large and he suggested a two -acre minimum. Conmrissioner Oates said if this • were approved and a client wanted him to do a survey on 20 acres, he would recommend they do the rural preservation, to subdivide two acres off, and keep the remaining 18 and don't sell half the property. He thought the fee schedule needed to be worked on. He thought there should be some type of compensation for the landowner in the fonu of either TDR or locking appraisal values so the real estate taxes won't be increased. Commissioner Mohn felt it was important to speak about the comments made that the Commission was not concerned with value questions; he said Planning and Zoning, on some level, is fundamentally about preserving value in property and community. He believed this should not be forgotten from a Planning Commission perspective. Commissioner Mohn said the property values of the people in this room and of the entire community are of paramount importance to the Planning Commission and must influence the Commissioners' thought process as we move forward. Commissioner Ambrogi agreed with many of the comments made this evening by the citizens and the other Planning Commissioners. He did not think the Commission could make a recommendation on this proposed amendment in the short amount of time that was provided. He thought the proposal was ill- conceived and the timing a concern. He said since the directive was for a vote up or down, he didn't think the Commission had any choice but to vote it down. Commissioner Unger said he has been studying the proposed amendments and trying to find ways to make it work, possibly with proffers or impact models. He favored the idea of keeping 60% or more open space; he thought some of the regulations needed to be changed and the lot sizes reduced to an acre to keep the farm land intact. However, he said it appears the Board simply wants a yes or no recommendation. He wanted to go on record as preferring to make a motion to table the proposed ordinance amendment; however, this • was not possible because of the directive from the Board of Supervisors. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2298 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article 11, Definitions and Article V, Design Standards. The amendment includes: changes to decrease the permitted lot density from one unit per five acres generally to one unit per ten acres in all of the RA District; to change the general minimum lot size in all of the RA District, except for family division lots and rural preservation lots, from five acres to ten acres; and revisions to the family division and rural preservation subdivision requirements. ADJOURNMENT No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. by a unanimous vote. • • Respectfully submitted, J&� M. Wil ot, Chairman Eric R. cretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2299 Minutes of July 16, 2008