Loading...
PC_04-01-09_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE 0 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick Comity Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 1, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District, Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District, Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. i Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the April 1, 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION — RICHARD C. OURS Chairman Wilmot announced that Commissioner Richard "Rick" Ours, Opequon District Representative, will be leaving the Planning Commission after 14 years of service. A Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Ours from the Planning Commission was read by Commissioner Thomas and presented to Commissioner Ours. Commissioner Ours thanked the Planning Commission and stated how much he had enjoyed working with the Commission and being a part of the process of working with Frederick County. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2444 Minutes of April 1, 2009 -2- • Community Facilities — 03/27/09 Mtg. Conunissioner Kriz reported that the Community Facilities Group is moving ahead on rewriting their portion of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said everyone involved is quite enthusiastic about being able to make contributions. Commissioner Kriz commented that this particular committee is made up primarily of County employees who are a part of the Comprehensive Policy Plan process. Community Area Plans Subcommittee - 03/20/09 Mtg. Conmussioner Mohn said this committee took another look at the Northeast Land Use Plan area maps and the staff is working on the text to accompany those maps. He said the staff is making plans to present the documents to the commwiity in the Spring. Transportation Committee - 3/23/09 Mtg. Conunissioner Kriz reported five items from the Transportation Committee. 1) MPO Transit Study - three of the service alternatives were placed in priority order: first, Comity -wide Demand Response; second, Improve Commuter Services, and third, Corridor Service to Middletown; these were forwarded to the • Board of Supervisors. 2) TIA Standards Update — further interaction with a committee of the Top of Virginia builders is encouraged with the hope of reaching a final resolution soon. 3) Transportation Module Update — to be reviewed annually, Planning Deputy Director - Transportation, John Bishop, will continue working on it, but considering the current state of the economy, it is not the highest priority. 4) The December meeting was moved to December 21, 2009. 5) A resolution was passed encouraging the Board of Supervisors to suggest VDOT relook at their priorities for budget cutting; in particular, the moving of the land development functions from the Edinburg office to the Staunton office. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public continents on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rural Areas Report and Recommendation. Consideration to adopt the report and recommendation of the Rural Areas Subcommittee as a policy component of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. This . policy would apply to the rural areas of the County, and other additional policy directives to: enhance the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2445 Minutes of April 1, 2009 -3- . agricultural economy; preserve the viewshed and rural landscape; preserve the community's rural character; and lessen the demands for County services. Some of the policy directives include the further enhancement of health system requirements and the establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. The recommended policy does not affect the existing residential density rights of property owners. Action — Recommmended Approval Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided some history of the Rural Areas Report and Recontinendation. He reported that in response to increasing development pressures in the Comity's rural areas, which have intensified over the past decade, in July 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee. The subcommittee was charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the county; gathering ideas to address those issues, and, forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lawrence said the subcommittee reviewed State - enabling opportunities to manage rural areas growth; identified those opportunities that were not yet being fully utilized in Frederick County, held various community meetings to gather the citizens' thoughts on the rural areas; and drafted a list of "Preliminary Thoughts" for what the County could do to address the subcommittee's charge. He said that following a presentation of the "Preliminary Thoughts" at a public meeting and digestion of the public continents, the subconnnittee finalized their reconmrendations as the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation Mr. Lawrence stated that the subcommittee offered further consideration regarding the citizen comments received during the "Preliminary Thoughts" public meeting on February 5, 2009. He said particular attention was given to: enabling lot sizes as small as one acre; expanding opportunities to enable community health systems beyond the Rural Community Centers, and maintaining the existing 50% reserve drainfield area • requirement. After discussion, the subconnnittee reaffirmed their support for the minimum two -acre lot size as deemed necessary to accommodate an appropriately -sized health system. This decision also confirmed that the 100% reserve drainfield requirement was appropriate, as it would protect property owners' future needs for relocated drainfields in the event of a primary drainfield failure. Mr. Lawrence said that in terms of interest in expanding opportunities to utilize community health systems throughout the rural areas, the subcommittee firmly believed that such a move would enable development to occur in areas that previously had limited development opportunity because of environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and generally poor soil conditions that are not conducive to private on -site health systems. He said that utilizing community health systems to introduce development in locations that are developmentally challenged, based on existing standards, would be contrary to the subcommittee's charge. Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that on February 19, 2009, the Rural Areas Subcommittee forwarded their findings, the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation and recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider 1) the adoption of the report as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and 2) the implementation of the recontimendations identified in the study. He said on March 11, 2009, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on this proposed policy for the rural areas and to return a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Lawrence presented the report's Executive Summary, as well as the complete Rural Areas Report and Recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Lawrence explained in detail each of the subcommittee's recommendations, which encouraged the County to: 1) Implement enhancements to the existing health system requirements applicable to on -site private residential health systems; 2) Enable the use of Community health systems within defined Rural Community Centers; 3) Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot subdivision requirements; 4) Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program; 5) Pursue state - enabling legislation that would allow the Comity to implement impact fees for new construction, and 6) strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2446 Minutes of April 1, 2009 . Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Lawrence if he had any information on the General Assembly's consideration in July regarding the maintenance of septic systems. Mr. Lawrence replied legislation was adopted stating that as of July 1, 2009, local health departments would have to implement a Maintenance and Operation Program. Mr. Lawrence said local health department representatives have said they are resource challenged and do not have the funds or personnel; they are also waiting for the State to provide direction and rules. He said the RA Subcommittee felt that if the State does not implement the operation and maintenance of health system requirements, then the County should take the initiative to do so. Commissioner Unger said the subcommittee is familiar with the TDRs, but has not gotten far enough into it to know how and where it will work. Commissioner Unger asked if the staff or subcommittee would be continuing work on TDRs in order to encourage people to utilize it when the time is right. Mr. Lawrence said ultimately, if the Board of Supervisors adopts the policy encouraging implementation of a TDR Program, then the staff and subcommittee will have to begin going through the task of writing an ordinance and identifying the sending and receiving areas. Mr. Lawrence explained the sending areas should pick up prime land, environmental land, and areas that should be preserved, while receiving areas should be identified within the Urban Development Area (UDA) on residentially - planned property still zoned agriculture, the new Urban Centers, and within the Rural Community Centers. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was any legislative progress on the impact fees f r housing in rural areas or if this was still within the lobbying stage. Mr. Lawrence said it was discussed last year and it was hoped they would have something together before next year. Conunissioner Thomas said he always liked the Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision concept. He asked if this change would essentially kill that part of the ordinance because of the reduction in density with the rural preservation lot subdivision and it would be easier to • just do five -acre lots again. Mr. Lawrence said he has heard mixed comments on that; he said the staffs perspective is the hope to develop a TDR Program and make it attractive so people will take this route. Commissioner Manuel asked how long it takes a rural land owner to get approved, from the time the staff receives a completed application with conceptual layouts, the survey, and health permits, until he is vested. Mr. Lawrence replied that if all the surveys and approved health certificates are submitted, then the applicant is ready to plat; he said once the property is plated, the applicant is vested. Commissioner Oates stated that under the current ordinance, when a client of his comes in with 20 -30 acres or more, 90% of the time, he can show that client how a Rural Preservation Subdivision is to their advantage. However, under this new concept, going to 60% and doing away with the bonus lot, it's perhaps only 50% of the time he could show them it would be to their advantage. He asked if anything could be done to encourage the cluster Rural Preservation Subdivision, such as pipe stem lots, reducing required road frontage, or something else in the design to shorten the road. Mr. Lawrence said that particular concept was not discussed at the policy level. speak: Chairman Wimot next called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to Mr. John D. Gavitt, Gainesboro District, Board Member of Preserve Frederick, said he was present to speak on behalf of Preserve Frederick. Mr. Gavitt read a statement of support for the recommendations of the Rural Areas Subcommittee from Preserve Frederick to the Planning Conuuission, as follows: • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2447 Minutes of April 1, 2009 -5- "Preserve Frederick would like to offer its strong support to all the recommendations of the Rural Areas Subcommittee, as contained in their report. We would like to focus our statement on one recommendation in particular —a Transfer of • Development Rights (TDR) Program. Without a sustainable and far - reaching program in place, successes in preserving rural lands will remain small and fragmented. At the same time, it is clear that rural landowners should be compensated for giving up their development rights, except where there is a voluntary donation. For this reason, we believe that the most far- reaching initiativerecommended by the subcommittee is to pursue a TDR Program. A properly planned and executed program will hopefully ensure that there will be a sustainable source of income available to pay landowners for giving up their development rights. To make this program attractive both to rural landowners and to developers, we recommend a standardized template for such transfer that is both clear and concise. In other words, a document that will ensure that the transfer of such rights from a `sending' to a `receiving' area can take place in a timely manner, and thus avoid the lengthy bureaucratic process required during the normal application process. `Time is money' to developers and this will create an important incentive for their participation in the program. There may be instances where landowners are not being paid the full appraised value of their development rights and, therefore, they may desire a tax - deductible donation for the unpaid balance. However, this will probably not be possible. Specific IRS requirements exist for a landowner to qualify for tax benefits resulting from a donation of a conservation or agricultural easement. Such requirements include the extinguishment of development tights and the protection of conservation values of the property. Even if the conservation values of a particular property are protected, a transfer of development rights is not an extinguishment and therefore, this particular requirement would not be met. In any case, we strongly recommend that any transfer of development rights be permanent in nature There is little use in creating a vision for the county if important areas are opened up to potential development after a specific period of time. Concerning specific `sending' and `receiving' districts under a TDR program, we would ask that you consider the suggestions made in a December 2 memorandum to the subcommittee from a coalition of conservation organizations in this area, including Preserve Frederick, Potomac Conservancy, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Network, and the Valley Conservation Council. These organizations recommended the creation of two primary • sending districts in Frederick County: The Cedar Creek watershed and the Opequon watershed, which encompass some of the most critical natural and historic resources in Frederick County. Finally, a TDR Program should not eliminate the current Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) initiative in Frederick County. As grants and proffers for PDR become available, those funds should be used to protect important lands that a TDR may not reach. We believe that an appropriate blend of both programs is the best approach. Preserve Frederick would like to take this opportunity to again thank members of the subcormmittee and the Department of Planning and Development for their hard work over the past several months. We believe that these recent positive steps to preserve important rural lands in Frederick County will benefit the quality of life for its future generations whether living in its urban or rural areas." Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, with a family farm in Gainesboro District, thanked the Commission and members of the subcommittee for all their work on this project. Mr. Goode said this is a far superior proposal and approach compared to the draconian proposal offered last year. He said he cannot reconcile the issue, however, about increasing the reserve area to 100 %, while at the same time, being concerned about the use of community health systems. He said the increase in the reserve area to 100% sounds like a significant accomplishment for the environment, but there is no trigger to fix a failing system unless the owner sells his house and the prospective purchaser wants to have the system checked. He said a person could live in the same house for 25-30 years with a failing system the entire time and it's not going to save the environment; on the other hand, the use of community health systems with the appropriate oversight is friendly to the environment. Mr. Goode believed three impacts of rural areas development would be better addressed by the plan if a lower minimum lot size was employed. The three impacts he was referring to were viewshed, agricultural use, and rural character. • He said if development was contained on 20% of the land instead of 40 %, viewshed would be better addressed. Frederick County Planning Conimission Page 2448 Minutes of April 1, 2009 -6- With regard to agricultural use, clustering the houses leaves more agricultural land available and preserves the rural character of our community. He believed a lower minimum lot size was far preferable to the two -acre • minimum. Mr. Good believed Commissioner Thomas had an appropriate concern about the incentives people have; he said if a person is bumping up against the 40% limit and have not achieved their density goal, that person may give more thought to just utilizing the conventional five -acre division. Mr. Good thought the traditional five -acre subdivision has wasted a lot of land in Frederick County over the years; he said he was happy when, in 1991, the Board of Supervisors created the two -acre minimum as opposed to the five -acre minimum. He said it saved a lot of land over the years, he said an even further reduction in the minimum lot size will save even more land in the future. Mr. Good also raised the issue of the concern of the subconunittee that two acres would be needed to accommodate appropriate health systems; this didn't seem right to him when one could use off -site easements or potentially use community health systems in a larger project. He pointed out that if someone wanted to make the lot bigger to accommodate an appropriate health system, they would still have the option to do that. Mr. Good believed people were too limited with the two -acre minimmn as opposed to something less. Mr. Patrick Felling, Red Bud District, was representing the Potomac Conservancy. Mr. Felling commended the Rural Areas Subcommittee for their study of this issue and ways to save the valuable resources within the rural areas. He said the rural areas are important for agricultural production, and they contain watershed resources and other environmental benefits. Mr. Felling said he wanted to speak especially in support of two of the elements of the Rural Area Recommendations: the first, was the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs); he said there is a need to take a look at the resources of Frederick County and decide where the lands are that need to be saved and why, and what the criteria should be. He said the County also needs to decide what areas should be saved in perpetuity and how. Mr. Felling commended the County for taking up this issue and to favorably consider the recommendations provided by the subcommittee. Mr. Felling also commended the County for efforts in the report to promote agriculture, he said this concentrated effort by the County will support this entire effort. Secondly, he spoke about the Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) and thought this option should also be pursued. He said there are opportunities for purchases, as well as for donations, and these will also • help to preserve rural areas and valuable lands. Mr. Felling said it wilt be a challenge to implement these tools well over the neat few years, but he thought it would be worth it in the long term for the economic, agricultural, and environmental benefits to the County. hearing. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the Commissioner Thomas asked about the possibility of incorporating some flexibility in design standards, even possibly a sliding scale on the lot sizes offering a minimmn lot size as low as 1'/2 acres. He thought the county could achieve the same amount of lot density with the Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision as with the five -acre lot subdivision. He suggested, as an example, of allowing the roads to be considered a part of the property, even though the roads would be turned over to the State. He felt there should be some way to look at the design standards, even if it was a 60- 65,000 square -foot minimun lot size, to be able to get a comparable density with a rural subdivision and a five -acre lot, so that one is not more attractive over the other one. Commissioner Thomas believed more farmland could be preserved with rural preservation lots than the traditional five -acre lots. He said he would prefer moving into that direction and for the Board of Supervisors to provide a little flexibility. He cormnented that in some cases, going down to 1' /z acres would not be a bad thing, especially if there is a 100% set aside as a back -up for the sewage systems. Commissioner Mohn agreed with Commissioner Thomas' comments. Commissioner Mohn said the rural preservation lot option is truly the most desirable development option for rural residential development and everything should be done to incentivize that. He believed the biggest part was ensuring that a property owner or developer gets their full density. He said there should be some flexibility, within reason. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2449 Minutes of April 1, 2009 -7— Conunissioner Kriz said he agreed with the comments made by both Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Molm. Commissioner Kriz conunented that research is rapidly moving ahead with septic systems and alternatives and he didn't see the necessity of going to 100% reserve area. He thought the health professionals were being extremely conservative with their comments on the reserve area. Commissioner Kriz was in favor of a smaller lot size. Commissioner Watt recalled the first time this issue came before the Planning Commission in July 16, 2008; he said the room was full of people speaking against the proposal. He said that even though there was good turnout at the subcommittee meetings, he still had concerns about where this issue would end. Commissioner Watt thanked the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Richard Sluckle, and the Board members for giving the residents in the rural areas the chance to make this proposal right. He said it was understood at the beginning of this study that it wasn't going to be possible to make everyone happy, but, everyone tried to do the best they could. Conmussioner Watt corrunended the Planning Department; he said all the meetings were very well attended, participation was good, and whatever was asked of the Planning Department, they had the information that was sought, or by the nest meeting, they had what was requested. He said he was impressed by the way the Plamung Department handled everything. Commissioner Watt said he was pleased overall with the end result. Commissioner Ruckman asked if the TDRs were a permanent transfer or whether it was a temporary condition. Mr. Lawrence said the belief is that it should be permanent; however, this is a policy issue that needs to be decided when developing the ordinance. Mr. Lawrence said as the process goes through ordinance development, the answer to that question can be determined. Commissioner Unger said the subconanuttee had considerable discussion on smaller lots and it • was not something that was pushed aside. He said he was in favor of smaller lots and he is still not against it, however, when the health department professionals advised a minimum of two acres to make drainfields work, it greatly influenced the subcommittee's recommendation. Commissioner Manuel said he hoped the county could find away tohelp community centers that have failing health systems, such as Round Hill, Reliance, and Gainesboro. Corrunissioner Kriz asked the staff to emphasize the Commission's points regarding the septic systems and smaller lot sizes when making the presentation to the Board. Commissioner Ours made a motion to reconmrend approval of the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations This motion was seconded by Conunissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy component of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. This policy would apply to the rural areas of the County, and other additional policy directives to: enhance the agricultural economy; preserve the viewshed and rural landscape; preserve the community's rural character; and lessen the demands for County services. Some of the policy directives include the further enhancement of health system requirements and the establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. The recommended policy does not affect the existing residential density rights of property owners. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2450 Minutes of April 1, 2009 am i ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting ad}oumed at 9:07 p.m. by a unanimous vote. I t Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2451 Minutes of April 1, 2009 Respectfully submitted,