PC_04-02-03_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
I
• OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on April 2, 2003.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/ Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas,Vice
Chairman / Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat
Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee
District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard Schickle, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11; and,
Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
E
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 5, 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
minutes of February 5, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 03/27/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported considerable discussion atthe DRRS meeting concerning the
family division provisions in the ordinance; in particular, refiningthe requirements and the definition of "family
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1044
2-
members." He said the DRRS will be continuing work on this topic.
•
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 405 -03 of Martin L. Monk for a Cottage Occupation for Sales of Outdoor Furnace
Units. The property is located at 1599 H ites Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 84 -A-
74 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Rebecca Ragsdale stated that the applicant's proposed cottage occupation would
involve the sale of outdoor wood - burning furnaces and the use ofan existing barn to store several furnace units.
Planner Ragsdale stated that only one employee would be associated with the proposed business, the applicant's
businesspartner. She said sales would be conducted on an appointment-only basis. Planner Ragsdale reported
no disapproving agency review comments.
The applicant, Mr. Martin Monk, said that one furnace unit is in operation to heat his home
and this would be his demonstration model. Mr. Monk said he plans to have only three units in stock, unless
of a special order. He added that he was comfortable with all of the conditions recommended by the staff.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
40 Based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed cottage occupation, the Commission
believed the use would not detract from the rural character of the area.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Gouchenour,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 405 -03 of Martin L. Monk fora Cottage Occupation for Sales Of Outdoor
Furnace Units at 1599 Hites Road with the following conditions:
All review agency continents shall be complied with at all times
2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and should not
exceed four (4) square feet in size.
J. Any change of use or expansion of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
4. The number of customers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) per week.
( Please Note Commissioner Morris abstained from voting, due to his late arrival, and Commissioner Watt was
absent from the meeting.)
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1045
-3-
•
Request of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. to remove one parcel totaling 149.06 acres from the South
Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The parcel is identified as Property Identification Number
74 -A -13, located along Marlboro Road (Route 631), in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that the Planning Staff has received a request from
Mrs Kent Barley of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. for the removal ofone 149.06 -acre parcel, identified as P.I.N.
74- A- 13,from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Planner Kennedy stated thatthe Barleys
have identified a need to have the flexibility to pursue other options for this acreage, however, they do not
intend to entirely leave the apple industry.
Planner Kennedy said that on March 6, 2003, the Agricultural District Advisory Board
(ADAB) recognized the hardships in the current agriculture economy and the ADAB unanimously
recommended thatthe parcel be removed from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District per Mr.
Barley's request.
The applicant, Mr. Kent Barley of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc, stated that this section of his
apple orchard is old and would be too expensive to replace. Mr. Barley explained that the apple industry is
suffering and he would not be able to profit on the investment it would take to replace the old section of his
orchard. Fie said that he will continue to operate the younger sections of his orchard.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mr. Paul Anderson, an adjoining farm owner, stated that he was one of five people to help
form the Agricultural District and he was in favor of Mr. Barley's request. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr.
Bar «ley is only trying to maxim ize his opportunities by taking advantage of leaving the Agricultural District now
instead of waiting for his term to come up for renewal.
Members ofthe Planning Commission recognized the hardships with the currentag'riculture
economy and supported the recommendation of the Agricultural District Advisory Committee.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, Thatthe Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval ofthe request from Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. to remove one parcel totaling 149.06 acres from the
South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. This parcel is identified as Property Identification Number
74 -A -13 and is located along Marlboro Road (Route 631) in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
I' 1
I�
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1046
4-
•
Rezoning 405-03 of Custer Estates, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 281.5 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The properties are located approximately one mile east
of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road
(Rt. 655) and The Ravens development, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 64 -A-
82; 64 -A -83; 64- A -83A; 64 -A -86; 64 -A -87; 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Denial
Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, reported that this application is a request
to rezone six parcels, comprising 281.5 acres of RA-zoned property, to RP District forthe development of400
single - family detached residences with 72 acres of land dedicated for public uses. Deputy Director Mohn read
the background information and the Planning Staff's review and issues. He said that all of the reviewing
agencies offered positive comments except for the Airport Authority, which has expressed objection to
residential land uses on the subjectsite and passed a resolution in November of2002 formalizing their position.
Deputy Director Mohn continued, stating that proffers include the comm itmentto three phases
of development over the course of five years with 80 homes projected per year; a transportation improvement
program with an internal collector road, bicycle lanes, and trail system; a projected Level of Service (LOS) "C"
for both internal and external roads; the dedication ofa 50 -acre site for public school uses; and approximately
20 acres for miscellaneous public services uses.
In conclusion, Deputy Director Mohn stated thatthe Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically
addresses the planned land uses for the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Rt. 50 East
Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. Henotedthatthese policies uniformlyrecommendthe
establishment of non - residential land uses on the parcels. Deputy Director Mohn stated that the requested
rezoning is, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Mr. Benjamin Butler, the attorney representing the applicant, Taylor- Grace, the contract
purchaser from the Richard G. and Donna C. Dick family, the Gregory L. Coverstone family, and the Carpets
Valley Golf Club, L.P., came forward to speak. Mr. Butler said that Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway
Engineering, Mr. Tom Dick, an airport consultant, and he were available to present he rezoning application
tothecommission. First, Mr. Butler gave a brief history of the events, including meetings and work sessions,
that brought this project to the Commission at this point in time. Mr. Butler proceeded to address the three
issues that have been raised with this rezoning request: whether the use was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; the suitability of the land for the use requested; and compatibility of the plan with the airport.
Mr.Butler's interpretation of the Comprehensive Policy Plan was that residential development
Should be "limited," not "prohibited,' around the airport and this could be achieved through aviation easements,
height restrictions, and noise attenuation. He believed thedesign of the proposed development allowed it to be
compatible with airport. Mr. Butler believed the airport's primary concern was noise and the airport's fear
thai noise complaints would cause the FAA to curtail funding. Mr. Butler argued that commercial property
in this area of the County is not marketable and he gave various reasons why he believed th is was so. Hestated
that 57% of the commercially -zoned acreage in the Rt. 50 East study area has not been developed and 75%
of the B2 -zoned land east of Delco Plaza has not been developed commercially.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1047
- 5 -
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, the design engineering firm for the project,
• presented the project scope and he reviewed all of the proffers, in particular, the redesigned elements that
occurred since the Planning Commissions joint work session. Mr. Wyatt said the issues expressed by airport
representatives concerning future airport development were taken into consideration with their redesigned plan
and he explained hoxv this plan was compatible with FAA guidelines. He pointed Out that only the section of
property donated to the county as public service land will be slightly encroached by the airport's safety line.
Mr. Wyatt said that during their research regarding airport protection, they referenced Loudoun County's
Ordinance, which the FAA considerstobea "model ordinance" with regardstoairport protection, and notonly
do they meet the criteria suggested, but it is exceeded. He next mentioned their intent to place a disclosure in
the Deeds of Dedication and sales literature, and he described their intent to provide aviation easements over
the entire acreage in residential land use.
Mr. Wyatt next reviewed the proposed transportation improvements, noting that the proposed
improvements w i l l raise the Level of Service above current conditions; he pointed out the site's northern access,
which will be a cross intersection point with Sulphur Springs Road and Rt. 50; and, he also pointed Cut the area
they wish to donate to the County for a potential school site.
Mr. Thomas Dick, the applicants' consultant forairport- related issues, commented on recent
airport accidents that occurred in the vicinity ofthe Leesburg airport and he compared where those same type
of accidents might occur in the vicinity of the Winchester Regional Airport. He stated that when accidents
occur, they are usually in a direct line approach towards the runway. Mr. Dick believed this helped to
substantiate the factihat when accidents occur, the residents ofthe proposed Custer Estates would be no more
at risk than any other nearby existing development.
Mr. Mark Flynn, Counsel to the Airport Authority, came forward to express the Airport
Authority's position that a residential and school project adjacent to the airport will create problems for the
airport regarding noise, safety, and future growth. He believed it would be safer to have commercial
development around the airport, ratherthan residential, because commercial development would notbe as high
density as residential developmentonare gularbasis. Mr. Flynn broughttheConnnission 'sattentiontoaletter
ofopposition tothe proposed rezoning from the State DeparturientofAviation, dated April 2, 200 Heargued
that if the property is rezoned to high - density residential, the FAA will not fund the purchase of additional
property for the airport; he explained that any future growth by the airport will take place on the proposed
project's side of the runway. Mr. Flynn believed the rezoning request was inconsistent with the County's
Comprehensive Policy Plan and he read excerpts from the Plan which, he believed, discouraged residential
development in an Airport Support Area.
Mr. John Longacre with Delta Airport Consultants, an engineering eonsultan r tfo the airport,
came forward to talk about the increased impact of airport noise on the surrounding community as demands
on the airport increase over the years. He said that the impact of noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel
particles may create a quality of life issue for the surrounding residential community.
Mr. Franklyn Sul iveres, a community resident and representative for tile Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA), read a letter to the Commission from the AOPA, dated April I, 2003, which
detailed the reasons for AOPA's opposition tothe Custer Estates rezoning application. Thosereasonsincluded
noise, safety, compatibility, and inconsistency with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Suliveres
said that residential encroachment of airports is the first step in a slow strangulation and ultimate closure of
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 1048
Minutes of April 2, 2003
-6-
affected airports. He believed the County had an obligation to the airport to prevent future problems from
developing.
Mr. Duke Stanton, the Commander ofthe Winchester Composite Squadron of the Civil Air
Patrol, believed the Airport Authority had valid issues concerning the compatibilitvofresidential development
around the airport and he was opposed to the rezoning. He knew of situations where airports were closed
because of encroaching residential development.
Mr. Rick Miller, the PGA Golf Professional at Carpers Valley Golf Club. came forward to
speak in favor ofthe proposed rezoning. Mr. M iIler brought the Commission's attention to the three and four -
story apartments on Dufflick Road, built within the last few years. the Ravensand Pioneer Heights residential
developments, the Sleep Inn, the Travel Lodge, and the Marriott, currently under construction, and all in close
proximitytothe landing and take-offzoneofthe airport runway. He saw no reason whythissubdivisioncould
not be compatible with the airport as well.
Mr. Paul Anderson, a veteran pilot, said he has been involved with the airport in various roles
since he was a teenager. Mr. Anderson said he served as Frederick County's representative on the Airport
Commission; he also served with the Airport Authority and, for a number ofyears, he was the chairman for
both boards. Mr. Anderson told the Commission he was involved with the development of the Airport
Protection Zone and he described the zone's boundaries. He said the Airport Protection Zone was created to
protect the airport from encroachment of non - compatible development, which is primarily residential. He
explained that the FAA recognizes that Frederick County has a five -acre lot or two -acre rule ordinance
subdivision and this density would not affect funding to the airport. However, he explained that the FAA
expectsthe Airport Authorityand the local jurisdictiontoprotecttheinvestntentofthe airport and ifthelocal
jurisdiction does not protect that investment, the FAA will not contribute funding. Mr. Anderson stated that
from 1987 to 2002. over 18 million dollars has been invested in the airport, which is a considerable amount
of money invested towards future economic development in Winchester and Frederick County.
Mr. Whitney Wagner, 251 Tyler Drive in Clearbrook, a partner and manager of Prince
Frederick Group, L.C.. the lessor to the Corps of Engineers, came forward to speak in favor of the proposed
rezoning. Mr. Wagner said the Corps of Engineers' building adjoins the subject property on the west and north
and they were in favor of the rezoning primarily for security reasons. He said they are in the process of
installing it high- security fence and the applicants have proffered a 100 -foot setback on the east side, where a
clear area is needed for their surveillance cameras. He said the proposed public safety building would be a
great asset to them because it would provide regular security oversight of their property. In addition, Mr.
Wagner said they have also been diliQently working_ with the applicant on the location of an entrance road for
the Corps' building.
Mr. Walt Cunningham, a resident on Greenwood Road, stated that he has been a responder
at Greenwood Fire Company for 30 years and dtfrine that time, has responded to a number of severe accidents
at Sulphur Springs Road and Rt. 50; he was encouraged to know that a traffic signal was planned for this
intersection. In addition, he believed the connector road from Senseny Road across to the Ravens subdivision
would greatly improve safety. Mr. Cunningham believed the Winchester Regional Airport was one ofthe safest
and best- managed airports on the east coast. For these reasons, Mr. Cunningham was in favor oftherezoning.
r1
L_J
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1049
7-
Mr. Ervin Shendow, a Winchester City residentand 6,000 -hour pilot, said he has Flown at the
Winchester Airport since 1958 and owns a twin - engine aircraft that he uses for business and pleasure. Mr.
Shendow said he did not want to speak in favor or opposition to the rezoning petition, however, he did describe
the increasing amount of air traffic at the airport and the amount of caution required by pilots during take -off
andlanding. Mr. Shendow said that ifa mid-aircollision occurs, lie believed it would more than likely happen
in the area directly over the proposed residential project.
Mr. AI Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Frederick County Schools,
focused hiscommentsentirelyontheprofferforthe public school site. Mr. Orndorff said that geographically,
this site is located between two schools, one exceeding 100% capacity and the other exceed in_ 90% capacity.
From that respect, he believed the proposed school site was in a favorable location. He also agreed with
previous comments that the signalization at Sulphur Springs Road and re -al ignment ofthe intersection would
improve transportation safety, whether the school went there or not.
Mr. Manuel Sempeles, resident of StonewaI I District, spoke in favor ofthe proposed rezoning
because of the proffers offered by the applicant.
. Ms. Ann Coverstone, wife ofone of tile property owners of the proJect, stated that tile A i rpori
Authority continues to talk about expansion, however, no documented future plan for airport expansion exists.
Ms. Coverstone stated that she didn't think the runways could be made longer at the airport to accept bigger
aircraft. With regard to safety, she commented that airplanes fly low over the Apple Blossom Mall and with
regard to noise, she said they are bothered more by the noise from the Winchester Speedway and trucks on 1 -81
than they are from airport noise.
Commissioner Thomas asked the representatives ofthe Airport Authority ifthey had a master
planfortheairport 'sfuttiredevelopntent. Mr. Mark Flynn, Counselforthe Airport Authority, replied that they
have a very preliminary plan with possible location footprints for large hangars on the north side. Mr. Flynn
said thatdevelopmentofan Airport Master Plan has been incorporated into theirJuly 1, 2003 budget, however,
the,process requires involvement by the FAA and the Department of Aviation.
The Executive Director of the Winchester Airport, Ms. Renny Manuel, said the airport's
existing master plan was updated in 1993 for 20 -year development, and basically, concentrated on the south
side oftherunway. She said that beginning with the July 1, 2003 Budget Year, money has been appropriated
to begin the masterplan fordevelopmenton the north side ofthe runway, because they have outgrown the south
side. Ms. Manuel stated that the airport was not asking the County to protect any additional areas outside of
those areas already Outlined in the Coin prehen s ive Policy Plan. She said the Airport Support Area boundaries
were agreed upon jointly by the airport, the Planning Department, and Frederick County in the early 1990's,
after the development of Preston Place, in order to avoid safety issues or noise complaints.
There next ensued some discussion between the Conlin issioners and Ms. Mail uelOil specific
funding requirements ofthe FAA and the consequences ofhigh- density residential developmentadjacent to the
airport. Ms. Manuel explained that the FAA has stated that if the Airport Authority doesn't try to protect the
airport, by working through the localjurisdiction's zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the FAA will
not participate in acquiring property forthe airport in tile future. She said the key was "new" residential zoning
Which would increase the density.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1050
8-
'File Airport Authority's Counsel, Mr. Mark Flynn, added that the airport cannot provide for
big aircraft on the south side of the runway; he said the only place it can be done is on the north side. Mr.
Flynn said that comments from the FAA and the Department of Aviation have alluded to the fact that this
development will likely have an impact on funding for those future projects.
All the citizens present had an opportun ity to speak and, therefore, Chairman DeHaven closed
the public comment section of the netting.
Mr. Tom Dick, the appi icants' airport consultant, returned to the podium for rebuttal. He said
that their research indicated that both the Newport News Airport and the Leesburg Airport had no funding
curtailments by the FAA because of residential development around those airports.
Commissioner Thomas suggested the placement of a berm between the houses and the apron
area and orienting homes so that windows don't face the airport area to help mitigate sound. Mr. Wyatt said
their discussions with the airport have included berms, low -level vegetative planting, and sound attenuation for
residential structures. Comm issioner Thomas said lie expected to see greaterdetail within tile proffers towards
sound attenuation, especially for homes located within a couple thousand feet of the apron or runway,
specifically, triple -pane glass, six -inch studding, additional insulation in the roof, all ofwhich would go a long
way to reduce the dissatisfaction of the homeowners.
Commissioners Straub and Gochenour were opposed to the rezoning for safety issues.
Commissioner Rosenberry expressed his opposition to the rezoning because Of the position
held bythe W inchesterAirport, the Virginia Department ofAviation, the Federal Aviation Authority, individual
pilots, and the Civil Air Patrol. In addition he believed it would require an exceptions to the Comprehensive
Plan.
All in all, Commissioner Morris believed the proposal was very good and he agreed that B2
was probably not the best use of land in this area. However, Commissioner Morris noted that he has
vigorously defended the Comprehensive Plan in the past and would continue to do so.
Coin nissioner Thomas believed the proposal presented was an excellentone and theapplicant
had covered many important issues. He said that he was disappointed in the presentation from the Airport
Authority because a master plan for future airport expansion had not been submitted. Commissioner Thomas
believed the Airport needed to show valid reasons whythe Commission should not support what the developer
is proposing.
Commissioner Ours was disappointed that more guidance didn'tcome out oft lie work session
that was held with the Board of' Supervisors last August.
Commissioner Fisher expressed two issues which influenced his opposition to the proposed
rezoning: The first was the economic development status of the conununity and the airport's integral role in
economic development, and, second, was the fact that the proposal was not in keeping with the Comprehensive
Policy Plan in the protection of the airport area. Commissioner Fisher commented about the considerable
investment already made by Frederick County and the City of Winchester into the airport facility to draw
economic interests to our area. He said that during budget preparations, the County Administrator raised
issues of business stagnation and sales taxes, which he believed was the result of the lack of industrial and
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1051
9-
business growth in our region. Commissioner Fisher believed that if the airport is lost as an economic
development asset, especially with the tremendous investment that has already been made, it would be a
detriment to the community. He also stressed that the Comprehensive Plan has always been the guiding tool
of the Planning Commission, especially in light of adversarial comments and pressure.
Chairman DeHaven believed the applicants had done an outstanding job and had made
tremendous effort to cooperate and address issues with airport. Chairman DeHaven advised, however, that the
Commission separate its consideration of Comprehensive Plan issues from specific development application
issues.
Commissioner Thomas nest moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger, but was defeated by the following vote:
YES (TO APPROVE) "fhomas, Unger
NO: Rosenberry, Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Light, DeHaven
A motion was next made byCorriniissioner Morris to recommend denial of the rezoning. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Fisher and passed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO DENY) Straub. Gochenour. Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven
NO: Unger, Thomas
0 (Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the
Commission unanimously agreed to make the letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Aviation a part of the official record.
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V111,
Section 165 -77 D (2)(d), Existing Lots, which addresses the ability to reduce yard setbacks in the R5
District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the proposed revision would give the Zonin
Administrator the ability to allow reduced yard setbacks on all existing lots within the R5 (Residential
Recreational Community) Zoning District. He said the language in the zoning ordinance only allows the
Zoning Administratorthe ability to do this for existing lots ofage- restricted communities, garden apartments,
and townhouses. Planner Camp stated that both the staff and the Development Review and Regulations
L J
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1052
10-
Subcommittee (DRRS) believe that the structure of the ordinance was mistakenly changed in the Year 2000
when the County revised the regulations in the R5 District. He explained that the present ordinance was never
intended to apply to j ust these residential types: therefore, the proposed text amendment is an attempt to correct
this error within the ordinance. In addition, Planner Catnp said the proposed amendment clarifies when it is
appropriate to allow reduced yard setbacks and how much of a reduction can be granted.
There were no citizen comments regarding this proposed amendment.
The PlanningCommission believed the amendment was appropriate and no issues were raised.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz.
BE IT RESOLV ED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article
VIII, Section 165 -77 B(2)(d). Existing Lots, which addresses the ability to reduce yard setbacks in the R5
District.
(Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to add SIC 83-
Social Services, excluding SIC 836 - Residential Care, to the list of allowed uses for the B2 (Business,
General) Zoning District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a request by a local resident to add Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
83- Social Services to the list of allowed uses in the B2 (Business General) District and the MS (Medical
Support) District. Planner Camp stated that after review and discussion, the DRRS believed all ofthe uses
within SIC 83- Social Services, excluding those listed under SIC 836 - Residential Care, would be appropriate
uses within the B2 Zoning District. He reported that the DRRS did not support adding these uses to the MS
(Medical Support) Zoning District.
There were no citizen comments.
The Plannine Commission believed the amendment was appropriate and no issues were raised.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to add
SIC 83- Social Services, excluding SIC 836 - Residential Care, to the list of allowed uses for the B2 (Business,
General) Zoning District.
E
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1053
(Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
is
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV,
Section 165 -27.E (11), Parking Lots, Landscaping; Section 165 -31, Protection of Environmental
Features; Section 165-36, Landscaping; and Article XXII, Section t65456, Definitions.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) has prepared proposed revisions to Section 165 -27.E, 165 -31, 165 -36, and 165 -156
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance which will replace the current woodland regulations with new
landscapingstandards. Planner Camp explained that the primarygoals the amendments are intended toachieve
are: 1) to eliminate the need for future woodland disturbance waivers without jeopardizing environmental
preservation; 2)to improve the landscaping standards of Frederick County; and 3) to create a conciseordinance
that encourages creative development practices. He noted that the amendments were prepared by the DRRS
over a period of several months with input from local citizens, businesses, and organizations. Planner Camp
advised the Commission that only minor changes have been made to the proposed amendments since staff
presented them to the Planning Commission on December 18, 2002.
Commissioners Rosenberry and Gouchenour were concerned about the possibility that the
proposed amendment would disturb a greater amount of existing trees than whatthe ordinance currently allows.
Planner Camp explained that although the percentage is lower under the proposed ordinance,
there will actually be more woodlands preserved in most cases. Planner Camp stated that the 75 %, under the
current ordinance. is based on areas of existing woodlands only; whereas, the 25 %, under the proposed
ordinance, is based on the total area ofa parcel. Planner-Camp said that underthe current ordinance, preserved
areas are not fully protected because they are typically disturbed during the construction process. Under the
proposed ordinance, however, the key is the preserved areas will be placed in open space instead of individual
building lots. He added that the proposed ordinance does not encourage clear - cutting of trees as the current
ordinance does. Planner Camp further added that trees will be required to be added on parcels where there are
no existing woodlands.
Chairman DeHaven inquired about the reason for requesting the 2 1/2 -inch caliperon street
tree landscapin as opposed to the two -inch required in other areas of the ordinance. Planner Camp replied
that it was a measure to balance out the cost factor between the two options ofeither replanting street trees or
doing ornamental landscaping. He said the DRRS didn't want everyone to choose only one specific type of
replanting because of the cost factor.
']'here were no public comments.
The Commission believed the DRRS had done an outstand in job developing this ordinance.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
U
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1054
12-
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County PlanningCommission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval ofthe proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ord inancc, Article
IV. Section 165-27.E( I I), ParkinQ Lots, Landscaping; Section 165 -3 I, Protection of Environmental Features:
Section 165 -36, Landscaping; and Article XXIL Section 165 -156, Definitions.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by a
unanimous vote.
Res pect fo I lyAubm fitted,
Charles S. Del-laven, Jr., Chairman
•
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1055