Loading...
PC_04-02-80_Meeting_MinutesI. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 4/2/80 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman; Elmer Venskoske; W. French Kirk; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Herbert Sluder CALL TO ORDER The Chairman of business, the consi noted that the date in There being no further minutes be approved as unanimously. called the meeting to order. The first order Jeration of the minutes of 3/11/80. Mr. Golladay these minutes should be 3/11/80 not 3/12/80. corrections, Mr. Golladay made 'a motion that the corrected. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed BIMONTHLY REPORT In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley acknowledged that the miscellaneous category was a catchall for things such as accessory buildings. Mr. Riley also explained that the Buckley and Lages site plan amendment was for an out - building for storage. The Bimonthly Report was then accepted as information only. DISCUSSION OF JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD FOR REZONING WORKSESSION Mr. Riley stated that it is the County Administrator's desire to reserve the first meeting of each month for public hearings and the second meeting of the month to be a worksession. Mr. Riley noted that Mr. White had set a date of May 28, 1980 as a tentative date for this joint worksession. Chairman Gordon expressed that the Planning Commission felt this rezoning worksession warrants a special meeting of the Board of Supervisors, with nothing else on their agenda. Chairman Gordon next requested that this meeting be scheduled as soon as possible and that this meeting be a special meeting. Mr. Brumback suggested that, if the Board's.Wednesday night agendas are filled,,:perhaps this could be scheduled for a Tuesday night. im Planning Commission Minutes -2 4/2/80 DISCUSSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS Mr. Riley explained that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of 3/26/80 discussed the site plan approval process and parking and loading requirements. Mr. Riley further explained that it is the Board's feeling on site plan approval that the Planning Commission or its authorized agent be the final approving authority for site plan development plans. The justification for this action, Mr. Riley continued, is based on recent litigations regarding Board involvement in the Site Plan approval process. Mr. Riley also noted that the Board would like to be notified of the actions taking place in their respective districts, so they will be aware before construction begins. Mr. Riley noted that an appeal process could be built into the procedure that if an applicant was not happy with the decision of the Planning Commission, he could come before the Board of Supervisors. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question regarding action on the Subdivision question, Mr. Riley explained that the Board requested that no action be taken in this area until the outcome is resolved on an active case. After some discussion on the possibility of changing the site plan approval process along with the subdivision approval process, Mr. Brumback suggested that the Planning Commission draft the ordinance amendment change for the site plan section now and get it to public hearing. After acknowledging that all planning commissioners are in agreement, Chairman Gordon directed the staff to proceed with the drafting and advertising for public hearing of the ordinance amendment that would give final approval responsibilities to the Planning Commission for site plans. In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Riley explained that there are circumstances that exempt certain activities from coming before the 959 Planning Commission Minutes -3- 4/2/80 Planning Commission, but rather administratively approved by the agent. Mr. Riley explained that those exceptions are site of two acres or less in size and relate to such things as church buildings and buildings for publid assembly more than likely in an agricultural zone. Mr. Stiles stated he felt it should be drafted that all site plans come before the Planning Commission for approval to eliminate the gray area. Mr. Golladay added that, if the applicant did not like the decision, it could go to the Board at the next meeting. DISCUSSION OF PARKING AND LOADING.REQUIREMENTS Mr. Riley explained that the Board of Supervisors were in agreement that a change is justified and needed and in favor of going ahead with advertising and amendment change. Chairman Gordon then directed staff to follow through and prepare the amendment change for public hearing. DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATION AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Mr. Riley explained that the proposal for the definition of Home Occupation Accessory Structure. (Agricultural) has been developed. Mr. Riley explained that if a permit filed can meet the requirements stated they may apply for a conditional use permit to operate. Mr. Riley also explained that home occupation accessory structure would be deleted from all residential areas and be allowed in accessory structures in an agricultural zone provided they can meet the definition requirements. Mr. Riley noted that also in the definition the words Antique Shops and Boarding and Rooming Houses should be eliminated. '.1 Planning Commission Minutes -4- 4/2/80 Mr. Stiles asked how a determination:would be made regarding a predominantly residential nature area. Mr. Riley noted that an on -site inspection would have to be made. Mr. Stiles further questioned if this would eliminate a home occupation in an accessory structure in an area like Brucetown or Gore. Mr. Riley noted that it would. Mr. Stiles suggested that perhaps this could be dealt__ with under the requirement of not adversely effecting neighboring properties. Mr. Horne suggested that this could be tied to a density per acre or distance to another structure. Mr. Golladay then asked, under the conditional use process, would it not be approved or disapproved on the basis of the area it is in. Mr. Riley acknowledged that an area more residential in nature could have more restrictions placed on it than a predominantly agricultural area under the conditional use permit process. Mr. Riley added that the proposed use would be a determining factor also, Mr. Brumback noted that policing might be the problem, Mr. Golladay noted that he would much rather let the neighbors police something of this nature. Mr. Riley confirmed that all complaints received are investigated. Mr. Stiles stated that in -house home occupations will still be allowed with a conditional use permit in residential zones, Chairman Gordon acknowledged that this was so. Mr. Stiles made a motion that "a)" of the proposed amendment change be deleted and that the secretary be authorized to advertise the proposed amendment change otherwise as written. This was seconded by 961 Planning Commission Minutes -5- Mr. Golladay and passed as follows: 4/2/80 Yes - Messrs. Golladay, DeHaven, Kirk, Venskoske, Gordon, Stiles No - Mr. Brumback BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick does by_a majority vote hereby eliminate "a)" of the proposed ordinance amendment change and further direct the secretary of the Commission to prepare the ordinance amendment and advertise it for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION H. C. Gabler, Inc. H. C. Gabler, Inc., 1 Lot, Back Creek Magisterial District.3.6 acres. ACTION - Unanimously Recommend Approval Mr. Riley first gave background information. Mr. Bob Mitchell came forward and introduced himself to the Commission as representing H. C. Gabler, Mr. Mitchell explained that both a representative from H. C. Gabler and Roadway Express are present to answer any questions from the Commission. Mr. Mitchell further explained that this is a request to subdivide 3.6 acres from a 10 -11 acre tract. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley noted that this parcel is zoned M -2 with a small section of B -2. Mr. Stiles questioned if the entire lot would have to be zoned M -2 in order for an M -2 use to take place. Chairman Gordon noted that this question could be considered under the conditional use permit petition request, Mr. Brumback made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this subdivision request to the Board of Supervisors. This was seconded by Mr. Venskoske and passed unanimously. 962 Planning Commission Minutes -6- 4/2/80 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick does hereby recommend unanimously the approval of the H. C. Gabler Subdivision to the Board of Supervisors. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Roadway Express, Inc., No. 002 -80, for a freight terminal, Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - Recommend Denial Mr. Riley first gave background information and pointed out the area in question on a visual aide. Mr. Pangle, Department of Public Works, noted that sto=-water management and entrance requirements could be addressed on a site plan Mr. Sluder of the Health Department explained that the drainfield size would be the size of a normal household or somewhat less with water saving devices. Mr. Bob Mitche ll,attorney came forward and introduced Mr. Peter Love, real estate counsel for Roadway Express and Mr. Randy Cree, terminal manager for Roadway Express. Mr. Mitchell then explained that this property is zoned M -2 and that the Frederick County Ordinance states that the priciple use of land in this zone is for Heavy Commercial and Industrial Operations which may create some nuisance. Mr. Mitchell stated that the use proposed by Roadway Express fits within the guidelines of the intent section of the Ordinance and is specifically listed as a permitted use in this zone. Mr. Mitchell explained that it would be a truck transfer ter - minal.for reloading trucks from Hagerstown for distribution in the local area.and, likewise, the picking up of frieght. Mr. Mitchell noted that this will not be a storage facility or warehouse.and will have 10 round truck trips per day. There will be only limited truck traffic on Saturday and they are closed on Sunday, continued Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell further explained that the terminal office generally opens at 6 a.m, until 8:30 p.m. 963 Planning Commission Minutes -7- 4/2/80 and there are currently seven employees, with a maximum in the future of fifteen employees. Mr. Mitchell stated that the building will be 3600 sq. ft. or 5.7% of the lot area.and there will be no structure planned for the B -2 zoning of the lot. Mr. Mitchell noted that things such as drainage, landscaping, etc. will need to be addressed on the site plan. Mr. Mitchell next explained the drainage collection areas and noted that all the drainage on the site will be to the front areas.for collection. Mr. Mitchell noted that staff recommended requirements on screening and lighting will be provided for. Mr. Brumback questioned what, if any, future expansion is anticipated. Mr. Love stated that the building could be expanded another 3600 sq. ft. and at that point could sustaining fourteen employees at that point and 15 -18 tractor trailers. Mr. Love noted that in five years there could be as many as fifteen trips per day.at this site. In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Love explained that 3/4 of the lot would be paved and explained that this is why there are two retention ponds. Mr. Love also noted that on this lot the maximum expansion would be 7200 sq. ft. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Love explained that the retention ponds were based on a 100 year flood. Mr. Horne reported that Mr. Joe Harder wanted his support.voiced for this application. Chairman Gordon next called for any one in opposition wishing to speak. Mr. Rodney McCauley first came forward and introduced himself to the Commission, noting that he lived on the north side of Shawnee Drive 964 Planning Commission Minutes -8- and had been a resident for 35 years 4/2/80 Mr. McCauley noted his main concern is the drainage since there has been flooding in the past and the drain under the road will not handle it. Mr. McCauley stated that the people there have their lives invested in their homes and cannot be moved out or flooded out. Mr. McCauley also noted concerns regarding traffic, entrance safety, and noise to the residents. Mr. Darrell Anderson came forward and stated the he is an adjoining landowner and that he is concerned with the drainage and privacy. Mr. Anderson also noted concern with the possibility of the need to widen the road to accommodate truck traffic. Mr. Pangle stated that there is the possibility for additional storm water problems in this area and they would be addressed on the site plan when total watershed calculations are available. Mr. Pangle also stated that there are methods of controlling storm water runoff. Mr. Pangle suggested that a condition could be that Roadway would understand that the pre - development runoff rate will not be exceeded. Mr. David Miller next came forward and introduced himself as being a resident of the area. Mr. Miller commented that he already has water in his basement because the soil is saturated with water. Mr. Miller stated that a larger culvert is needed under the road and that the water in the ponds will add to_ the saturation of the soil. Mr. Miller also noted that you can see coming from Route 11 N how they have already cut the man's yard coming around the turn. Mr. Miller noted that from Route 522S a truck cannot turn properly at the island but must come in on the opposite side. Mrs. Cheryl. Willingham introduced herself to the Commission and commented that their property value will decline with the truck terminal's presence. Mrs. Willingham noted that they are on the down side of the drainage area and questioned who will be liable for water damage should it 965 Planning Commission Minutes -9- 4/2/80 occur. Mrs. Willingham noted that she already must park across the street in the afternoon to pick up children. The homeowners are a majority in this instance, continued Mrs.Willingham. Mrs. Willingham next noted that in August of 1978 there was a request to change the zoning on this particular piece of property to M -1. This request, continued Mrs. Willingham, did not pass at the Board of Supervisor's meeting. Mrs. Willinghamstated that at that time it was a subject of discussion that this piece of property would also be considered for residential R -3 zoning. Mrs, Willingham next questioned why, on the proposed downzoning maps, this one piece of property is not being brought back to residential. Mr. Riley explained that this property could not be downzoned out from underneath an active application in our office. Mr. Brumback further explained that the downzoning maps have been worked on twice. Chairman Gordon noted that the M -2 zoning has been there since 1973. Mr. Stiles commented that there is a lot of property in Frederick County that should be downzoned but cannot be downzoned because it cannot be legally done. In conclusion, Mrs. Willingham asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the problems of water, traffic, property value, etc. before a recommendation is made. Ms. Elizabeth Glass then came forward and introduced herself to the Planning Commission and located her residence as being directly across. Ms. Glass noted that she agreed with everything said by those in opposition and questioned how you can know how much those ponds will hold and what will happen to the water. Ms. Glass noted concern that more than the ten trucks anticipated might be evident in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -10- 4/2/80 Mr. Roger Hill next introduced himself to the Commission and noted that he lived directly across the road from this property and further stated that he echoed everyone's concerns about the water problem. Mr. Hill also noted concern about the hours of operation starting at 6 a.m. or earlier. i Chairman Gordon noted that the Commission is concerned with all the anxieties of the residents. Mrs. Beulah Smith introduced herself to the Commission, noting she lives directly in back of the bank on Shawnee Drive. Mrs. Smith commented that the creek backs up in her basement. Mrs. Smith cited traffic noise and safety as some of her concerns. Mrs. Francis Smith then came forward and introduced herself to the Commission and noted that she lives on Shawnee Drive and that there are already water problems in this area. Mrs. Smith also stated that the traffic is already heavy and noted that the values of the homes needs to be considered. Mrs. Smith also noted that this property was not zoned industrial when she bought in 1966. In answer to Mr. Venskoske's question, Mr. McCauley noted that the water problem has been there for at least the 23 years he has lived in the area. In rebuttal, Mr. Mitchell noted that the drainage is a cal- culable item and can be addressed under the site plan. Mr. Mitchell also commented that Shawnee Drive is already an access to the Industrial Park and that Roadway trucks already service this area, adding that the Highway Department has already given approval. Mr. Mitchell also stated that they have met the requirements of the zoning ordinance and are a per i mitted use. Mr. Mitchell noted that this is an industrial park area and thus appropriate zoning for the area. 967 Planning Commission Minutes -11- 4/2/80 Mr. Mitchell also explained that some of the residents bought their property after there was industrial development in the area. In con- clusion, Mr. Mitchell stated that what they have submitted is in con- formity with the ordinance, that drainage is a site plan issue, a petitioner should be able to rely on what is designated as zoning and the specific permitted use in that area. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Riley noted that conditions that would be made a part of the approval should be addressed as drainage, screening, landscaping, and lighting and that those conditions would apply to the site plan when submitted. Mr. Riley suggested that these conditions could be noted as direct lighting, adequate screening from residential areas and runoff rates not to exceed pre - development runoff rates. Mr. Brumback asked if the Highway would be asked to look into the road system as to drainage problems. Mr. Stiles noted that the Highway Department will not and cannot legally consider what this particular property will do to the intersection of Route 11. Mr. Kirk expressed that he would like more specifics on the site plan before considering this conditional use permit. Mr. DeHaven noted that he is concerned with the holding ponds. Mr. Pangle, noting they had not received calculations yet, explained that the detention pond is designed to hold water during a large flood with a runoff factor designed into the drain pipe, Mr. DeHaven questioned if there is any way at all to assure the neighbors that there would not be more of a water problem in their area, with the addition of black top area on the lot. Planning Commission Minutes -12- 4/2/80 Mr. Pangle explained that the owner would be required to come up with a solution to maintain runoff to a pre - development rate. Mr. Pangle noted that an analysis of the seepage would also be undertaken. Chairman Gordon next asked if the 6 a.m. operating hours are the minimum that can be worked with. Mr. Love explained that the first driver leaves at 7 a.m. and supervisors need to open before that time, noting that earlier openings would be limited to inside working. 0 Mr. DeHaven commented that he felt this was an improper place for M -2 zoning. Mr. Stiles commented that the zoning ordinance for M -2 is drafted to include the requirement of a conditional use permit for every use allowed, indicating that the thinking was that some uses in some areas would be acceptable and some acceptable with conditions and some not acceptable. Mr. Stiles noted that he felt the water situation could be handled, however, the question of a truck terminal using that road and the intersection of Route 11 was of concern. Mr. Stiles commented that as long as this property is zoned M -2 the owners have a right to use the land for one of the purposes designated by the M -2 category.. Mr. Stiles continued, saying he did not know why it was not proposed -to be downzoned. Mr. Stiles also stated that he felt this use was not appropriate and the conditional use requirement gives the Commission the option..of determining what is an appropriate use. Mr. Stiles suggested a determination be made at this meeting rather than stretching out the process. Mr. Golladay, quoting the zoning ordinance, indicated that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are given an option when adjacent landowners are affected by such things as drainage, noise pollution, etc Planning Commission Minutes -13- 4/2/80 Mr. Stiles contended that it is proper to deny a conditional use permit, irregardless of the conditions placed. Chairman Gordon then asked for clarification from Mr.,Ambrogi as to issuing or not issuing a conditional use permit. Mr. Ambrogi noted that a permit is there so you can attach certain conditions, but you do not have to approve it, Mr. Ambrogi noted that the issuance of a conditional use permit is one area in which you do have discretion so long as you are not arbitrary and capricious. Chairman Gordon noted that he felt these residents have a very real argument and noise pollution is a concern. Mr. Mitchell noted that perhaps the Commission has a problem deciding if such problems are a site plan problem or a conditional use permit problem and noted that the petitioner would have no problem con- tinuing this discussion and letting it take place when the site plan is being considered. Chairman Gordon noted that the Commission, presently, is considering if this is a proper place for a truck terminal. Mr. Mitchell noted that the ordinance allows for the Commission to place conditions on a permitted use approval. Mr. DeHaven made a motion to deny this conditional use permit because of the water problems there now, the fact that it is not the proper place for a trucking terminal and that the M -2 zoning is not proper for this area. This was seconded by Mr. Venskoske. Mr. Brumback noted that he could see both sides of this situation and further mentioned that, if this is turned down, another application i could be submitted that would be more detrimental to the residential area. Mr. Golladay next moved that the motion be changed to read, the Planning Commission recommends denial of this conditional use permit 970 Planning Commission Minutes -14- 4/2/80 because this proposed use would substantially effect surrounding property owners with regard to runoff, land value, traffic, and air and water pollution, as referenced by Section 21- 11(C)(3). This was seconded by Mr. Venskoske and passed unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Venskoske be changed to read: The Planning Commission recommends denial of this conditional use permit because this proposed use would substantially effect surrounding property owners with regard to 'runoff, land value, traffic, and air and water pollution, as referenced by Section 21- 11(C)(3). Mr. Brumback noted that he would like to know more about the entire situation. Mr. Kirk noted concern with the possibility that the next proposed use could be more detrimental. A majority vote as follows was taken: YES - Messrs. Kirk, DeHaven, Golladay, Gordon, Stiles. Venskoske ABSTAIN - Mr. Brumback BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, does hereby recommend denial of this conditional use permit because this proposed use would substantially effect surrounding property owners with regard to runnoff, land value, traffic, and air and water pollution, as referenced by Section 21- 11(C)(3). REZONING Request for rezoning by Albert L. Nicholson, No. 002 -80, from A -1 to M -2, Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - Recommend tabling until survey is available Mr. Riley first gave background information and located property on a visual aide, noting that the Health Department has determined that drainfield sites have been located sufficient to serve the needs as expressed by a letter of 3/27/80 from Mr. Hutchinson and that the Health Department has no objection. Mr. Riley also related that the Department of Public Works 971 Planning Commission Minutes -15- 4/2/80 noted that storm water management, sedimentation and erosion control and entrance onto Route 55 are anticipated problems and that the estimated cost of a 2000', 20' wide gravel road is $8,000. Mr. Greg Hutchinson then came forward and introduced himself to the Planning Commission and noted that he represented Mr. Albert Nicholson. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the petitioner had decided to modify the plan to a much smaller area and handed out a plat of parcel A and parcel D.to Commission members. Mr. Hutchinson next explained to the members which areas are still being considered for rezoning. Mr. Hutchinson noted that there would be no change in the plan to limit the operation during the first year to just one acre and that reclamation will follow immediately after mining operation.. Mr. Hutchinson further stated that this use would be the highest and best use of the land as there is sand located at the surface of the property and found over most of parcel A and D. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the areas chosen are the furthest away from the roads and streams. Mr. Hutchinson next quoted from letters of building supply firms, which explained that a closer source of sand would be an asset to those firms. Mr. Hutchinson then requested an amendment to change the acreage to only include fourteen acres on Parcel D and noted that a survey would be provided to better locate the area referred to. Chairman Gordon then questioned the policy of the Planning Commission with regard to the change in acreage from the original request. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the amendment indicates an area contained in the original request.. Mr. Stiles commented that everything being requested here has been advertised properly and gone through the process. 972 Planning Commission Minutes -16- 4/2/80 Mr. Riley stated that the use or proposal as advertised is not being altered and could therefore be heard with a change in acreage. Mr. Bruce Downing, attorney for the adjacent landowners noted that they would object to the request for a larger parcel but could see no objection to the smaller area. Mr. Hutchinson next addressed staff comments with regard to environmental concerns and noted that the request is now only 10% of the original request and further noted that this area would be placed in the Extractive Manufacturing District when it is adopted, Mr. Hutchinson also noted that bonds must be posted requiring an operator to fulfill obligations of reclamation. Mr. Hutchinson.next commented on access, noting that the access road would be constructed and maintained by Mr. Nicholson and noted that they would not be using the access road going to Bushy Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Golladay questioned if, on Parcel A, the entrance off Route 55 was the entrance that is in there now. Mr. Riley located proposed entrance on Route 55.on a visual aide. Mr. Riley further located the access road for Parcel D as being off Route 603. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the proposed locations have been selected because of site distance and drainage making it the best site, Mr, Hutchinson also noted that the access road would go toward Route 600, not Route 55 because of site distance problems. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the church is the only improvement along that route. Continuing, Mr. Hutchinson noted that the mining area would only include one acre in the first year and limited to the fourteen acres as they are outlined. Mr. Brumback next asked the width of Route 603. Mr. Riley noted that it was probably a 30 foot right of;way with a surface of 16 feet to 18 feet. 973 Planning Commission Minutes -17- 4/2/80 In answer to Mr. Gordon's question, Mr. Hutchinson noted that the total acreage involved would be not more than 8 acres on Parcel A and not more than 14 acres on Parcel D, with a total application for the rezoning of twenty -two acres. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the limiting of the acreage and not using the right -of -way would eliminate any interference with the watershed of Duck Run. In answer to Mr. DeHaven's question, Mr. Hutchinson commented that work would be on both tracts at the same time since the quality of the sand is different on the tracts. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Nicholson noted that he will be leasing this property with an option to buy, Mr. Hutchinson noted that Parcel A was subject to a contract of purchase.and Parcel D will have a five year lease. Mr. Riley then questioned the use of vibrators on both properties. Mr. Nicholson answered that there would most likely be a vibrator at each place to limit traffic across the highway.. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the traffic with each parcel would be three or four round trips and thesnale of operation would be 1000 pounds of sand to be removed each month. Mr. Hutchinson further explained that the current lease of record does not give the option to buy -for Parcel D.and all reclamation would be done within the lease term: Mr. Horne noted that he had received a telephone call from a property owner to the west of this property who noted he had no objection. Chairman Gordon reported having letters in opposition, Mr. Riley summarized the letters as saying thatscenic properties and salability of the property would be affected by this rezoning. Mr. Golladay made a motion that these letters be made a part of 974 Planning Commission Minutes -18- 4/2/80 the minutes. This was seconded by Mr. Stiles and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the three letters introduced by Chairman Gordon be made a part of the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes. Chairman Gordon next called for any one in attendance in opposition to this petition. Mr. Bruce Downing first came forward and noted that he and Mr. Richard Neff were in attendance representing Bushy Ridge Subdivision Property owners.. Mr. Downing noted that this is the second request to rezone this property which was turned down because of traffic problems. Mr. Downing noted specific concern with the rezoning of Parcel A because it adjoins a subdivision, concern of traffic and safety problems, and. the environmental effect both on parcel A and the stream that borders parcel D. Mr. Downing noted that the residents of Bushy Ridge Subdivision are concerned with an attempt to change what is an established agricultural/ residential area. Mr. Richard Neff, next addressed the Planning Commission explaining about the Subdivision of Bushy Ridge. Mr. Neff's explanation included the facts that there are three to six acre tracts, average estimated tax assess- ment is $165 a year, there are two families that rent and these families have small children under the age of five, two families live there all year with pre- teens. Mr. Neff next read a letter to the Planning Commission from an absentee landowner and expressed his desire to present the other letters in his possession to be included in the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Neff also noted that Tract A has a 45 degree slope and the entire border of tract A road is double -.lined. Concerning Tract D, continued Mr. Neff, Route 603 is permissable by only one car at a time during winter conditions. 975 Planning Commission Minutes -18- 4/2/80 Mr. Stiles made a motion that the letters presented by Mr. Neff be accepted as part of the minutes of this meeting. This was seconded by Mr. Venskoske.and passed unanimously. Mr. Riley added that one other property owner had expressed his concern and would be sending a letter shortly by the name of David Worondorf. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission accept as part of the minutes the letters submitted by Mr. Richard Neff, President, Bushy Ridge Subdivision Property owners. Mr. DeHaven questioned if those persons who sent the letter would feel the same way if they knew the request had been amended to include a lesser acreage. After some discussion on just how close to the nearest resident this operation could take place on Parcel A, Mr. Stiles noted that in the EM District he could not mine within 100' of the property line. Mr. Buddy Grove and Mrs. Phyliss Grove came forward and introduced themselves to the Planning Commission explaining they were adjoiners and strongly oppose the sand mine. The Groves noted that the area presently is peaceful and the air is fresh and that is why they bought in this area. Mr. W. Nicholson came forward and noted that he lived in the Bushy Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Nicholson noted concern with the noise during the day and the pollution of Duck Run. Mr. Cauley next came forward identifying himself as a resident of Bushy Ridge Subdivision and noted concern regarding the protection of the watershed and the esthetics of the area. Mr. Hutchinson in response stated that the traffic will be increased with the subdivision itself on these same roads. With regard to property values and environmental concerns, Mr. Hutchinson continued, we are also concerned as are the legislators and local governments who have handed down rules and regulations. Mr. Hutchinson explained that there are all sorts 976 Planning Commission Minutes -19- 4/2/80 of remedies if Mr. Nicholson does not do the reclamation required by law. Mr. Hutchinson also noted that with the amended application the area is not in the watershed of Duck Run. Mr. Hutchinson apologized for an error in the application which states that this mining would not be within 1000' of a home; but, rather, some 200' or more would be the case. Mr. Horne commented. that the effects, if any, would be the traffic itself. Mr. Horne also commented '.that one source of possible pollution could be the crossing of Gravel Springs by the access road off the property to Route 603. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Hutchinson noted that he tried to draw the area to scale and would have a survey completed if required. Mr. Golladay next questioned if the rezoning of fourteen acres would set a precedent for rezoning the entire acreage at some time. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Hutchinson noted that the two parcels could be considered separately if the Commission desired. In answer to Mr. DeHaven, Mr. Nicholson acknowledged that there would be no blasting or crushing on site. Mr. Riley noted that the Comprehensive Plan denoted these areas as agricultural or open space. After a brief disucssion with Mr. Ambrogi, Mr. Stiles made a motion to table further action on this rezoning until a survey is made available. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table further action on the Nicholson Rezoning until a survey of the property is available. 977 Planning Commission Minutes -20- 4/2/80 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGE — SECTION 21- 120(u) (Storage of Non - Volatile Liquids) Mr. Riley noted that this amendment change would allow for the storage of non - volatile liquids in an M -1 category. Mr. J. Largent came forward and explained that he was representing Group 44 and Mr. Lowe and Mr. Tullius. Mr. Largent explained that Group 44 acquired Skyline Oil Company which deals in lubricating oils which are non - volatile or non - combustible liquids. It is our contention, continued Mr. Largent, the the'term petroleum -products is too broad. Mr. Largent commented that the zoning ordinance allowed for the storage of things in the M -1 category with a higher flash point than what we are talking about. Mr. Largent noted that the storage of non - volatile liquids would in no way increase the insurance rates of adjoiners. r Mr. Tullius explained that this is a wholesale operation and does not sell gas, fuel oil or heating oil. Mr. Tullius also explained the the flash point for lubricating oils is higher in most cases than cowl or wood. In summary, Mr. Tullius stated that the tanks will be in a knoll and shrubbed for esthetics, with a basin as a precaution. Chairman Gordon next asked if there were anyone in attendance in opposition. Mr. Donald Baughman came forward and 'noted that,after hearing the presentation, he had no_ objection. Mr. Stiles made a motion to recommend approval of this ordinance amendment change to the Board of Supervisors. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed by,.the following vote Yes - Messrs. Kirk, Venskoske, Gordon, Stiles NO - Messrs. DeHaven and Golladay BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Ordinance amendment change to Section 21- 120(u) to the Board of Supervsiors. Planning Commission Minutes -21- 4/2/80 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGE - Section 21- 16(v)(8) and Section 21- 26(x)(20) Mr. Riley first gave background information indicating that this ordinance amendment change was to allow garages with conditions in A zones. Mr. Stiles questioned if screens would be required in a situation where no one can see. Mr. Riley noted that in a situation where no one could see, a screen would not be required. Mr. Golladay questioned if this would possibly allow the making of junk yards. Mr. Tisinger explained that this could be controlled as this is a conditional use permit process. Mr. Stiles reiterated that the junk yard question could be addressed at the time of issuance of a conditional use permit petition. Mr. Venskoske made a motion to recommend approval of this ordinance amendment petition to the Board of Supervisors. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that.the Frederick County Planning Commission recommends approval of the Ordinance amendment change of Section 21- 16(v)(8) and Section 21- 26(x)(20) to the Board of Supervisors. There being no futher business, Mr. Venskoske made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, rman 979 22 RECEIVED ",PR 1 1030 P. O. Box 48 Phone 7034653771 REALTOR O DONALD E. SAGER, REALTOR 100 E. KING ST. STRASBURG, VA. 22657 March 31, 1980 Mr. C.L. Gorden, Chairman Office of Planing and Development Frederick County Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Gorden, This is concerning a possibility of a sand mine being opened in the area of the entrance of Bushy Ridge Sub- division. Although we are based in Shenandoah County area and act as brokers mostly for Shenandoah County land, we are still concerned about the above. We have been agents for several people that have purchased land and homes in the area and we have a concern for the value of their property if a mining operation were to be allowed. Also, there is a concern this would detract from the beauty of the area and especially be unsightly from Rt #55 going into West Virginia. We know you will give the request, if presented, a great deal of thought and we hope the proper decision will be made. Thank you for your concern and if you have any comments or questions, please let us know. I C.C. Board of Supervisors Frederick County DES /pas WON RECEIVED MiiAii s 1 1,89 -23- MiAY R.lMILLIAMS REALTOR' roONORTH ROYAL AVE. FRONT ROYAL. VIRGINIA 22630 PHONE 703 - 635.7178. i larch 27, 1930 C. lanZdon Gordon Chairman, Planning Comm- issioh Office of Planning and Development 9 Court Square ;r;inchester, Virginia 2.2601 ,ear _. . Gordon: In the process of twin- to collect information for a prospective purchaser, 1 happened to hear about the application for a zoning change in the area Of Bushy Ridge Sub-division in Frederick County, and the upcoming public hear - ins to be held on April 2, 1980. Duo to a prior committment in Warrenton, I cannot be at ',he hearing t'nerfore 1 shall try to put my very strong feelings into words in this letter. 1 have been in the real estate business for almost three years. During that time .I have sold properties in wN surrounding counties. About 2 years age, *shale lo: :king for property for a pr'ospecti've purchaser, I came upon the Bushy Ridge qX a. 1 was enchanted and have been showing property there ever since. Having seen a lot properties in a lot of different areas, I must say that I blink ?usby `_tide is one of the loveliest spots in the whole Valley. it has beautiful woods, wildlife mountain views, complete seclusion, all with access to 'ioute 55 just beyond the gate. i could not say enough good things about the area and have in all honesty advised purchasers that 1 felt it would hold in value and in fact should stand to appreciate in value as time goes by. I find it hard to believe that the planning; commission would even consider allowing an industrial operation in this area of secluded private hones and small farms. 1 had no prior knowledge of the sa.nt Which is in the ground there, I can recognize the hopes of some individual to cash in on that asset. I cannot understand why the financial aspirations of one individual should be encouraged at the expense of a large number of private citizens who have chosen to live in the area, with the feeling that their peace and pursuit of happiness were being protected by the zoning ordinances of Frederick County. If I could be present at this hearing my question Would be, 11 ".T ho, if not rou, is the protector of the rights of the private property Owners? Ts that not the purpose Of a zoniYi'_% a6ministrator ? 1 ask only that you seriously con- sider the harm which can be done to the private citizens who will be the victims of a "sand processing; unit". `here has to he a more suitable soot somewhere in the country than this Peaceful haven s0 close to the National TEAM I shall follow with great interest the outcome of this hearing and the re- commendations of the Planning '';ontmiss:i.on in this case. Sincerely, ,1 i „ J I 999 Nancy Su Ivan -24- . tL 7 1 RALEIGH STORES CORPORATION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036 March 26, 1980 ADDRESS REPLY TO t EXECUTIVE OFFICE i. Mr. John R. Riley, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Nine Court Square Wincehster, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Riley, Union contract negotiating involvement here in Washington makes it impossible for me to attend the meeting scheduled for 2:00 pm, April 2, 1980, to consider the rezoning application of Albert L. Nicholson on land that abuts my "retreat" in Frederick County. The section is known as "Bushy Ridge ". There are several permanent residents at Bushy Ridge and others that maintain cottages so as to be able to escape from the noise, air pollution, and general tensions of city life. Strip mining in this area would destroy the peace and quiet that the residents of Bushy 'Ridge so enjoy; would no doubt create a traffic hazard on Route SS with trucks entering the highway; pollute local streams; and in my opinion, would be an undesirable intrusion into a residential area. Please deny the requested zoning change. Very truly your- , / s' Brainard L. Janicki BLJ:lg EXCLUSIVELY OURS IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL Hart Schaffner & Marx Hickey- Freeman - - - -980: - - . -25- //44, 2S /9�0 /y � ^ ^ �iLv�i ✓�N' � l �� 981 w � 4 y .. d b G'+ r e`F sT F G •982•- j', .� I -27- 44-1 /ek, '1 e -Z Vii° / �" <<.v�� ,���� , iJ 6' S / ME Iff:M 3402 Memphis Lane Bowie, Maryland 20715 March 27, 1980 Mr. Richard Neff President, Bushy Ridge Homeowners Association Route 1, Box 265 Star Tannery, VA 22654 Dear Mr. Neff: We have just learned that there is an application to rezone seventeen (17) acres on Route.55 at the entrance to the Bushy Ridge development. We would like to express our strongest objections to such a rezoning and prevail upon your organi- zation to make our objections known to the appropriate authorities. As frequent visitors to the property owned by Mr. Jack Powell, we have developed an appreciation for the natural beauty of the area. We fear that the establishment of an open pit sand mine would scar the natural landscape. Also, the additional pollution and traffic, which such an enterprise could generate, would destroy the serenity and ecological balance of this most desirable community. It should be evident that an open pit mine would adversely affect the aesthetic value of the area as a retreat from a quicker paced world. This would obviously have a detrimental effect on residential property values and would, therefore, be a grave disservice to recreational, residential and specu- lative property owners. Again, we object to the planned rezoning change and thank you for anything you can do to have our objections brought to the attention of the proper authorities. Mr. am ana Mrs. Paul Van Coverden f Mr. John.R. Riley; Director . Frederick - 'County Department of Planning and Development. Square ,Court �,k '.N1llG ll:i GGi, Y1a �17110- i. YIVi _ d Dear Mr. , Riley, Union contract negotiating involvement here in Washington makes,it .impossible for me to. attend -the ; meetin„ scheduled for'- 2:OO:pm April' 2, 1980, to ,. y nside'r th e rezoning .application of. Albert L. r Nicholson,on. land. that abuts my "retreat". in Frederick t { County.; The section: is known as "Bushy Ridge". i f iheie re aevd rai perManent residents at Bushy Y .;'Ridge`" " and "others' that maintain cottages so as to be able to escape from the noise, air pollution, and general.tensons of city ,life. j Strip mining in this area would destroy the 'peace and quiet.that the residents of Bushy Ridge,,. so enjoy;.would no doubt create a traffic hazard on Route 55 with trucks entering the highway; pollute local streams ;.and in my opinion, would be an < , undesirable. intrusion into a residential area. Please dory tt.e''request_ed. zoning. c! anger Very truly yours, Brainard L. Janicki SLJ:lg EXCLUSIVELY OURS IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL Hart Schaffner & Marx HickeyFrccman "985 , -30- March.28, 1980 Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square; Board of Supervisors Room Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Sirs: This letter is in response to a request by Albert Nicholson, Contractor to rezone 17 acres of land between Route 55 and the gate to the Bushy Ridge Development. " When we decided to purchase the 3.01 acre lot 1122 at Bushy Ridge, we had already accomplished a square search of the northwest corner of Virginia for a suitable location. Our reasons for selecting the property at Bushy Ridge were as follows: j The scenic beauty of the area. The lack of any commercial development in the area or any plan to rezone the property from its Agriculture status. The ability to enjoy a quiet and relaxing environment after { the hustle and bustle found in Washington, D.C. The desire to spend 6 to 9 months of the year in the area after retirement. The close proximity to the Washington National Forest which we assumed would have a major impact on allowing the area to remain as close to its natural state as possible. We are seriously concerned about the possible environmental effects that could occur because of the planned rezoning and the establishment of an open sand -pit mine. The land in question has recently been denuded by the removal of the majority of the trees that were previously an integral part of the property. This action, plus the excavation required for an open sand -pit mine could cause serious erosion problems for Duck Run Route 55 - and the Bushy Ridge Development; all of which are in the immediate vicinity of the planned sand mine. We are also seriously concerned about the impact on the access road between Route 55 and the development. e �t x -31- Frederick County Planning Commission -2- The noise, dust and wear and tear on the access road to Route 55 and Route 55 itself will have a serious environmental impact on those people living and visiting at the Bushy Ridge development. Because of the noise, pollution and erosion problems that will be encountered as a result of the open sand -pit mine, we believe there is a legal requirement that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be filed by the proponent before any further action be taken on his application. Those of us at the development who bring children and grandchildren to the area are also concerned for the safety of these young people. Route 55 in the area of the access road to Bushy Ridge is double -lined in both directions denoting a no- passing restriction. In addition to the danger inherent in the hilly and curving highway, we will now add the impact of heavy sand trucks negotiating a blind curve and hill when entering or exiting the state road. In addition, the nature of the open -pit mine would cause it to be labled.an "attractive nuisance ", which would certainly be a lure for young children. Any pooling of water or steep grading at a location that is only 216 ft..from.the nearest homeowners property line, is of serious concern to all of us that reside and visit at Bushy Ridge. i We respectfully request that you include the homeowners concerns in your deliberations on the attempt to rezone the land between Highway 55 and the Bushy Ridge gate. We purchased property in this area after a long and arduous search, it is a beautiful part of Virginia.and we have been most pleased with our choice.. We support the local stores, utilize local labor whenever we have building or repair requirements and pay our taxes to Frederick County. We are desirous of tieing a part of Frederick County and insuring that this lovely corner of Virginia remains an economically viable part of the state. With your assistance and wise counsel we are in hopes that Bushy Ridge can remain the tranquil woodland area that we found when we purchased property these over seven years ago. Sincerely o Jr. 1 •; -32- ig. 4 Mr. Richard L. Neff President 'Busby Ridge Homeowners Association Rt.1 Box 265 Star Tannery, Va. 22654 5117 Southampton Drive Annandale, Virginia 22003 March 24, 1980 i i I Dear Mr. Neff, I hereby designate you to present this letter in my interests at the meetings of the Department of Planning and Development and the Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, concerning the Frederick County Planning Commission action to rezone 17 acres of land between Route 55 and the gate to Bushy Ridge. t : Request disapproval of this request for rezoning from agriculture to light industry. Approval will lead to serious safety 'hazards, environmental erosion and noise pollution of the adjacent residential areas. Sinc rely, DONALD A. VAN MATRE Owner, #10 Bushy Ridge. 988 -33 -. 1363 - 28th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20007 March 27, 1980 Mr. Richard Neff President, Bushy Ridge Rcmeowners Association Route 1, Box 265 Star Tannery, Virginia 22654 Dear Mr. Neff: I have just became aware of a rezoning application for 17 acres at the entrance to the Bushy Ridge Development on Route 55. As a property -owner on Route 600 in Cedar Creek Valley, I would like to express my unqualified objection to any re- zoning that would allow open pit sand mining on Route 55. The topographical beauty of this area is its greatest asset, and any development that detracts from this value should be opposed at every level possible. Your assistance in bringing my objections to the attention of the appropriate authorities would be most appreciated. likewise, if I can be of any further service in efforts to stop this re- zoning, please feel free contact me at the above address, or at Rural Route #1, Box 192, Star Tannery, Virginia 22654. M -34- March 19, 1980 Mr. Richard L. Neff Bushey Ridge Homeowners Assoc. Rt. 1 Box 265 Star Tannery, Va. 22654 Dear Mr. Neff, It was very much disturbing to hear about the possiability of rezoning the property around Bushy Ridge. I will not be able to attend the meeting, but you have my proxy vote to use some of the road monies for a lawer. Hope every thing will turn out in our favor, good luck. Please let me know something if possible. Thank you. 'G P' E; L' Ms. Ann P. Brewington 4224 Columbia Pike # 2 Arlington, Va. 22204 990 -35- 5601 Seminary Road North Bldg. - Apt. 2403 1 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 March 25, 1980 Richard Neff, President Bushy Ridge Homeowners Assoc. Rt. #l, Box 265 Star Tannery, Virginia 22654 Dear Mr. Neff: I was recently informed that the property bordering on Route 55 near the Bushy Ridge area is coming before the County Board of Supervisors for rezoning for commercial use. I As a homeowner in Bushy Ridge, I am extremely concerned about the impact that such use will have on the quality of living conditions in the Bushy Ridge area. I am especially worried that, should the property in question be converted, its useage will be disruptive due to increased noise levels in the event construction equipment is employed, as well as the hazards present because of increased trucking activity on Route 55. Homeowners in the Bushy Ridge area selected their sites because of the rustic atmosphere and sense of privacy which.it afforded. I feel that a rezoning of the property adjacent to our area would be detrimental and I strongly oppose such a change. Should you feel it necessary for the Home- owners Association to secure counsel, I would be more than willing to assist in its financial support. Please keep me posted as to developments around this rezoning. Best regards, Allan Conway Member, Bu y idge Homeowners Assoc. 991 -36- Of a .' �vLl�n...�,f ��tE..rn.. %l ��Q G!/CP -4 -�✓. �/ r/ iC.(.(,2� 6L....�� � :.`f f�" ✓V� -t�� . 2itC�1�c -CVO a. IJL �i N��' �4�..t � � ,` ' .tea - .- e�d�e -�' r� ✓VG/✓w�: 992 -37- 27 Coventry Lane State College, PA 16801 March 26, 1980 Frederick County Planning Commission Winchester, Virginia Dear Commissioners: We are writing concerning the application of Mr. Albert Nicholson to rezone 17 acres of land on Route 55 from Agriculture to Light Industrial. The land in question is adjacent to the entrance to.Bushy Ridge, a small ridge -top development consisting of 21 lots of three -to- five acres each. Many of the lots have homes used for weekends and /or vacations. Two of the homes, however, are the permanent residence of their owners. And two additional homes have been rented as permanent residences. As homeowners in Bushy Ridge who utilize our vacation home fre- quently throughout the entire year, we are concerned about the ef- fects rezoning would have on this residential area in terms{of ac- cessibility to the development; the kind of traffic generated and the problems inherent in it; the pollution effects; and erosion problems. We wish to express our strong opposition to rezoning the land adjacent to our development and the reasons for th opposition. The establishment of an open -pit sand mining operation on this land would create a severe eyesore for both residents of Bushy Ridge and for those who travel Route 55. Travelling west, this area is a lovely, scenic approach to one of our beautiful national forests.. An open -pit mine would be a blight on the landscape which would last for years. Removal of sand deposite would make it impossible to restore the land to original contour. This would mean future use of the land for residential purposes would be highly improbable. Such an ac tion would effectively remove the land from the county "tax 'rolls. A serious traffic hazard would be created by the heavy equipment necessary to excavate and transport the sand on the acreage in ques- tion. At the best of times, the.slope:of the mountain and curve of the road at this point make reduced highway..visibility a problem. Additional hazard would be created by the increase in the number and size of vehicles and by the inevitable;deposits on the highway by the vehicles. Particularly during a rainstorm, these deposits and ".run -off from the mining operation would cause the highway to become slippery and dangerous. - Because of the sand in the area, mining would create serious erosion problems affecting both Rte. 55 and, on the opposite side of the ridge, Duck Run, a stream in which native brook trout now exist. We are also concerned about the noise pollution which would be gener- ated by the heavy equipment necessary to this type of operation. We respectfully request that the commission consider the above com- ments and concerns and reject the application for rezoning. 1 4 cerel 0 �� n,: Pow �� Dorothy L. Powell 1000