Loading...
PC_04-16-80_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, April 16, 1980. PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman; Elmer Venskoske; W. French Kirk; James Golladay, Jr.; Kenneth Stiles. (NOTE: Mr. Golladay entered during discussion of Bimonthly Report and Mr. Stiles during Review of Six -Year Road Improvement Plan, ABSENT: Mr. Herbert Sluder CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of 3/18/80, 3/19/80, 3/25/80, and 4/1/80. Chairman Gordon noted that in the minutes of 4/1/80 there should be the inclusion of a motion to adjourn by Mr. Golladay and seconded by Mr. Venskoske and passed unanimously. There being no further corrections, Mr. Venskoske made a motion that all the minutes be approved as corrected. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BIMONTHLY REPORT Mr. Brumback observed that mobile homes have doubled since last year Mr. Horne explained that this was, in part, due to the twenty five permits granted to Mr. Payne. Mr. Horne further explained that most of the promised improvements have not been done, however, Mr. Payne has agreed to do a certain number of these improvements in the next thirty days. To give background information, Mr. Horne commented that Mr. Payne has a 1970 permit and proved to staff that he was actively pursuing his trailer site before the mobile home zoning ordinance came into effect. The Bimonthly Report was accepted as information. 84 LUMBER COMPANY - ZONING INTERPRETATION Mr. Horne explained that two existing comparable buinesses have B -2 zoning, rather than the B -3 zoning that would be required now. Mr. Horne further explained that 84 Lumber would like to go in under the general retailing section of the B -2 zoning as they would not be selling to contractors. 993 Planning Commission Minutes -2- 4/16/80 Mr.—Horne, in answer to Mr. Gordon's question, noted that there are approximately six acres in that B -2 zoning. Chairman Gordon next asked why this company was not asking for a rezoning. Mr. Horne noted that he thought they were anxious to get started and it was a time problem. Mr. Riley noted that this type of operation is described as a permitted use in the B -3 zoning. Mr. Golladay commented that to be fair, if Moores or Lowes came in today, they would have to go to a B -3. Mr. Brumback commented that when the B -3 District was developed this was the type thing the Commission had in mind to go in it. Chairman Gordon suggested the Commission be given more time to consider if this type of operation could be granted in this area either in a B -2 or B -3 zoning. Mr. Golladay suggested that Commissioners give their comments to Mr. Horne so that he can advise 84 Lumber if they need to petition for a rezoning. ZONING INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC GARAGES Mr. Horne next asked if a body shop, under the new section of the zoning ordinance in A zones regarding Public Garages, would be considered a public garage. Mr. Horne further noted that body shops are only spelled out in the B -3 category. Chairman Gordon noted that in Agricultural zones there are a lot of residential areas. 994 Planning Commission Minutes -3- 4/16/80 Chairman Gordon noted that it is the general concensus of the Planning Commission that a body shop is not the same as a public garage. Chairman Gordon also noted that perhaps this question could be further addressed during a worksession. INTERPRETATION - CURTIS HANSEN CUP Mr. Horne explained that Mr. Hansen would like to lease his premises to a gentleman for a welding shop and is asking if this could be included under his present conditional use permit. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Horne noted that this conditional use permit is nottransferable. Mr. Curtis Hansen explained that Mr. Layman who wants to lease the property has agreed to all the contingencies of the conditional use permit.and also noted that 95% of the welding he will do will be on vehicles. Mr. Hansen explained that this is a good commercial building and Mr. Layman has already made it better. Mr. Golladay noted that he felt a welding shop is different than a body shop and that a new permit should be sought. Chairman Gordon noted that the neighbors should be able to attend a meeting if a change of use is taking place. Chairman Gordon next confirmed that it is the general concensus of the Planning Commission that a new permit should be obtained. SUBDIVISION Bugarski Lots Bugarski Lots, 3 lots, 4.45 acres, Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION: Recommend Approval 995 Planning Commission Minutes -4- Mr. Riley first gave background information. 4/16/80 Mr. J. Bugarksi next came forward and introduced himself to the Commission and explained that approximately 1 1/3 acres would remain. Chairman Gordon next asked for any one in opposition. Mr. Sam Lehman next asked if there would still be room for parking at the restaurant. Mr. Bugarski explained that this would not affect the parking at the restaurant in any way. Mr. Kirk made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. This was seconded.by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Bugarski Lot Subdivision to the Board of Supervisors. REVIEW OF SIX YEAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Riley noted that the subcommittee was made up of Messrs. Venskoske, Stiles, King, Bushman, Russell, Horne and himself. Mr. Riley explained that the committee based its recommendations on the following criteria: 1. Conformity with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for transportation and land use. 2. Relation to the 1985 Functional Classification Map for Frederick County. 3. Vehicles per day on non -hard surface roads. 4. Safety hazards on existing read networks. Mr. Riley also noted that the five priorities established for the 1980 -81 fiscal year have remained the same and include Routes 659, 696, 681, 622 and 654. Mr. Riley explained that there are some changes regarding the Planning Commission Minutes -5- 4/16/80 scope of the proposed priorities which include: Route 681 - Bridge replacement only. Does not include right -of -way acquisition. Route 696 - If right -of -way cannot be acquired by Va. Dept. of Highways and Transportation, project will be,dropped and replaced by Route 734. Route 622 - At the present time, right -of -way acquisition will be for four lanes, but the proposed improvement will only include two lane reconstruction and widening. Mr. Riley next commented that new projects which have been included in the Plan are Routes 734 from 694 to 522, 672 from Brucetown to 661, 606 improvements to reduce flooding and improve access, Route 663 from 673 to 672 to improve and hard surface, Mr. Riley also noted that ongoing projects include Routes 628, 636, 671, 616, 600, 642 and 646. Mr. Riley noting that Mr. Venskoske also requested the placement of guardrails on Route 600 between Little Isaac Creek and Back Creek. Mr. Bushman commented that there is very little room on the shoulder for guardrails. Mr. Venskoske noted that this is being brought up because of the safety aspect with school buses using this road. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. King noted that an arrow on these turns might be of help. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Riley commented that it would be a good idea to leave the committee in good standing, noting that this will improve the working relationship between the Highway Department and local government. 997 Planning Commission Minutes -6- 4/16/80 Chairman Gordon confirmed with those members of the committee present that they would remain on the committee. Mr. Bushman request that, if the Planning Commission is satisfied with the recommendations, a motion be made to recommend approval of this Six Year Road Improvement Proposal. Mr. Venskoske then made a motion that this Six Year Road Improvement Plan be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation from the Planning Commission that it be approved. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick recommends approval of the Proposed Six Year Road Improvement Plan to the Board of Supervisors. PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONING Request for rezoning by Albert L. Nicholson, No. 002 -80, from A -1 to M -2, Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - Recommend modification The secretary first gave background information. Mr. Riley noted that a survey has been submitted and reflects fourteen acres on Parcel D to be mined. Mr. G. Hutchinson and Mr. Albert Nicholson then came forward and noted that they had nothing to add at this time. Mr. Golladay asked if the staff's recommendation would change with the consideration of only fourteen acres. Mr. Riley commented that his concerns are not as great as they were with the consideration of 188 acres, but noted that the staff is still concerned with the staff's ability to monitor the situation. Mr. Riley also noted concern with the ability of Route 603 to support the use. 1001 Planning Commission Minutes -7- 4/16/80 Mr. Golladay asked if there might be a way under the Frederick County Ordinance to control the use of Route 603. Mr. Stiles explained that this is a public highway and the use of it could not be controlled. In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Riley explained that the drainage would be going downslope away from the stream. In answer to Mr. Brumback's question, Mr. Riley explained that this would be handled through the Bureau of Mined Land Reclamation. Mr. Stiles next asked,if was approved, would a conditional use permit still need to be obtained. Mr. Riley acknowledged that a conditional use permit and a site plan would still be required, and further noted that the conditional use permit could be revoked if the conditions placed on it were violated. Mr. Riley also explained that should the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors it would be on the amended fourteen acres and the original 188 acre request will have to be presented to the Board. Mr. Stiles next confirmed with Mr. Hutchinson that no request is being made for Parcel A at this time. Chairman Gordon next called for any citizen in attendance who did not speak at the previous public hearing and desired to speak at this time. Mr. Bruce Downing came forward and explained that he is representing Mr. & Mrs. Ferrar. Mr. Downing explained that Mr. & Mrs. Ferrar owned an adjacent farm to the south of the mine site on both sides of Route 600. Mr. Downing noted that their major concern is the effect 1002 Planning Commission Minutes -8- 4/16/80 of the mining operation on the quality of the stream, since they run a cattle operation and farm. Mr. Downing also noted that'the market value of the property is directly tied into the quality of the water and the overall agricultural nature of the area. Mr. Downing also noted that the quality of the road is also a concern. Mrs. Mary Ellen Ferrar next addressed the Commission, noting they had addressed the Commission several years ago and noted that they felt the same way now. Mrs. Ferrar expressed concern with the fact that this request might just be a toe in the door and eventually become something bigger. Mrs. Ferrar commented that the Gravel Springs are historical and expressed concern regarding their preservation. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mrs. Ferrar commented that her feelings are just as strong considering just the fourteen acres as they would be considering the entire original request. Mr. Pangle reported that based on what he saw on site there was the potential for problems with storm water and sedimentation. Mr. Pangle further explained that these problems could be addressed on the Site Plan. Mr. Richard Neff next came forward and noted that he was concerned because Route 603 was partially under water during recent rains.- Mr. Neff also cited concern with regard to the proximity to the National Forest and adequate committment to reclamation. Mrs. Seria Wilson next came forward and noted that she lives on Route 600, approximately one half mile from this mining site. Mrs. Wilson expressed concern regarding noise and air pollution if this rezoning is granted. Mrs. Wilson also expressed concern regarding the historic preservation of the area. 1003 Planning Commission Minutes -9- 4/16/80 In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Hutchinson commented that there would be no blasting taking place on this site. Mr. Raymond Brill came forward and noted that he is the owner of the property. Mr. Brill noted that this area will be one mile from the road and is only crossing the road in one place. Mr. Brill pointed out that the run is dry in August. Mr. Stiles commented that to consider this rezoning there should be some discussion on what conditions might be appropriate on a conditional use permit to protect the neighbors. Chairman Gordon noted that it should be considered if appropriate conditions could be placed on a conditional use permit when it is heard to protect area residents. Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Ferrar noted concern that this operation would look like the Unisil mining operation. Mr. Stiles explained that Unisil was started before the zoning ordinance was in effect and further noted that a conditional use permit would place conditions on the operation,which if violated would cause the permit to be revoked. Mr. Downing commented that M -2 zoning is just improper in this area because of road conditions.which cannot be covered by conditions. on a conditional use permit. Chairman Gordon noted that this M -2 zoning would be taken into an Extractive Manufacturing category if it is adopted. Mr. Brumback next asked how close the nearest resident would be Mr. Downing noted that Gravel Springs Farm is approximately one half mile from the site and is visible from the site in the winter. 1004 Planning Commission Minutes -107 4/16/80 Mr. Brumback commented that this is good quality sand and not readily available in the area, noting that the nearest resident is one half mile away. Mr. Brumback commented that he could not think of any condition that could not be addressed under the conditional use permit and, therefore, would make a motion that a modification of the Nicholson Rezoning application to include only fourteen acres on Parcel D, with the understanding that it be taken into an Extractive Manufacturing District when it is adopted, be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven. In answer to Mr. Venskoske's question, Mr. Riley explained that the Commission is amending the application to only include fourteen acres, but the applicant has the right to present the full application as advertised of 188 acres. The vote was as follows: Yes - Messrs. Gordon, Brumback, Kirk, Golladay, Stiles No - Venskoske BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick does recommend modification of the Nicholson Rezoning application to include only fourteen (14) acres on Parcel D and with the understanding that it be taken into an Extractive Manufacturing District when it is adopted. ---------------- - -- - -- (Mrs. Stiles left before the following discussion) DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Mr. Riley first explained what types of conditional use permits are available within the zoning ordinance. Mr. Riley explained that one conditional use permit is for uses that are not specifically permitted but are permitted with a conditional use permit, and denial is allowed in this case. 1005 Planni Commission Minutes -11- 4/16/80 Mr. Riley further explained that the other conditional use permit is. for uses which conform and are permitted by right and require a conditional use permit to attach conditions to protect adjacent property owners. Mr. Golladay commented.that he still felt confusion on this issue and noted that he would like for Mr. Ambrogi to take all the pertinent information and ask the State Attorney General for an opinion Chairman Gordon explained that the way it is written, now, the Planning Commission must consider this use permitted.by right and the only discretion is to put conditions on this conditional use permit. Mr. Riley explained that the M -2 category contains the most offensive uses and a conditional use permit is a vehicle to possibly place conditions to protect adjacent property owners. Mr. Golladay expressed that he still felt the Planning Commission has a right to approve a conditional use permit or not approve it. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley explained that noise, runoff and screening can all be addresed on a site plan. Mr. James White next commented that the legislative decision to approve or disapprove the use was at the time zoning. Mr. White continued, adding that the only tiling the Planning Commission can do is to place conditions that will be imposed.. Mr. White further explained that the Board is sending this back to the Planning Commission for conditions, understanding that it must be approved by right. Mr. Riley noted that perhaps the language needs to be clarified.dealing with the section on conditional use permits. Mr. White suggested that perhaps additional M Districts could be provided.. Mr. White alsosu performance standards in 91I0 Planning Commission Minutes -12- 4/16/80 the code, which is not so much the use but the way the use affects the site.. Chairman Gordon acknowledged that some remedies are needed for these situations. Mr. Riley explained that the Board has recommended that the Terminal conditional use permit be re- advertised and referred back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of attaching appropriate conditions to the permit. Mr. White suggested that staff obtain as much information as possible to help identify conditions to reduce the objectionable aspects of the use. AGENDA REVIEW SESSION DISCUSSION Mr. Riley explained that an agenda review session could be scheduled prior to a meeting to help clear up any confusion on agenda items. Mr. Riley explained that the purpose of this review session would not be to make any determinations on applications. Mr. Riley suggested that this session could be held on the day the agenda is prepared or perhaps one hour before the meeting. Mr. White added that agenda review session also aid the press and give them a better understanding of agenda items. Mr. Brumback noted that he liked the concept but would recommend it be done on the same day as the meeting. Chairman Gordon suggested that the Commission try a 1:30 p.m. review session. Mr. Sam Lehman commented that he felt the discussion in front of the public is important. Mr. Riley next suggested that public hearings be held on the first meeting of the month for both the Board and Planning Commission 1011IN 4 Planning Commission Minutes -13- 4/16/80 and the second meeting would be scheduled for site plans and worksession. Mr. Riley also suggested that public hearing petitioner be heard the following month by the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Gordon noted that the only reservation is the waiting period for the petitioner. Mr. Golladay noted that there has been criticism about the length of time involved to get a decision. Chairman Gordon noted that it has always been the policy of the Planning Commission to have public hearings scheduled for the first meeting of the month and suggested that a final determination on the schedule for Board public hearings be discussed with members of the Board. There being no further business, Mr. Venskoske made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Joh R. Riley, Secre ry I ' m