Loading...
PC_07-16-80_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 7/16/80 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman; W. French Kirk; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Elmer Venskoske ABSENT: Kenneth Stiles and Herbert Sluder CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first considera- tion being the minutes of the meetings of 51 and 6/4/80. Mr. Golladay noted that the phrase "seconded by Mr. Brumback and passed unanimously' should be added to page 19 of the minutes of 6/4/80. Mr. Kirk corrected page 1, of 6/4/80 by changing in the 5th paragraph, second line "the" to "to". There being no further changes, Mr. Golladay made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BIMONTHLY REPORT In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Riley explained that the site plan for Apple Tractor was next to Heathcraft on Route 642 and for the sale of tractors. Mr. Brumback suggested that it had been determined that this type use would need to be in an M -2 zone. Chairman Gordon noted that there is a difference between a car dealership and tractor or heavy equipment sales. Mr. Horne explained that they have been informed that repairs must be incidental to the retail sales. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley explained that the Dovel conditional use permit was located on Route 723. Chairman Gordon next received the Bimonthly Report as information. POLICY - ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS Mr. Riley explained that it has been suggested that a policy statement regarding the rezoning amendments be considered. yr. Riley noted that the policy suggested, if adopted, could be used to show the public how the Planning Commission would respond to a request for rezoning. 1092 Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 16, 1980 Mr. Riley also explained that the sample policy statement was taken from a planning book, dealing with the particulars of zoning and from national court decisions regarding spot zoning. Chairman Gordon commented that the policy is what the Commission is looking for since the Commission is looking for consistency. A policy statement would give us a tool for evaluation, continued Chairman Gordon. Mr. Riley next submitted and read to the Commission a letter of opposition, in his absence, from Mr. Stiles.as follows: SUBJECT: Statement on position with regard to Spot Zoning. I object first of all to the attitude that is implied; that being,that the Planning Commission would be the ones to develop the plans and major policy recommendations concerning the bureaucracy and the concerns of the citizens of the County will only deserve secondary attention. I resent the implication that there is something wrong with an individual having something rezoned for their own private use. I am very much concerned about the trend that seems to be taking place, which is more concern for the people running it rather than with the people who are paying the bills. I am very much opposed to the statement as written. Signed: Kenneth Y. Stiles. Mr. Brumback made a motion that this statement be made a part of the minutes of this meeting passed unanimously. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby accepts as part of the minutes of this meeting the statement of Kenneth Y. Stiles, submitted in his absence by John R. Riley in opposition to the policy statement on spot zoning. Commenting on the foregoing statement, Mr. Riley explained that an individual seeking to have property rezoned for their own private use is only one of the criteria. Mr.. Riley commented that the policy as a whole needs to be considered.and is to be used as a guide to judging the merits of an application. 1093 Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 16, 1980 Chairman Gordon questioned if by saying "No proposed zoning amendment" might be too hard. Mr. Golladay suggested that the phrase "a zoning amendment may not receive favorable recommendation" be considered. Mr. Brumback commented that when specifics are not spelled out, criteria is not always adhered to. Mr. White next explained that most areas have a policy state- ment on spot zoning and commented that a distinction needs to be made between spot zoning and zoning in spots. Mr. White stated that spot zoning is a situation where a piece of property, defined by its characteristics, i.e. slope, percability, etc., is not treated the same as other properties similarly situation in terms of planning policy. Mr. Golladay next asked if a definition of spot zoning should be in the zoning ordinance? Mr. White explained that the question of whether the community will benefit from a rezoning or just a small group of people is what should be considered and is a major test with regard to this policy. In answer to Mr. Brumback's question, Mr. White explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a mangement tool for future planning and is a road map of where you want to be in five or ten years. Mr. Golladay next questioned which should come first, the Capital Improvement Plan or the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. White commented that certainly any deviation from the Comprehensive Plan would affect facility implications. Mr. White also stated that what a community desires could then have a price tag. Mr. Golladay stated that he felt things need to be brought about slowly so that the people will understand. 1094 Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 16, 1980 Mr. White added that a policy statement would be helpful, then, to let the citizenry know the environment of the Planning Commission. In answer to Mr. Brumback's question, Mr. White explained that on major decisions there is an obvious need for an impact study. Mr. White also commented that there are two schools of thought; (1) you should identify what you are going to get and then accommodate it; and, (2) determine what you would like to have for your community and then make your land use decisions to support this. Returning to the subject of spot zoning, Mr. Brumback stated that he felt the Commission should have a policy and that it should be specific. Mr. Venskoske noted his agreement with Mr. Brumback. Mr. Golladay suggested that the word "No" perhaps should be changed to "A" and "will" be changed to "may not" Mr. DeHaven noted agreement with Mr. Golladay's statement. Mr. Riley explained that any individual has the right to file a rezoning application and it will be processed and brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. White commented that this policy would allow a person to consider this criteria and measure their request and also help them approach the Planning Commission better. Mr. Kirk expressed his desire to adopt this policy as written. Mr. Brumback next made a motion to adopt this policy state- ment on spot zoning as presented. This was seconded by Mr..Kirk and passed by a majority vote as follows: YES - DeHaven, Kirk, Gordon, Venskoske NO - Golladay BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the following 1095 Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 16, 1980 policy statement as being the policy of the Commission: No proposed zoning amendment will receive favorable recommendation unless: (1) The proposal will place all property similarly situated in the area in the same category, or in appropriate complementary categories; (2) There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be in the general public interest and not merely in the interest of an individual or small group; (3) There is a convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be appro- priate in the area included in the proposed change. (When a new district designation is assigned, any use permitted in the district is allowable, so long as it meets district requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state they intend to make of the property involved.); (4) There is convincing demonstration that the character of the neighbor- hood will not be materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change; (5) The proposed change is in accord with the comprehensive plan and sound planning priciples. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE FOR COMPREHENSIVE REZONING Mr. Riley explained that the rules of order for the public hearing are being established and will be adopted before the meeting and a published agenda will appear the day of the public hearing listing the general changes. Mr. Riley commented that there would first be staff presentation on the first set of changes which the Planning Commission would then discuss. Next, the Planning Commission would make a formal approval and possible comments to the Board. The Board would then take the same procedure. Chairman Gordon next questioned what would occur if the Planning Commission modified the plan? Mr. Riley explained that the Planning Commission will need to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and noted that there should be available time for discussion between the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Venskoske noted concern with conducting a public hearing 1096 Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 16, 1980 while the Planning Commission is concerned with the Board not agreeing. Mr. Golladay suggested that the Planning Commission should vote;'and, if the Board wanted to change it, they could change it. Mr. Brumback next questioned if the decision was expected to be made that same night.. Mr. Horne explained that if the decision was held over to another meeting, it would need to be a public hearing. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGES TO THE M -1 and M -2 DISTRICTS Mr. Riley first explained that the proposed ordinance amend- ment changes before the Commission constitute refinements of each District, requirements for permitted uses, permitted uses allowed with a conditional use permit and height, area and bulk regulations. Mr. Brumback next questioned the feasibility of creating a new "M" District for heavy industrial uses in order to keep them off to themselves. Mr. Horne explained that the most intense uses could be handled in the M -2 District with the setback requirements. Chairman Gordon noted the deletion of truck terminals in the M -2 zone and questioned if this had been done in error. Mr. Horne acknowledged that this would be added. Mr. Riley suggested that the Commissioners let the staff know their feelings regarding these proposed ordinance amendment changes as soon as possible so that the staff could move ahead with advertising. ROAD PROFILE - CAROLINE AVENUE Mr. Riley explained that this roadway was included in the 1097 o Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 16, 1980 subdivision plan, but it is felt that the Planning Commission should review these road profiles, realizing that they are site plan related items. Mr. Venskoske made a motion that all road profiles be handled and looked upon as a site plan and dealt with accordingly. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission unanimously moved to look upon road profiles as site plans and deal with them accordingly. DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR DOWNZONING IN RED BUD ROAD AREA AND ROUTE 11 (MR. FAHNESTOCK) Mr. Riley comm that Mr. Fahnestock indicated an interest in having his dwelling downzoned from industrial to a commercial classi- fication. This request, Mr. Riley continued, is based on the viability of this area to function as a residential area. Mr. DeHaven commented that Mr. Fahnestock has a valid reason for making this request. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Riley commented that he did not know of any other residences in the area between Amoco and Red Bud Road. In answer to Mr. Brumback's question, Mr. Riley stated that a commercial entrance could be placed with the frontage of 100' Chairman Gordon noted that the Planning Commission would take this matter under consideration. There being no further business to come before the Planning R6S+Z] Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 16, 1980 Commission, Mr. Golladay made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. 1099