Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_08-20-80_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, August 20, 1980 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Elmer Venskoske; W. French Kirk; James Golladay, Jr.; Kenneth Stiles; Herbert Sluder. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of July 2, 1980 and July 16, 1980. On page 1 of the July 2, 1980 minutes Mr. Golladay noted that it should be Mr. F. L. Largent and also noted that it should be indicated in the same set of minutes that Mr. Golladay left during the dis- cussion of the Adams request. There being no further correc- tions to the two sets of minutes, Mr. Kirk made a motion that the two sets of minutes be approved as corrected. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimously. BIMONTHLY REPORT In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley ex- plained that the Poe amended Site Plan is for a storage building to store equipment. Mr. Stiles next asked the staff to check and see if what is on the Site Plan is what is actually at the site now. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Horne noted that the Matchotka Conditional Use Permit request is located on Route 621. Mt. Stiles next noted that single family dwelling permits are down from 210 to 92 since last year. Chairman Gordon next accepted the Bimonthly Report as information. SPOT ZONING POLICY DISCUSSION Mr. Golladay noted concern regarding this state- ment and questioned if this should then become the policy 1114 (2) statement of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Riley explained that the Planning Commission is responsible for planning related items and it is their duty to try and move according to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Riley further explained that the Planning Commission is not to be influenced by the politics of the community; therefore, the policy statement need not apply to the Board. Mr. Stiles noted that zoning is a matter that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation for and the Board of Supervisors has the final approval or disapproval on. Mr. Stiles next stated that he intends to take this policy to the Board of Supervisors for discussion and action. Mr. Stiles commented that it makes no sense for the Planning Commission to adopt a policy concerning zoning if the Board does not agree and also noted that this might cause legal problems. Mr. Stiles added that this statement tramples on individual rights and allows for no exceptions. Mr. Golladay explained that guidelines are needed but, perhaps, this policy needs to be phrased to allow the Planning Commission to make the determination and not to be so hard and fast a rule. Mr. Horne explained that adjacent landowners need 1115 to be considered. (3) Mr. Stiles stated that the burden of proof that a use is adversely affecting an adjacent landowner should be on the adjoining landowner. Mr. Lehman commented that in the past there have been problems regarding discretion in zoning requests. Mr. Riley explained that this statement is not a vehicle to tell citizens not to rezone. Mr. Riley also ex- plained that the policy statement was drafted from a court decision. Mr. Brumback noted that the Planning Commission as a body should not be worrying about the Board's feelings and further commented that this policy statement allows everyone to play by the same rules. Mr. Venskoske expressed that this policy statement is better than nothing which is what the Planning Commission had before. Mr. Kirk noted that perhaps this policy statement should be given a chance. After much discussion, it was decided by general consensus that this matter should be discussed at a work session. 1116 (4) SUBDIVISION Request for Subdivision, Boyce Subdivision, 3 lots, Rufus Boyce, Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION - None The Secretary first gave the background informa- tion. Chairman Gordon next asked for the petitioner to come forward. Since the petitioner was not present, the Planning Commission, by general consensus, decided to hold further discussion of this request until later in the meeting at which time the petitioner might be present. Request for Site Plan approval by Round Hill Fire Department for a 60 X 120 ft. addition, #023 -79, Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - Approval The Secretary gave the background information. Mr. Stiles first questioned if this request would come under the requirements of the Parking Ordinance as far as required parking spaces. Mr. Riley noted that he had Administratively approved the addition some time ago and did not require pavement at that time under the Ordinance. In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Riley noted that, if this Site Plan were approved under the Ordinance today, paved parking could be required. Mr. Garland Pugh next came forward and introduced himself to the Commission, noting that the Company intended to gravel the parking area and that this addition would be for a social hall. 1 . 1117 (5) Mr. Brumback made a motion to approve this Site Plan Amendment request. This was seconded by Mr. Stiles and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the amended Site Plan #023 -79 of the Round Hill Fire Company. Request for Amended Site Plan Approval by Winchester TV Cable, #025 -78, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION - Approval The Secretary first gave background information, noting that the original Site Plan was approved November of 1978. Mr. Riley explained that a study had been done on the entire drainage basin to determine the effect of fill on the increase in velocity of water. Mr. Horne commented that Public Works was not only worried about down stream flooding, but up stream as well. NOTE: (At this point in the meeting Mr. Stiles took leave) Mr. John Lewis came forward and explained that this site plan is for the fill and that the site plan will be requested to be approved in three phases. Mr. Lewis added that ultimately their office will be located at this site. Mr. Golladay asked if any study had been undertaken to determine what can be done in the Route 11 Area? Mr. Riley noted that on the east side of Route 11 the rail crossing pipes have been increased in size and that 1118 (6) another culvert needs some repair but is too costly and located on private property. Mr. Golladay stated that the long range plans to fix this drainage situation should be considered. Mr. Horne explained that pre- development runoff should be addressed on individual projects. Mr. Venskoske next asked if the study referred to was done before the nursing home. Mr. Riley and Mr. Horne commented that they felt the nursing home was considered in the calculations. Mr. Lewis noted that channeling of the water will help the up stream flooding. Mr. Brumback questioned what this will do downstream and what additional development in the same basin will do down stream. Mr. Riley explained that any new development will have to adhere to pre - development runoff rates. Mr. Lehman noted that the lands around streams should be left green and that environmentally sensitive areas should not be developed. Mr. Venskoske noted that he would like to hear from the EPA on this situation. Chairman Gordon stated that the Commission did not want to approve this fill and then not approve the building. Mr. Lewis explained that a portion on Route 522 miqht be subdivided. Mr. Horne noted that any development other than 1119 (7) this will have to be scrutinized closely. In answer to Mr. DeHaven's question, Mr. Lewis explained that five to seven acres is what will be actually used. Mr. Golladay next asked how the road was going to be put in on the original site plan? Mr. Lewis explained that the original site plan showed a service road below the flood level. Mr. Riley stated that the staff is satisfied that the water problem has been answered by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Lewis added that this site plan amendment in front of the Commission today is just for phase 1, adding that any information on long range plans is just being given for the Planning Commission's information. Mr. Venksoske next made a motion that this site plan amendment request be denied Golladay, and the vote as follows: q This was seconded by Mr. YES - Venskoske NO - Kirk, DeHaven, Golladay, Gordon By a majority vote, this motion for denial was defeated. 1120 (8) Mr. Brumback next made a motion that this Site Plan amendment be approved. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and the vote was as follows: YES - Kirk, DeHaven, Gollday, Brumback, Gordon NO - Venksoske BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission, by a majority vote, does hereby approved the Amended Site Plan Request, No.025 -78, of Winchester T. V. Cable. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Mr. Riley first explained the procedures for the advertising and consideration of the South Frederick Agricultural District. Mr. Riley also noted that this proposed District is an attempt to find a mechanism for preserving bonafide agricultural land. Mr. Riley commented that this is a volunteer action of the landowners, expressing that this area is agriculturally significant. Mr. Riley also explained that this district would have an effect on such things as condemnation of land for roads and water and sewer lines, etc. In answer to Chairman Gordon's questions, Mr. Riley explained that a withdrawal from this district can only be made at time of death or inheritance and not at time of sale. 1121 (9) Mr. Brumback made a motion to accept this agricultural district Agricultural Advisory recommendation. This was as follows: YES ABST as information and refer it to the Board for consideration and was seconded by Mr. Kirk and the vote - Venskoske, Brumback, Golladay, Gordon, Kirk %IN - DeHaven BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick does hereby accept as information the South Frederick Agricultural District and hereby refer the same for consideration to the Agricultural Advisory Board. By General consensus, the Planning Commission decided to the cancel their regularly scheduled worksession. There being no business to come before the Commission, Mr. Golladay made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, a �*/ P) � tA�l John R. Riley, Secretary C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman 1122