PC_03-07-79_Meeting_Minutes(PC 3/7/79) p. 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING CODMIISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, March 7, 1979
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman; Manuel
DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; W. French Kirk; Thomas B. Rosenberger
ABSENT: Elmer Venskoske
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first order of
business.
The minutes of the meeting of February 21, 1979 were approved as presented.
------------------------------
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Replying to inquiries, Mr. Berg gave the status of two mall projects: he
indicated that the difficulties of the Rt. 7 East mall were chiefly owed to com-
munication problems in the wording of site plans, and that submission would occur
later this month or .early in April. On the Route 50 -522 site, grading has begun,
and work is being coordinated with Inspections Department.
Mr. Golladay asked for confirmation of the status of Ash Hollow, and Mr.
Berg said that plans for rental units had been withdrawn in favor of the
development of a subdivision instead.
Mr. Rosenberger asked about the nature of variances reviewed by the Board
of Zoning Appeals as being mostly minor, front and side variances, etc., and
estimated that loo of cases were such. Ms. Stefen mentioned that only about
1% were actually planning - related issues; Rosenberger figure was concurred with.
To the Chairman's request for information about the disposition of the
Union Hall request for a C.U.P., the staff said that more conditions were
added to the P. C.'s recommendations: a full site plan was required, more parking
620
(PC 3/7/79) p. 2
was called for, no sign, and a limit to the number of people. In addition,
the Board stressed the possibility of revocation.
The Bimonthly Report was accepted as information.
-------------------- - - - - --
The first item on the agenda was withdrawn. Mr. Berg presented a letter
from Mr. Tisinger of Harrison F, Johnston on behalf of James and Donna Powell
indicating that the need of a conditional use permit was inapplicable.
The withdrawal accordingly was received as information.
SITE PLAN
Revised Site Plan No. 026 -77, Z $ M Metal for a manufacturing plant addition,
expanded drive, and additional parking, in Stonewall District!, Gilpin Industrial
Park.
ACTION -- Recommend Approval
All requirements have been met.
Mr. Fred Showalter appeared for the petitioner and said the new plan is
more or less a mirror image of what was built two years ago, with slightly
greater square footage.
Mr. Rosenberger asked for verification of the doubled parking and
received it.
Mr. Showalter, asked about employee number, said Z $ M expects to start
I
out with from 30 to 35 employees.
No opposition was present. Mr. Brumback therefore moved for approval
of the application; Mr. Golladay seconded.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of Frederick County approve
the application of Z $ M Metals for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The vote was as follows: Kirk; DeHaven;Golladay;Brumback; Rosenberger - -YES
Two announcements were received as information:(1) The joint meeting with
the Board of Supervisors at 7:30 P.M. to receive and discuss the report from
the Joint Capital Facilities Committee. The Chairman stressed the importance of
the meeting. (2) A letter from the Forest Service on land sale by Izaak Walton
rovAl
(PC 3/7/79) p. 3
League.
It was unanimously agreed to enter the latter communication in the
minutes, as follows:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF
AGRICULTURE
Forest Service Rt. 3, Box 272 -A
Edinburg, VA. 226824
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Frederick County Court House
Winchester, VA 22601
Gentlemen:
The Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 806,
Arlington, VA 22209, has optioned to sell to the Forest Service, approximately
612 acres of land (399 acres in Frederick County) on Paddy Run near Star Tannery.
The Forest Service proposes to buy the property under authority of the Weeks Act
of March 1, 1911, using funds authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act. The property will be managed under National Forest Multiple Use principles
for the use and enjoyment of the general public.
We are notifying you of the proposed purchase to keep you informed of National
Forest activities in Frederick County.
Sincerely,
s /Finis L. Harris
t /FINIS L. HARRIS
Acting District Ranger
phc: Board Members 2 -21 -79
Planning 4 Development Director
Commissioner of the Revenue
A third announcement was also received: a communication from the Virginia
Municipal League directed to key officials regarding agricultural and forestal
seminars as sponsored by the Municipal League, Agribusiness Council, Virginia
Association of Counties, Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, and the Virginia Farm
Bureau.Federation.
The Chairman read out the announcement and said the information would be
I
available in Mr. Berg's office for any interested in attending ahe seminars,
of which the meeting in Warrenton, on March 9, Holiday Inn, Culpeper, at 10A.M.
622
(PC 3/7/79) p. 4
was closest. This was received as information.
The Chairman opened the meeting to discussion while awaiting Mr. Ambrogi
at 2:30. Mr. Brumback then inquired about the possibility of;the staff's devising
a time -frame which would be workable as to the period required for projects coming
through the staff. Mr. Berg's response was that he has been reluctant to give
anyone a time -frame as there are many persons outside his control, i.e., engineers,
surveyors, etc. Mr. Brumback stated that he meant the sequence of events --
meeting dates, public hearings, and so on. Mr. Berg said he'd be glad to work
out something.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted
July 12, 1978, to amend Section 21- 16(r), 21- 26(i), 21- 44(i), 21- 52(n), 21- 90(x),
and 21- 101.2.
Discussion
Mr. Berg explained that one or two revisions had been made based on
information in the State Code and information received from Henrico County.
The most important point is that conditional zoning applies only to business
and industrial zones; thus, anyone applying for rezoning to a residential or
agricultural district would not be able to offer conditions. In Henrico County,
he said, this applies throughout all zoning districts, but iw Frederick County
this is not applicable at present. He warned of the possibility of a massive
policing effort, and pointed out that under conditional zoning limited to business
and industrial zones most of the conditions could be taken care of at the time
the building in occupied. His conclusion: revisions to code could be helpful
rather than complicating.
Mr. Rosenberger referred to a previously heard petition on a conditional
use permit; Mr. Berg pointed out that conditional zoning pertains only to the
rezoning process. Conditional zoning limits use to be made, so the Commission
and the Board can be confident only the use mentioned will take place. It has
not been possible to put conditions or riders on zoning permits to date. The
623
(PC 3/7/79) p. S
option to the property owner in conditional zoning is that it strengthens his
case. When Mr. Rosenberger inquired about spot zoning, Mr. Berg replied that
spot zoning didn't pertain to business and industrial zones generally.
The Chairman summarized: how inclusive do we want to make this conditional
zoning? Mr. Berg indicated, to Mr. Golladay's question about why residential
and agricultural zones are not included, that the policing required would be
great: types of conditions would be far more varied (fencing, design, buffering)
than merely construction of a building, or its use. Zoning for density is self -
policing. Other conditions are often difficult to administer, such as hours
at a swimming pool, parking lots, types of lighting, tree buffers. Mr. Berg
expressed hesitancy at getting into anything this complex, particularly without
experience. It will be possible to expand the scope of conditional zoning after
it's been around for a while, or subtract, but he doesn't think it wise to throw
the situation wide open now. It has been in the business and industrial zones
where desire to really tie something down has been expressed.
Mr. Brumback asked if conditional use permits were used in - -lieu of
regional zoning. Mr. Berg said they had often been used to soften something
and, when asked his view, said he thought it a good system when not overdone.
An alternative would be, in a comprehensive plan, to state "Any commercial uses
must be zoned business." Mr. Brumback called for study on A- districts along
with consideration of the revised conditional zoning proposal. Mr. Berg stressed
that though he wants experience with conditional zoning, he wants to try it out
gradually. He emphasized that the conditions in conditional zoning must be
requested by the applicant, that neither Commission nor Board may request
conditions. To the question: Would the conditional zoning create added problems?
Mr. Berg's answer was that with conditional zoning, less could be railroaded
through without any possible controls. His example, a property zoned M -1
which turned into an industrial park, "sitting out there with a very marginal
drainfield." Conditional zoning would have helped in such a case; in his view,
it will make something that may happen anyway better.
624
(PC 3/7/79) p. 6
In the concluding discussion of conditional zoning, Mr. Brumback
/,
expressed the desire to study it when the Chairman asked if further consideration
was desirable. Mr. Berg indicated that the Board of Supervisors has not yet
given any attention to the matter. He further added that conditional zoning
is optional for applicants for rezoning. Mr. Rosenberger asked if they would
be told of the option, and Mr. Berg replied that he would not bring it up
except when a request was made to meet a problem.
The Chairman stated that he understood conditional zoning would usually
be sought only when an applicant would not otherwise be able to get his request
through. When policing again came up, Mr. Berg said there would indeed be
a need for policing.
In his summation, the Chairman expressed the view that there was no par-
titular urgency in getting the change through, asked if there were agreement,
and recommended tabling it for the time being.
Mr. Brumback suggested pertinent cases might turn up which would make the
operation of conditional zoning applicable; Mr. Rosenberger described this as
a trial run.
The conditional zoning proposal was accepted as information.
As background on the discussion with Mr. Larry Ambrogi on home occupation,
Mr. Berg spelled out that conditions of "home occupation" are: no display, no
persons outside the home to be employed. It is carried out by the occupant of
a dwelling as a secondary use, such as tourist room rental, preparation of food
for sale, or professional offices. He added that three or four permits have
been issued for home occupation in buildings outside the residence, on the
residential lot. What is needed is the legal determination as to whether home
also
occupation should be described as only within the dwelling, or /in outbuildings.
The Chairman asked if the ordinance as now written is wrong, or if Mr.
Ambrogi has added insight into correct definition. Mr. Ambrogi said he had
625
(PC 3/7/79) p. 7
been of the opinion that in the past the interpretation was inclusive of the
premises and not confined to the actual residence. He wondered if the Commission
was looking for a wider interpretation.
Ms. Stefen questioned that the ordinance could be more strongly worded,
except as restricted to the dwelling. Mr. Ambrogi said it would have to be
more specific to be limited to one building, as "conducted in a dwelling by the
occupant" or "within the building used by the occupant as his place of dwelling."
He claimed that the present wording leaves the issue open and means the premises
as well as the dwelling house.
In response to the Chairman's question as to intent, Mr. Berg replied
that the intention was to restrict home occupation to the actual dwelling
house when the ordinance was written in 1973, and the present question is
whether or not the situation should be changed. If change is not desired,
Mr. Berg wanted to be sure the ground was firm on issuing permits based on
the current wording.
Home occupations are allowed by right in both agricultural districts and
most residential districts, said Ms. Stefen to clarify'the problem. If it is
interpreted to mean anything outside the house, the opening is made for just
about any business without making each situation subject to conditional use
permit.
When the Chairman sounded out the individual members of the P.C. as to
their views on limiting the term "home occupation" to the actual dwelling house,
a division of opinion was apparent, with DeHaven, Kirk, and Rosenberger inclined
not to limit, Golladay, Brumback and Chairman Gordon concerned about the
consequences of opening up the definition too much.
Reasons given by Mr. DeHaven and Mr. Rosenberger for non - limitation of
the definition to the dwelling house were pursuit of hobbies, and freedom to
augment income; Mr. Rosenberger emphasized the angle of opportunities for
older people to make money.
The Chairman opted for adhering to the original intention and stated that
626
(PC 3/7/79) p. 8
other avenues of achieving flexibility were open without a change of definition
of home occupation, and touched on objectionable home occupations, especially
noisy ones. Mr. Golladay commented on the absence of a noise ordinance in
Frederick County. Ms. Stefen's contribution was that recourse against objection-
able home occupations should be written into the framework of the zoning ordi-
nances. The Chairman and Ms. Stefen both warned of the risk of an open -ended
approach permitting any businesses to operate anywhere. Ms. Stefen stressed
that the staff interpretation of "only within the dwelling (house)" is the reason
the Planning Commission has been aware of developments.
Mr. Gordon's comment was that it appeared to be a hornet's nest, and it
was recalled that this had been the case when the wording was first drawn up.
Mr. Brumback raised the question of different possible criteria as to acceptable
home occupations: magnitude and volume of business, age of applicants (Rosenberger).
degree of disruptiveness. When Mr. Berg was asked his view by the Chairman, he
pointed out that the opposition is less to the location inside or outside the
dwelling house than it is to the type of activities.
It was decided to return the item to the staff for further study.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. #003 -79 submitted by the Frederick County
Planning Commission for Adolph Hockman and Mary Hockman, 1145 Oak Street,
Winchester, Virginia, who hereby request that two lots fronting Oak Street
for one hundred seventy -five feet (175) now zoned Business - General District
(B -2) be rezoned: Residential- Limited (R -3). These properties are located
in the J. P. Darlington Subdivision and are designated as property identifi-
cation number 53A(2) block C. lots 1 and 2 in Gainesboro Magisterial District.
ACTION -- Recommend Approval
Mrs. Hockman appeared before the Commission after preliminary remarks by
Mr. Berg describing the nature of the request, to rezone two lots, previously
zoned residential, now zoned business. After establishing the location and
lay of the lots, Mrs. Hockman remarked that when she bought the lots in 1959
they were zoned residential. Mr. Berg had mentioned a change in conditions,
that water and sewage are now available, so that a second house is planned
on the empty lot.
627
(PC 3/7/79) p. 9
No opposition was offered to the request. A question from a member of
the audience: Betty Mumaw wanted to know if the requested change would affect
other persons in the area. The staff indicated that no one else would be
affected.
The Chairman commented that, as Mr. Brumback had said, the entire area of
Sunnyside was .under study,•but that public hearings would be held to enable
any who might be affected by changes to put forth their views.
Mr. DeHaven moved, Mr. Brumback seconded, approval of petition.
Vote was thus recorded: Kirk; DeHaven ;Golladay;Brumback;Rosenberger - YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of Frederick County recommend
approval of Zoning Map Amendment Petition No #003 -79 (Heckman) to the Board of
Supervisors.
A five- minute break was taken at this point.
The meeting was then reconvened.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted
July 12, 1978, to amend Sections a- 15(r), 21- 26(r), 21- 36(i), 21- 44(i), 21- 52(n),
21- 90(x), and 21- 101.2(1).
Asked for the background, Mr. Berg told the P.C. that to the words "church
bulletin boards" in that section of the code, the words "and identification signs
and signs for nonprofit service clubs and charitable associations" are being
added. The purpose of this is to avoid requiring a conditional use permit for
such signs as those of the Rotary Club, 4 -H, Lions Club. Asked if any gray
areas were foreseen in this, Mr. Berg replied that it appeared to be an unmitigated
good in this case.
Mrs. C. Ridgely White was invited by the Chairman to speak to this issue.
Her prompt response was to ask whether a large church sign would be included
in this wording. Discussion brought to light the important distinction that a
sign on the premises of a property was outside such control. ' There is a height
restriction on signs, but not a size limitation.
MMI
(PC 3/7/79) p. 10
Mr. Berg, when Mrs. White asked if anything larger than small church and
service organization signs might be regulated, explained that highway depart-
ment regulations are involved here, and that larger signs almost have to be
on- premise signs due to Highway Department standards for off - premise signs.
The area of sign regulation would have to be entered into in order for any
control to be exerted over large church signs, for example.
Mrs. White called for sign regulation by ordinance due to growth of the
community; she predicted that matters will get worse, not better. The Chairman
described the problem as one presently on the back burner, and which will be
addressed sooner or later. He asked the staff if a maximum size could be set.
Mr. Berg replied that the highway size requirement is far smaller than the
6 x 12 figure mentioned, as being 4 x 4 or perhaps 3 x 3.
Mr. Gordon pointed out that on- premise regulation as applied to a church
would be unjust if other signs, purely commercial in character, were not
regulated.
After some further talk of getting into sign regulation, it was decided
to table the action for today and resume consideration in a month to avoid
re- advertising, referring the question back to staff to determine state
requirements. The Chairman thanked Mrs. White for introducing the subject
of limitation of sign size, said it would be considered. Invited to speak
further, she opened the topic of a new Board of Review with some prepared
remarks on the subject: "In view of the fact that zoning variance is not sub-
ject to the controls which apply to regular zoning, there's a need for study
of each individual request. A Board of Review established for this purpose
working under the Planning Board or the Board of Zoning Appeals could set
guidelines for size of a building in relation to the property, distance from
the road or highway, landscaping, and signing. Their recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors before approval is either granted or denied should be
given careful consideration." She went on to say that the existence of some
controls would permit projects to move forward, that there would be less
629
(PC 3/7/79) p. 11
objection to zoning variances -- citing campground near Belle Grove as example --
if possible objectionable features can be headed off. As a second example, she
spoke of the Fisher property in front of Belle Grove as a case in which neighbors
would have liked some say. She differentiated from the function of the Board
of Architectural Review for this proposed Board, or Committee, by specifying
only such matters as distance from road, signs, and landscaping as its proper
field. She pointed to Valley Avenue's "tunnel" of auto dealers and fast food
places as a situation which would have been much improved if a greater distance
from the road had been required, and regretted the absence of foresight when
this area was springing up.
The Chairman asked Mr. Berg about these instances, and the question of
remodeling. The answer: there is no control over remodeling. As to the
Fisher property, the B.Z.A. could have put conditions on it, but did not.
Mrs. White asked if this were so; the B.Z.A. said at the time they could not
impose conditions. Ms. Stefen explained that the attorney for the B.Z.A.
interpreted the Codes this way, and that interpretation of State and local
Codes is at issue.
Chairman Gordon mentioned that there is considerable resistance from the
public on the matter of any such regulation. Mrs. White commented on public
apathy until some personal effect (as of the pocketbook) is felt, and also
on non - enforcement of controls. Where signs and their upkeep is concerned,
she was told, this is the province, again, of the Highway Department.
The Chairman asked for Mr. Berg's view of this. He spoke of the desir-
ability of having a skilled group involved with site plans and variance requests,
but felt that the relative infrequency of a need for their opinions would create
a difficulty in maintaining the group's interest and enthusiasm. Mr. Berg
suggested that sensitive plans and requests be referred by the Planning Com-
mission, the B.Z.A. or the Board of Supervisors to such a committee for
design recommendations.
Mr. Rosenberger spoke of several recent instances in which this committee
630
(PC 3/7/79) p. 12
as proposed would have been helpful. Pressure brought to bear on Highway
Department has led to unsightly spots being permitted which might have been
in some way screened if any form of control had existed.
Mr. Berg invited the members of the P.C. to consider good people who
might qualify for an .Ad Hoc group which could be called together from time
to time to act in what the Chairman described as an advisory capacity. Mr.
Gordon also suggested a subcommittee of the Planning Commission could be
formed to "ride herd" on these matters. Mr. Berg's idea on the size of such
a group was: a Planning Commission member, plus three other people.
The Chairman commended the ideas here expressed to Mr. Berg for further
study and suggestions.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted
July 12, 1978, to amend Articles XI, XII, and XIII -A.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda due to an incorrect advertisement.
Subsequent motion to adjourn until 7:30 was unanimously approved.
Respectfully submit �^
O { 0 v
H. Ronald Berg, Secretar
A_ Liu �� / .
C. Langd d
631