PC_05-16-79_Meeting_Minutes(PC 5/16/79) p. 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman;
Elmer.tienskoske; W. French Kirk; Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.
Herbert Sluder
ABSENT: Thomas B. Rosenberger
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first
unanimously
order of business. The minutes of the meeting of May 2, 1979 were /approved with
one typographical correction on page 674, "hes possesses "to read he.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Ms. Stefen reported that Oak Hill Subdivision's petition would be
before the Planning Commission by its next session or soon thereafter.
The status of Windy Hill: Mr. Kirk said the roads were going in now,
along with water and sewer, and that it appears to be half or two - thirds finished.
Mr. Gordon inquired of Ms. Stefen if the developers in doing this work
before the plat was finalized were taking a chance, and she replied that it appears
so, that the situation is the same as before.
On the Heath site plan, another building is being added for commercial use;
staff could handle due to compliance
This is a model, planned also for other
business uses, near Kernstown.
Mr. Brumback requested that comparison figures of building permits from a
year previous be made available; Mr. Golladay mentioned that he had requested this
also, but as the bimonthly report is now less than a year old, such figures are
not yet readily accessible. Ms. Stefen agreed to furnish such figures on a
quarterly basis, at an early date if not at the next session.
Mr. Gordon asked,. regarding CUP's, "What is Group 44, Inc. ?" Property is
676
(PC 5/16/79) p. 2
zoned M -1 (Industrial limited) and the research portion of this is not a concern
for a CUP. Aboveground petroleum storage is desired, and such use is not clearly
permitted in this zone. In the absence of specific mention of a use, a CUP may be
requested. Mr. DeHaven brought out the need for meeting certain State requirements,
such as inspection, and the safety element of the ground being "pushed up" around
it. Speaking to the safety element, Mr. Renalds said that when the building inspec-
tor saw a need for particular expertise he availed himself of the Winchester Fire
Department inspector's help.
The Bimonthly Report was received as information.
SUBDIVISION
Ash Hollow Estates, off Rt. 659 in Stonewall District, 61 townhouse lots,
Sfarnas- Hicks
Preliminary plat approval has been granted, which includes site plan.
Ali approvals have been obtained except from Highway Department, and petitioner
wished to have this presented at this time.
Sanitation Authority, per Mr. Jones, has approved though having some ad-
ditional requirements. As stated by Mr. Golladay and confirmed by Mr. W. H. Jones,
the Sanitation Authority grants its approval contingent on the approval of the
Planning Commission.and the Board of Supervisors. Guided by a memorandum
referred to by Mr_ Golladay, again am
be needed at the entrance, for better
the project, said Mr. Jones, requires
the dwelling. "The addition of one
from six to eight inches is basically
he concluded, adding that this can be
Dlified by Mr. Jones, larger water lines will
fire protection. The high- density nature of
fire hydrants within three hundred feet of
fire hydrant and the increasing of a line
all that is necessary with regard to water,"
handled administratively.
The Chairman called forward the applicant, Mr. John Sfarnas, who said
"The preliminary from the Highway Department was approved, and we talked to Mr.
King, who approved the preliminary, and he had to send a copy down to Staunton,
but he did call me on the phone." Ms. Stefen pointed out that he could not give
677
(PC 5/16/79) P. 3
that approval himself. "But he said he didn't see any problems," said Mr. Sfarnas.
"Mr. King was out of town until Thursday, so I called down there, they said they
didn't see any problems and the letter would be forthcoming, so what we request is
contingent on their letter coming in, but we'd like to get your approval," Mr.
Sfarnas continued.
Invited to speak further, Mr. Sfarnas said "We've had this request since
November, and have changed this, and revised it about six times, and I think we've
got it pretty near up to what's expected. If there are any administrative changes,
we'll be glad to make them."
Questions from Mr. Golladay and Mr. Brumback elicited this information:
The acreage involved is 10 +, and the time -frame does not involve a definite com-
pletion date. "We want to start immediately, as soon as we get approval. We have
the planning to different engineers for the street, Perry Engineering and some
others for bids, soon as they can get to it, we want to go right ahead." "The whole
project put in at one time ?" asked the Vice - Chairman. Mr. Sfarnas first agreed, then
said "Well, there'll probably be different dates for starts." Mr. Brumback clarified:
"Not one phase this year, and one phase next, and another phase three years down the
road ?" "No, sir," said Mr. Sfarnas, "we want to get it in as soon as possible,
probably within a year - a year- and -a- half."
"I think you'll notice on the plan there's a lot of things that weren't
called for in the code that we have put in voluntarily, as far as streets, the
parking lots - - -" said Mr. Sfarnas.
"Was this done because of the staff ?" asked the Chairman. "We tried to make
it as attractive as possible." was Mr. Sfarnas's answer.
Ms. Stefen replied to Mr. Golladay's question about the density of R -6
that the use is to the highest possible capacity, no more could be put on it.
Mr. Sfarnas addressed this point by adding "Unless it was in apartments.
It could have been doubled; we could have put twice as many apartments as town-
houses on this same piece of property."
AM
(PC 5/16/78) p. 4
Mr. Golladay asked, "John, how much of a hurry are you in about this thing ?"
"We're in a big hurry. We expected to start this in December and now we're
into summer. We'll lose the whole summer if we don't get some action in this.
we have other builders that want to come build in there, in the units of eight,
that want to buy these tracts. In fact, there's three or four other builders that
are ready to go."
Mr. Golladay stated the crucial point; on all other site plans, approval
by all concerned bodies has been required to be confirmed before the Planning Com-
mission takes action. This policy has been in force for quite a while.
Mr. Sfarnas spoke to the problem of delay into another month. "This is
going to have to go to the City." Mr. Renalds confirmed this, that it will have
to go to the City. Mr. Sfarnas indicated that any minor adjustments, should Staunton
call for them, could be handled administratively without resubmission to Staunton.
This was what Mr. King had assured him.
Mr. Golladay said he had believed that in the past,developments within three
miles of the City went to the City before coming to the Planning Commission; Mr.
Renalds said he had checked on this point with Mr. Berg, who said the order now
being followed was the custom: upon approval by the P.C. it goes to the City. "If
changes are suggested, we have to resubmit to the City. They don't have to take
the 60 or 90 days they have, they don't have to have a public hearing if they don't
want to. It might very well be that they would expedite it," he stated.
"Copies of this have been submitted already; copies went down to the City
yesterday to try to save a little time," said Mr. Sfarnas.
Mr. DeHaven suggested that the most important thing would be if the letter
were in hand when the Board heard the petition, accompanying the City comments as
well. He expressed the belief that the City hearing paralleled the Commission
meetings, one day later, on Thursdays.
Mr. Sfarnas made the point that "A lot of the fellows who are going to
679
(PC 5/16/78) p. 5
build on this property applied to the banks for commitments, but in the last few
months the building money has gone from 9 -3/4 % up to 13� %. If we wait much longer,
we may be up to 16% before we can start this thing."
The Chairman addressed the policy issue, of making an exception in this
one case, as being a legitimate concern. When Mr. Golladay remarked that the Board
of Supervisors wouldn't act without receipt of Highway approval and City approval,
Mr. Sfarnas offered to run down to Staunton to pick up the letter. Mr. Sfarnas
seeming to suggest the fault for all approvals not being in at the present hearing,
Ms. Stefen stressed that staff action in this matter to her knowledge had created
no delays; and in fact that staff had expedited and helped a good deal.
Mr. Venskoske's question to Mr. Sfarnas about responsibility for the letter
from Staunton being available this day touched off Mr. Sfarnas's citing a letter
approvals
from Mr. Berg saying "that all preliminary /are okay and that's it."
Ms. Stefen explained that when applicant brought in a final plat and wished
to appear immediately before the Planning Commission, he was told that reviewing
agencies would have final say. "We have no control over reviewing agencies, so
far as getting the comments back, or time limit -- We can request answer as soon
as possible, but that's all we can do."
Mr. Golladay appealed to a press representative to learn the date of the
City Planning Commission meeting: the fourth Thursday, one meeting a month only.
The Chairman at this point directed discussion to other possible stumbling
blocks after Mr. Renalds mentioned that the earliest the Board could act would be
i
June 20th, assuming City P. C. action on the 24th of May, since the first meeting
a
in June has been dropped due to /conflict and there will be only one meeting in June.
Their next meeting will be prior to the City Planning Commission meeting.
Since the question of time is agreed to be significant, the asked
for Ms. Stefen's view, and she said: "I would imagine that if we went ahead and
sent comments -- the information -- to the City so that they would have time to
review it before their meeting officially --
WE
(PC 5/16/79) p. 6
"You're talking about sending this to the City without this Commission
acting ?" asked Mr. Gordon. "Yes, it's an administrative thing that could be done,"
replied Ms. Stefen. "Before we act ?" asked Mr. DeHaven.
"If the Commission feels that we have no other questions, maybe we could
make an exception in the administrative area, to help these people move along,"
said Mr. Gordon. Mr. DeHaven referred to the current interest rates as creating
a hardship the Commission might not care to impose.
An informal poll of Commission members brought the following responses:
Mr. Brumback averred that the P.C. does try to help developers and keep the time-
frames as close as possible; on the other hand, he said, they attempt to adhere to
established policies. His preference was to table for two weeks, or until Highway
Department approval is received, whichever comes first.
No one in opposition was present. Mr. Brumback moved to table, but to
send along to City Planning Commission with recommendations
Mr. Kirk asked for Mr. Renalds' view on this procedure since it is a
departure. Mr. Renalds said this mode of handling would not be any particular
problem, that the wish of the Commission should guide it; his only reservation was
in the event of changes being made by the City and consequent need to resubmit.
Mr. Golladay pointed out there would be little difference in time, but
ly
was disposed to agree with previous /expressed views.
Mr. Venskoske raised a question about the deed, and Ms. Stefen spoke to
this, saying "My feeling is that it should be submitted but Ron did not necessarily
require that until it went to the Board in the past. I would be willing to go
along with past procedure though I did ask for the deed some weeks ago. The deed
is important in this case because of the common grounds and recreation area, and
that's the only real control we have to ensure that's taken care of." This point
only arises occasionally; subdivision requests for major developments like this
are infrequent, with apartments or townhouses. It is not a question of not having
a proper deed, she went on to explain, but that the buyers of the individual lots
no]
(PC 5/16/78) p. 7
will be protected in the maintenance of the common grounds, and it will be clear
to staff who will maintain the roads also.
Mr. Brumback was inclined to agree with the procedure suggested as being
the lesser of two evils, Mr. Venskoske thought the time pressure a justification
also, Mr. DeHaven was also agreeable to passing along the application to the City,
Mr. Kirk didn't "want to hold them up." Since Mr. Renalds is not in opposition,
he, too, felt this way of handling the matter was quite all right. '
Mr. Brumback emphasized that changes of any magnitude would make a difference.
The deed in proper form, with restrictions, covenants, etc. and the Highway Depart-
ment approval are requested. Mr. Sfarnas replied, "I understand."
The question was called for: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Venskoske;
Brumback; Gordon -- YES
BE IT RESOLVED, that request for approval of Ash Hollow Estates be tabled
for the next meeting of the Planning Commission but that it will be passed to
members of the City Planning Commission so as to minimize delay.
Mr. Golladay had a comment pertaining to $6,000 requested from the Board
six months before for a study on cost figures for development. "It's been setting
on the shelf, and my personal opinion is we ought to dust it off and start using
it." He went on to say practical use should be made of the money.
Mr. Brumback indicated that he was uncertain what formula to use but concurred
with Mr. Golladay on the need for some determinations to be made, whether on popula-
tion density or whatever criteria. The number of people at the highest density in
i
one individual application or project was his tentative suggestionias a base.
Mr. Brumback's meaning was the effect on the County, in matters like schools, the
budget, services; his suggestion that an impact study was needed above a certain
figure to make planning feasible, with the time element considered as to number of
school -age children, and when, schools would be affected.
Mr. Golladay said the capital improvements plan had this as one of its
objectives. Mr. DeHaven mentioned one difficulty as being the point of origin
already
of the new dwellers of such a project as Ash Hollow -- if all /in Frederick County
or from other places.
1H
(PC 5/16/79) P. g
Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Sam Lehman if he wished to address this topic.
Mr. Lehman said the figures represented only the cost on an average of
Frederick County households with no distinction as to the type of household or
where situated. He also questioned the validity of the figures for three sample
subdivisions, to the extent of claiming that they were off the mark "tenfold."
He gave one -time fees as a reason for the claimed inaccuracy, assuming the houses
as lasting for thirty years, thus making one -time fees negligible in obtaining
meaningful figures. A one -year set of figures is also misleading, he said;
several years of study would be needed to give a true picture.
Mr. Gordon summarized that there should be some formula applicable to
Frederick County, and that a cut -off point must exist above which an impact
study is needed. In reply to his question, Ms. Stefen gave as her view that
until the capital improvements program is completed this problem cannot be addressed,
and since this program has been set aside as of lower priority than other issues
economic
presently being treated, nothing sign_.ficantcan be done. She did say an /impact
study for R -6 development might be wise, that the: impact might be different from
other residential uses.
Mr. Brumback said "These developers are serious" about putting up the
houses, and felt that some planning must be done in any event. To Mr. DeHaven's
remark that he'd prefer to see developments near the city, with water & sewer
available, than to see agricultural land converted to hold the same 60 -some
families in the tract under current discussion, Mr. Gordon's response
was to suggest that in this he had the company of the rest of the members.
Mr. Gordon described the matter as a big question mark and asked if there
were any recommendations as to the direction the Commission should take.
Mr. Golladay was simply sounding out Commission views, he said.
Mr. Gordon concluded that this was good work- session material, and cate-
gorized the difficulty as "growing pains."
A five - minute break occurred at this juncture.
NEW
(PC 5/16/79) p. 9
An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 21, Zoning,
adopted July 12, 1978, to amend Section 21- 16v(5) and Section 21 -26x
(14) .
A change in wording has been requested by the Board of Supervisors,
i
said Ms. Stefen, to prevent recurrence of problems which have been encountered.
i
{
After discussion, it was agreed to check with the Commonwealth's Attorney for
the most effective phrasing. In the present wording, the word "family" has been
added to the terminology used to delimit "campground."
CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND PROCEDURES
Included in the day's agenda as requested in the previous session is a
summation of policy statements. The policy of posting a property when application
for a Conditional Use Permit has been made was here confirmed.
Mr. Brumback requested that a separate binder be made and kept up -to -date
for these policies; similarly, that such a folder be made available for use by
applicants.
On a related subject, Ms. Stefen asked if all members have a copy of the
current State and Local Planning Legislation. Mr. Golladay said the latest copy
he had was from 1975, and suggested that in addition to the bound copy of policy
statements, recent proposed amendments in zoning, permits_, etc. also be incorpor-
i
i
ated in the same binding. Ms. Stefen proposed that each member also be given
the materials which are given to applicants.
The Chairman commented that consistency has been a strong feature in the
unity of the Commission. Exceptions have seldom been made.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT AMENDMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS
In previous discussions before Mr. Berg left, Ms. Stefen said, the subject
of limiting home occupations to the dwelling house, the actual place of residence,
was a chief concern. She indicated that the recent case recommended by the P.C.
to the Board had been withdrawn due to neighborhood concern. In areas of residential
Z
(PC 5/16/79) p. 10
density, it may be advisable to limit home occupation to the dwelling house, as
has been the case in the past.
She described the individual section changes as a means of having a
record of home occupations. This may be useful in preventing - a change from
use of an outbuilding in agricultural zones to what might later be 'claimed to
be a lawful nonconforming use, but one which has been instituted without planners'
I
knowledge. The building or zoning permit would suffice to keep a measure of
order.
Mr. Gordon inquired if parking ought not to be a specific concern in
home occupation, residential included in the Ordinance wording. Ms. Stefen
saw no legal problem in including this with other provisions.
The question of policing came out in discussion: the means of this would
be annual inspections to determine compliance with conditions put on in conditional
use permits.
Mr. Golladay, taking note of the phrase "excluding antique shops, etc."
within "Home Occupation - Agricultural" and the absence of such a phrase in "Home
Occupation - Residential," asked if this meant an antique shop could be a home
occupation in a residential district. Ms. Stefen replied that her interpretation
of home occupation in a residential district was that it was pretty much limited
to professional occupations. He asked if the words "such as professional offices
etc." were intended as an example or as a limitation- Discussion brought out the
advisability of making a list rather than including an example within the wording,
or perhaps not enumerating, since types of home occupation will come under scrutiny
with application for CUP. Open -ended loose definition was considered by the
Commission as one possible approach.
The Chairman expressed the view that home occupation in an agricultural
district also presents special problems in the matter of use of outbuildings, etc.
This question, he said, was also appropriate for work - session discussion -- that is,
the entire matter of home occupations. The Vice - Chairman gave his opinion that
conditional zoning and conditional use permits would need a lot of thought and study.
685
(PC 5/16/79) p. 11
Mr. Gordon commended to the Commission's attention this issue, which he
asked to have included in work- session.
STAFF REPORT ON VIRGINIA CITIZENS' PLANNING ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE
Ms. Stefen asked to give this report, centering on conditional zoning, at
the tentatively scheduled work - session to treat of conditional zoning, conditional
use permits, and home occupations, particularly since Mr. Rosenberger was not present
at this Commission meeting.
A member of the audience at this point asked to speak about his own home
occupation plans. A resident of Stonewall District, in an A -2 zone, he wishes to
construct a building right beside his house as a small photography studio for his
exclusive use. The Chairman thanked him for his participation and indicated that
as the gentleman had seen, this is an area under present study.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECTION OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Ms. Stefen recommended that this, too, be included in the work - session now
being planned. Any comprehensive approach requires that the tie -in. between conditional
use and conditional zoning be acknowledged. Chairman and Vice - Chairman concurred
that this is a high priority item.
Mr. H. K. Benham,III now being present, the Commission turned to the second
agenda item: Consideration of the proposed Master Plan of the Frederick Mall
property at the intersection of Fox Drive and Route 522 at Sunnyside.
Mr. Benham said that about a year ago three lots were subdivided, of some
thirty to forty acres in extent. With him today he had a plans which will mean the
plans
vacation of one or two lots already subdivided. Thesel were distributed among the
P.C. members and discussed. He pointed out that the upper right -hand corner of plan
showed two separate tracts, at the site of the Arco station and where the designation
convenience foods appears. Lot lines were changed for topographical
reasons; some land will be leveled.. The intent is to have a relatively small
L- shaped shopping area; the ground being unfavorable to extension far past ridge.
686
(PC 5/16/79) p. 12
Buildings rise above road, the opposite, he said, of Nichols. Mr. Benham thought
there would be no need to front onto Rt. 522. He referred to a recommendation
by a planner consulted by Mr. Berg in a past meeting that there be entrances onto
522, but appeared to feel the plan had provided an alternative. The only cross-
over in the area at present, he said, is opposite the entrance to the shopping area.
There will be two exit lanes, one toward West Virginia, the other toward Winchester,
wide enough to carry expected traffic.
Mr. Brumback stressed that traffic will probably be a greater factor now
than when this plan was discussed before, but appeared to feel present plan could
handle it, probably.
Mr. Benham indicated that his appearance today was meant to anticipate
later objections or suggestions. He specified the upcoming request which would
come to the commission to vacate the old lots and approve the new ones.
Mr. Brumback asked why an entrance onto Fox Drive was not included in the
present plan, and Mr. Benham said Mr. King had asked that it be moved north toward
522 as visibility to Fox Drive would then be better. Mr. Brumback asked about a
through corridor at the southern entrance as he envisioned all the businesses
breaking at about the same hour and creating a jam.
Possibility exists, said Mr. Benham, of using Fahnestock Lane, constructing
a road there along the entire southwest portion of the property (area marked as
future development Boundary line of property is northern boundary of Fahne-
stock Lane, which runs all the way to the southwest corner, continues south near
Glaize development. Fahnestock Lane dies out then, it does not connect at end
opposite to Fox Drive with any other road, explained Mr. Benham. Mr. Gordon
mentioned that this Lane is one of the most historical and oldest roads in the
area. Mr. Brumback was interested in the opening up of this road to the extent
that it is needed for the present plan. Mr. Benham conceded that before the
rear portion of the land in question a road would be needed, either ..Fahnestock
Lane or something carved from the property in question. Mr. Benham when asked
who owns the Lane said "That's a very difficult question." 6B7
(PC 5/16/79) p. 13
He said the public may have had right to it at one time, but as it has
been gradually abandoned, it may have gone to the adjoining landowners. "Probably
without a court suit you wouldn't be able to determine who does own it." Mr. Benham
agreed that another access would be essential to developing the back part; as to
its possible use, he thought it would not work as a commercial parcel, under present
conditions. He stated it could remain unused, awaiting future commercial need,
i
or be developed as multi- or single- family residential area.
One line of water and sewer has already been run, he said. Another line
would be needed if lots A, B, & C are developed;because of the ridge two separate
lines would be necessary.
Asked if he had anything specific he wanted to put before the Commission,
Mr. Benham answered that one concern would be about the lots along 522 not running
in straight lines. Lines would be asked to be shifted to contours shown on plans
before the members, which run with the topography.
Mr. King has requested, said Mr. Benham, that the 80 -foot road coming into
the shopping center not be dedicated, but be maintained in conjunction with the
shopping area. All other roads as presently contemplated would be dedicated.
Lot C entrance and exit would be on the street paralleling Route 522;
Lot A, with.three hundred and ten feet of frontage, would probably use the 80 -foot
right -of -way. With reference to Lot A, some question exists as to the advantage to
be gained from an exit to 522, possible or practical only with Lot A.
Ms. Stefen emphasized that Mr. Benham is talking about changing subdivision
lines. "Because this is zoned B -2 we won't have any true control, in the same way
as the mall that was discussed recently, past any subdivision action, as far as
requiring whatever you should decide is needed." Subdivision control, she went
on to clarify, represents the last point at which the Commission may require
placement of entrances, exits, anything on their number, considerations other than
design. She cited the Stine Industrial Park situation. At the point of subdivision,
the Commission has more control. Mr. Benham stated that his group planned to
place restrictions as Stine has done to control type of buildings to be put up.
688
(PC 5/16/79) P. 14
Mr. Benham said he was glad to learn where possible problems, such as
nature of entrances and number, might lie.
Mr. Gordon summarized the discussion by referring again to the use with
Lot A of an exit onto 522. He then asked if the Commission could "live with the
survey lines on these lots." Mr. Brumback indicated that he was not in favor of
an outlet directly onto 522 from Lot A; no more was Mr. Golladay, w I ho likened the
situation to one in Stephens City at Kentucky Fried Chicken with reference to
entrance onto Route 277. Mr. Golladay predicted a major change in the area
under discussion when the high school is built; more developments, more traffic
from school, more traffic on Fox Drive. His point is to keep down the number of
entrances to Route 522. Mr. Brumback asked about a collector road, and Mr. Benham
said it would not be practical, that in effect there already is one. Lot B is
too steep from 522, and could have a restriction put in, therefore. The interior
roadway would serve C & D, needing no entrances onto 522. Mr. Benham said he'd be
interested in a traffic engineer's recommendation about Lot A.
Mr. Golladay said the Highway Department does not like two entrances close
together. Mr. Gordon mentioned, the existing High's Ice Cream Store, which could
mean, with another entrance added, three entrances within perhaps four hundred
feet. Mr. Benham thought High's might be limited to entrance only
i
Polled as to their views on Lot A: Mr. Venskoske thought the problems of
traffic and terrain were considerable. Mr. Benham spoke to his concern about
visibility by describing a plan of staggering location of buildings. He referred
also to the fact that the buildings will be located higher than in asite like
Delco Plaza; Mr. King's suggestions take easy locating of an entrance into account,
and recommendation that .owners maintain road so as to avoid complying with State
requirements and make entrance clearly visible is for the same reason. Mr. DeHaven's
view: prefers exit onto 522 but doesn't want ingress and egress both. Mr. Kirk
prefers exit only. Mr. Gordon also supports exit only, and perhaps ingress
only at High's Store later. The number of outlets, then, is a major part of
Commission concern. 689
(PC 5/16/69) p. 15
The prudence of Mr. Benham's group in sounding out the Commission's
views was praised by Mr. Brumback and Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon thanked the appli-
cant and offered to help resolve future questions on behalf of the Commission.
At the Chairman's proposal to shelve discussion of draft amendments to
the minimum off - street parking requirements of the zoning ordinance pro tem,
Ms. Stefen indicated that the second June session would be the proper time as
the first one would be pretty well taken up with cases.
She reported on a call from the Highway Department apropos of the Ash
Hollow Estates; a drainage easement and some different piping would perhaps
be required, but over -all they approve the application.
The next work - session was agreed upon as being at 7 o'clock, Tuesday,
May 22nd. In connection with the xheduled work - session, Mr. Golladay proposed
that a period be reserved for those persons unable to attend daytime hearings --
"public participation, input, gripes." As an open meeting, this would be in
order, said the Chairman. He further suggested that this time be set aside in
the front of the meeting rather than at the end, fifteen minutes; this was found
to be agreeable to the other members. "Public Comments" was Mr. Golladay's
designation for this time. The news staff covering the meeting was tapped to
notify the public of this welcome should they wish to do so.
The question of the July 4 meeting was then raised, as the advertising
of the agenda must be set in advance. Tuesday July 3 was suggested, but as any
Tuesday represents a conflict for Mr. Venskoske, Thursday the 5th was settled on.
The final item of the day's business was to acknowledge the alteration of
the schedule of the Board of Supervisors:one board meeting in June, on the 20th,
per current thinking and subject to change. There is also a cancellation of
a meeting in both July and August..
The agenda will first be advertised in July for P.C., effective 1 July.
On the $75 fee: Ms. Stefen has researched and broken down the costs, which
come out almost to the $75 figure from registered letters to adjoiners to
'3 N
(PC 5/16/79) p. 16
advertising. This information will be furnished to the Board as per their
request.
There being no further business, the Chairman moved to adjourn, the vote
was unanimous;. and Chairman Gordon adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Orl v A.
Dorothea L. Stefen, Acting Secretary
... • ..
691