Loading...
PC_06-06-79_Meeting_Minutes(PC 6/6/79) 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; W. French Kirk; Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Elmer Venskoske; Thomas B. Rosenberger; Herbert Sluder CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first order of business, the consideration of the minutes of the meeting of May 16, 1979,and of the work session of May 22, 1979. No corrections were offered and the two sets of minutes were approved as they stand by unanimous vote. BIMONTHLY REPORT In discussion of the new method of zoning tabulation, it was mentioned by Mr. Golladay that multiple - family dwellings would receive a separate listing in the future. The Chairman asked for clarification of administrative approval of subdivisions, and Ms. Stefen explained that these were' family variances. The Bimonthly Report was accepted as information. SUBDIVISION Ash Hollow Estates, off Route 659 in Stonewall District, 61 town house lots, Sfarnas- Hicks As this petition was carried over from the previous Planning Commission session, as soon as the members ascertained that all approvals were in order, Mr. Brumback moved and Mr. DeHaven seconded the motion for approval. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ash Hollow Estates to the Board of Supervisors, based on City approval and legal clearance. The vote was: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Venskoske; Brumback; Gordon -- YES Rosenberger -- ABSTAIN SITE PLAN Site Plan Revision No. 029 -77, Everett G. Emerson 1 acre, Stonewall District, revision of topography and reduction of parking spaces. 694 (PC 6/6/79) p. 2 Ms. Stefen specified that the parking spaces in this petition would be reduced from ten to five. Mr. George Griffith from Fairfax and Mr. Emerson were called forward. Mr. Griffith's summation: This petition was to have been submitted on Feb. 6, 1979 but was not through an error on Mr. Emerson's part. In the meantime, said Mr. Griffith, criminal charges had been brought against Mr. Emerson for "failing to comply with the topography." He wants to put up another building, an addition to the building, for which plans were submitted yesterday. The case against Mr. Emerson has been continued until September 5; "he intends to comply with all the topography and the parking spaces and bringing everything up to grade prior "to the /continuation. of /criminal charges' The Chairman requested background information from Ms. Stefen on these criminal charges, and she said that charges were filed by the Inspections Department. "Mr. Emerson occupied the building without an occupancy permit; the charges were made about a year ago." Various staffs have been working towards Mr. Emerson's meeting the requirements for a temporary occupancy permit. The reason for the delay, said Mr. Griffith, was that because Mr. Emerson wanted to put in the new building, if he had brought the land up to grade he would have had to tear it out again for the new building. When this petition of today is completed, and the new site plan also passes through the Commission and the Board, Mr. Emerson will be in compliance with the code requirements and get his occupancy permit, thus satisfying all parties. Ms. Steen stressed that the failure to obtain the occupancy permit has been hanging fire for quite some time. In response to the Chairman's question about approval of current request as being on firm ground, Ms. Stefen said that it was. She held that these actions were independent of the court case , in contradistinction to Mr. Griffith's tying all these events together. Mr. DeHaven expressed the intent of Mr. Emerson to improve the appearance of his building by putting on a more modern front. At this point Mr. Emerson said "I really wanted to have a building that I could be proud of, and that 695 (PC 6/6/79) p. 3 you can be proud of." Mr. DeHaven moved for approval, Mr. Kirk seconded. Vote was: Kirk;DeHaven; Golladay;Venskoske; Brumback;Rosenberger; Gordon ---------- BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend for approval to the Board of Supervisors the revised site plan for Everett G. Emerson. At this point, the agenda was juggled as business preliminary to the Public Hearing was complete; the seventh item of business was taken up. Discussion of Prime Agricultural Lands Committee The establishment of this committee has been agreed on; lots were drawn from a pool of names, one from each Commission member. Dr. DeOms and Mr. Robert Holmes will be serving. The "luck of the draw" went to Mr. Charles Orndorff of Stonewall District; similarly selected as an alternate was Mr. Gary Van Meter, of Shawnee District. Other members: one to be appointed by the Board of Super- visors& Mr. Frank Brumback. Mr. Brumback will convene the Committee.& report back. Discussion of Nonconforming Use Survey Ms. Stefen referred to the discussion of this at the work session. It's going to be done, she said, and with carry -over funds, which will have to be requested of the Finance Director within the next week. A thousand dollars, she said, would probably cover the survey; upon receipt by the Finance Director,the fund request would go to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rosenberger seeming to raise the question of the Board's passing on the survey led to Ms. Stefen and Mr. J. O. Renalds taking up the issue of separating this request out from otherrequests for carry -over funds, which was not held to be particularly desirable, although the Commission has such option. "I£ the Commission wants some input from the Board before going ahead with the survey, then I think that would be appropriate if it's what you want to do. The dollar amount is not something that normally would be segregated from any other departmental request for projects budgeted for this year and not completed or proposed but not budgeted for next year." said Mr. Renalds. 696 (PC 6/6/79) p. 4 Chairman Gordon suggested the discussion should turn on the desirability of the survey, and that the Commission's responsibility was to make this deter- mination. Mr. Brumback supported the usefulness of the survey in the planning process, especially in long -range planning, as brought out in the work session. Mr. Kirk agreed as to the usefulness of the survey, and emphasized the particular of car graveyards as being easily determined in the same survey. Mr. DeHaven saw the undertaking in the light of disturbing owners of small businesses. Mr. Gordon reminded him that the survey was not intended for action againest unlawful nonconformers, but only for information. Ms. Stefen referrred to her previous mention during workshop of the fact that: this survey should have been done when the County adopted a zoning ordinance (as it is a standard zoning implement). The survey "in no way will bring out what is new and what is old" and it will be treated only as a land use survey, and in no way at present as an enforcement tool. Ms. Stefen emphasized that violations will continue to be dealt with as at present, as complaints come in or changes are noticed, there being no staff for policing by any other means. Mr. Rosenberger questioned the grandfather clause aspect, and Ms. Stefen. said this was primarily a land -use survey, labeling the uses but not acting against them. She described this as a "windshield survey" and said it would not be necessary to record names even when they are visible. The question arose of burnt -out buildings, and Ms. Stefen said the ordinance had been changed to permit the reconstruction of a burnt but legal structure. There will be no personal contact, no questions; signs would be noted, as, e.g. of a beauty shop in a home, but in an agricultural zone, with no one outside the family employed, there would most likely be no contact with the Commission or staff required. No one performing -this survey would be likely even to get out of the car, she said. She told Commission members that the format of the survey would be submitted to the P.C. before the survey began, so that particularly desired items of information could be designed into the approach. 697 (PC 6/6/79) P. 5 Mr. Rosenberger asked her if the survey would be publicized; she replied that would probably be wise. He gave as his opinion that the survey should get more information, including when businesses were started. Ms. Stefen said this would require a-.far longer time to complete the survey, three or four months. Mr. Golladay said, "I think this thing's going to be a total waste of time, effort, and money. You go around and get a survey of nonconforming busi- nesses, and what're you going to do with it? You're not going to do a thing with it." Mr. Gordon took note of one aspect and thought Ms. Stefen would take excep- tion: anything that's happened after the survey, "we would know it's happened after the survey." She said that its being a future enforcement tool was a side benefit, but that it's more important to have it to give a land use picture of the County. "We're talking about restructuring agricultural districts, and allowing more conditional uses. It might do us well to find out what's there first before we make more plans or change our laws," to determine the pattern that has been developing. Mr. Venskoske said he disagreed with Mr. Golladay, that "it's a great idea, and we need it." Mr. Golladay said his objection was that it might hot be put to practical use, and cited $5,000 spent for a Fiscal Impact study" and it's setting up on the shelf." Mr. Venskoske said the time hadn't come to use it. Mr. Gordon agreed that it would be put to use. Mr. DeHaven mentioned that about six or seven years ago a survey had been done by each Commission member of his own district. "I don't know what's become of it," he said. "It has disappeared from the County Archives," said Ms. Stefen. "It wasn't really a very organized thing," said the Chairman. The Chairman invited Mr. Rosenberger to speak,-to this, and he said he thought anyone with a nonconforming business would rather have his representative " come around and talk to me." He referred to the proposed thousand dollar cost, and thought using Commission members a good idea. Ex] (PC 6/6/79) P- 6 Ms. Stefen, questioned by the Chairman as to the staff position on the proposed survey, recommended it strongly. She mentioned the factor of consis- tency. Residents who are notpermitted'to'do what they see being done find the inconsistency hard to understand, and County staff find.it equally hard to explain or justify in such terms as "well, we just didn't know it was there." The enforcement /legality aspect is another reason for having a clear picture of existing conditi-ons. Mr. Rosenberger said that if Ms. Stefen and the Planning Commission members could agree on what information is desired, he "would make a motion that the Plan- ning Commission members take a district and do this work in each respective dis- trict "and that he recommends "that this recommendation from the Planning Commission be referred to the'Board for their consideration." Mr. Golladay seconded the motion. The call for the question was set aside by the Chairman to permit further discussion and clarification as to intent. Mr. Gordon summarized, in reply to Mr. Kirk's inquiry, that Mr. Rosenberger would have it that the Board receive the recommendation that the survey be con- ducted by the members of the Planning Commission. The Chairman's own stated view was: "I would hope that we could do it on an organized basis, but I have my question as totihether we can." The vice - Chairman spoke to the difficulties which would proceed from missing "two or three. Someone would say, 'Oh, yes, he was by, he knew that thing was there.' I just don't think it makes good sense." When Mr. DeHaven pointed out someone making the survey could miss just as easily, Mr. Brumback's reply was that it couldn't be said that he knew it was there. Both Mr. DeHaven and Mr. Golladay were of the opinion that each member could do a better job in his own district than someone covering the entire County. Mr. Golladay demurred about the cost. The Chairmen said that a job done on an organized basis produces far more benefits than-a sporadic situation -- and I'm not taking anything away 6g9 (PC 6/6/79) p. 7 from any individual member of the Planning Commission. But I just wonder if the uniformity that we can carry through with as individuals..We might wind up over- looking some things, or not getting some..I'm only speaking to the disorganization." When Mr. Gordon asked Ms. Stefen about this, she referred to Mr. Rosen - berger's motion that the staff would develop the format. Mr. Venskoske spoke up with the thought that each member's doing his own district would give a more thorough job. Vote tallied as: Kirk ;DeHaven;Venskoske;Rosenberger -- YES Golladay; Brumback; Gordon -- NO BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that a survey,with objectives agreeable to staff and to the Commission, performed by its members in their own districts,be by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Stefen stated that she would request the funds of the Finance Director in the normal manner, and that this request would come up before the Board of Supervisors before approval. This would avoid individual handling. Mr. Renalds recommended that this be done in the carry - forward fund requests also; if, he said, it were later decided not to do it, nothing would be either gained or lost. He referred to fact of this being a transition period in suggesting that the final development of the format might await the appointment of the future Planning and Development director. A break was called for at this point just prior to opening the public hearing. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC HEARINGS Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 005 -79 of Reimer s Electra - Steam, Inc. Clear - brook, Va., requesting that 12.9418 acres between U.S. Route 11 and I -81 now zoned Agricultural - General (A -2) be rezoned: Industrial- Limited(M -1). This property is as parcels 100 and 101 on tax map 33 and is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Ms. Stefen's summation brought out that this property is intended for future expansion of Reimer s. Mr. L. J. McCormick, President of Reimer s Electra- Steam, appeared before the Commission. Mr. DeHaven stated that he would abstain from voting in this instance 700 (PC 6/6/79) p. 8 as the seller of the piece of land. He praised the present condition of the tract as a model of M -1 use, called it "improved" and said it was an honor to be a neighbor. Mr. McCormick's statement was to the effect that before there was any question of regulation, his company had set its own high standards in improv- ing its building's external appearance, and that property values had been in no way harmed by the presence of this operation. He mentioned that $3,000 had been spent on the land to be rezoned, and "It looks like a golf course today.. We're not anywhere near finished with the improvement." He went on to explain that the land to be rezoned had been secured against future need only, with no present use intended, and to describe the business as internationally active and continually expanding. He further suggested that there would be more jobs avail- able as the business grew. Questions brought out that in future expansion, probably about one hun- dred feet of this property would be used. The operation's size, excluding this parcel, is about ten acres. Mr. Sluder asked if there have been any sewage problems. Mr. McCormick replied that there had been none so far, and that a perc. test had been successful on the new land. Mr. Brumback moved for approval. Mr. Sam Lehman, when the Chairman asked if there were opposition to the rezoning, added his approval to those already voiced. Mr. Golladay seconded, and the vote was unanimous. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the above -cited request for rezoning. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Conditional Use Permit Petition No. 008 -79 of Group 44, Inc. c/o Skyline Oil, Inc., 2027 Papermill Road, Winchester, Virginia, zoned Industrial- Limited (M -1), requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow above- ground bulk storage of petrol- eum. This property is designated as Parcel 80 -C on Tax Map #64, and is on the corner of U.S. Route 50 East and Route 728 in Shawnee Magisterial District. This property consists of five acres. The type or use and /or improvements: automotive research and development, and wholesale distribution of petroleum products and bulk storage of same. New buildings to be constructed: 18,000 701 1 (PC 6/6/79) p. 9 square feet to accommodate the above requirement. Adjoiners, stated Ms. Stefen, were notified. The petitioner was invited forward: Mr. Bob Tullius, the owner of Group 44, Inc. and Skyline Oil Company. His original impression was that wholesale function was not allowed in M -2 and storage of oil was not allowed in M -1, and he sought an M -1 zoning because "my business is wholesale and thinking it would be logical to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to put in the bulk oil storage, a relatively small quantity. As opposed to gasoline and fuel oil, petroleum products are not considered flammable, I understand." He appeared to suggest that the automotive research and development aspect of his combined businesses having the highest priority in his thinking, he zoned for that. "I'm asking you to allow me to store 18,000 gallons of bulk oil in an M -1 operation so that I can put my two businesses together." He referred to his operation in Herndon to support the claim that his proposed site "will have probably the nicest - looking industrial development project in Frederick County..The Group 44 operation is a nationally recognized organization..now employs seven other people..would look to expand that to twenty, perhaps even thirty, people, assuming no sewage problems." He spoke of buying the Skyline Oil Co. from the widow of the former owner, of moving his family, and remaining here "for the rest of my life." Mr. Brumback asked him about his automotive research and development business, and Mr. Tullius said "We've been contracted by manufacturers of auto- motive products and cars to do test work for them. We would like to expand that facility..to 8,000 square feet, or 8,500, maybe 9,000, to do more of what we're presently doing: testing shock absorbers, developing suspension systems, working on fuel economy programs, testing emissions control programs. We also evaluate products for manufacturers before they market them, tell them if there is a mar- ket and if their product will satisfy that market. We also do some performance activities for British Leyland, Quaker State Refining, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company." 702 (PC 6/6/79) P. 10 Mr. DeHaven asked if this would mean autos would be test -run on the the road. "Sometimes. We would also be using /,Summit Point sports -car racing facility for some of our testing work." Mr. DeHaven inquired if the oil com- pany were the Quaker State distributor, and Mr. Tullius said it was. He went on to say the storage would be in metal tanks. "We plan to shrub and manicure the place so that the tanks would hardly be visible." Ms. Stefen interposed that she would like to modify her recommendation, suggest something to the Planning Commission. She thought Mr. Tullius might well have made an honest mistake. She would have interpreted that wholesaling was implied in petroleum storage, believes conditional use permit might reasonably be granted in this instance* and would alter the wording of the ordinance for M -2 to combine petroleum storage and wholesaling of same to prevent this problem in interpretation from coming up again.( *If Health Department is agreeable.) The ordinance change would have to be advertised, but is not necessary for soil action here, in this instance. Mr. Sluder then said that while a private /con- sultant had told the previous owner that he "could put a motel on it" which Mr. Sluder does not agree with, there is a fairly good soil and it is level; he does not foresee any sewage problems. There are systems which would serve in the event, in future, that sewers are not available, though such alternate systems wouldn't be cheap. A letter of intent from Mr. Tullius would settle this aspect to the satisfaction o: the Health Department. Mr. Golladay then raised the question as to whether or not motor oil burns, though it may not be classified as inflammable. "Oil supports combustion, if there's something else along with it," said Mr. Tullius. "Oil in cans will be inside the building as well," he added. Mr. Gordon inquired about the height of the petroleum storage tanks, and how far above- ground. "In their present location they set about ten feet in total, perhaps less," was Mr. Tullius's reply. Fencing as well as shrubbery is planned to screen the tanks, to protect the tanks from vandalism as much as 703 (PC 6/6/79) p. 11 for appearance. The building size, he said, was about 120' x 130', or 18,000 square feet. He plans automotive operation on one side, oil distribution on theother, with offices down the front. Mr. Brumback inquired about the noise resulting from the research, and Mr. Tullius responded by saying the Herndon office is in a residential area and no problem has arisen. He did acknowledge that "it will be considerably less than an airplane flying over." "Less than Perry Engineering across the street," suggested Mr. Rosenberger. The needless complication of double zoning for the same property was held to be unnecessary. The chairman asked Ms. Stefen if bulk oil storage in M -1 was the crux.She pointed out that anything over 10,000 gallons is viewed as major storage. Any suggestion Mr. Tullius makes as to volume, in the CUP he could be limited to that figure; she recommended a clarification with this case as to whether this use would be allowable in later cases. on interpretation, she said either previously allowed uses have been wrong in M -2 since they have wholesaling or this was a difficulty in interpretation on Mr. Tullius's part. Mr. Golladay observed that approval now would not constitute making an exception which would lead to a later charge of inconsistency. "If the Planning Commission advertises to change the ordinance to read 'petroleum storage and /or wholesaling of the same,' it wouldn't be brought up later," she agreed. The one inconsistency would be that Mr. Tullius would be operating in M -1 and later persons with similar situations would be in M -2. However, as Ms. Stefen pointed out, the discrepancy is less significant between two types of industrial zoning. Tightening up the - ordinance to say what you want it to say is desirable. Appearing in opposition was Mr. Jim Sumption.with Allied Engineered Products, adjacent property owners. "We do oppose the consideration of a CUP." for They had themselves petitioned /and been granted permission to rezone to M -1 in order to bring about more compatibility between their operation and the zoning; believe they've added to the value of the industrial park. Their 704 (PC 6/16/79) p. 12 area of greatest concern is that of the oil storage, think it would be detri- mental to value of building, and call the ordinance phrasing a "clear" state- ment prohibiting oil storage in M -1. He specified quarries, trash collection, reclaiming & recycling as usages to which CUP's permitting M -2 functions in an M -2 zone would be put. The fact of the corner location was also something Mr. Sumption stressed. A further objection, discussion brought out, was that the proposed location +of the bulk oil storage was by the Allied parking lot. "We have a 17,500 sq. ft. facility just ready to move into right now, and I think you'll find the appearance of that property as nice as any light manufacturing concern .. "He referred to the loss of time involved in changing the zoning, and mentioned that a tentative plan existed to extend their building toward the rear in future. oil The question of /combustibility was raised again. Mr. Sumption said that the flash point was much higher but it will burn, and gave the example of a piece of cherry -red metal touched to oil causing the oil to burst into flame. Resale valued the Allied property, insurance rates were mentioned by Mr. Sumption, to which last Mr. Tullius took exception as a flat statement which might not be the case. Chairman Gordon asked Mr. Tullius if he had ever considered underground storage, and in the ensuing discussion a compromise of sorts was contemplated; a partially below - ground storage which would reduce the height of the visible storage was entertained by Mr. Tullius. The cost factor was spoken to, but he does want his two businesses together, and is willing to do whatever is necessary; he stated that he had just closed on the property and given the owner his money, and being unaware of any opposition had made the commitment. Ms. Stefen commented that underground petroleum storage is not construed generally as inappropriate to a light industrial zone in other areas, though not laid out in the County ordinance in those terms. The Vice - Chairman asked if the sore point for Allied was oil storage or visible oil storage, or both, and Mr. Sumption said a combination of both. 705 (PC 6/6/79) p. 13 a He said he would like to take the of underground storage back to his Board of Directors. Vice - Chairman Brumback spoke for accommodation and harmony, and said he personally would not like to approve something detri- mental to someone else. Mr. Tullius suggested as a compromise a half- underground, half - aboveground storage. Ms. Stefen called attention to the wording of the M -1 ordinance which pertains to site plan approval, independent of CUP conditions: "wholly within a completely enclosed building or within an area enclosed on all sides by a solid masonry wall, a uniformly painted solid board fence, or evergreen hedge six feet in height." This applies primarily to storage. Further discussion underlined the importance of clarifying the ordinance and the desirability of compromise. In defense of his plan, Mr. Tullius described the fuel -oil storage at his children's school in Leesburg, which consists of four tanks separated from the school by nothing more than a partition. Fuel oil is, he stressed, inflam- mable though motor oil is not so regarded. He also emphasized that the tanks he proposes to employ are considerably smaller than what most people envision when they use the word, like Citgo's at Valley Avenue. His would be six feet in diameter. He offered also to build a little building around them. He assured the Commission that thdappearance will in no case be esthetically of- fensive. Mr. Sumption said Mr. Tullius had addressed his company's concern, and so Mr. Rosenberger suggested a two -week tabling might permit accommodation between the concerned parties. He moved to table, Mr. Golladay seconded. The vote was: Kirk; Golladay;Venskoske; Brumback;Rosenberger; Gordon - -YES DeHaven -- ABSTAIN BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission table the Group 44 petition for a CUP until the next session. Conditional Use Permit Petition No. 009 -79 of Richard and Merle Kerns Cross Junction, Virginia, zoned Agricultural- Limited (A -1), requesting a CUP for the operation of a grocery store in a vacant store structure. This property 706 (PC 6/6/79) p. 14 is designated as Property Identification No. 13(A)25 on Siler Route 600 in Gainesboro Magisterial District. The petitioners in this instance not being present, the hearing was rolled forward to the next session. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted July 12, 1978, to amend Articles XI, XII, XIII, and XIII -A. Ms. Stefen explained that incorrect advertising was the reason for the fact that this looks familiar. One of the section numbers was wrong, so a deletion would have occurred without a replacement section being available. Mr. Brumback moved, Mr. Golladay seconded, to recommend this amendment, the vote was unanimous. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the above -cited amendment to the Board of Supervisors. MEMO TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR This was accepted as information. TRANSMITTAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Ms. Stefen explained that she was merely fulfilling her obligation to transmit these prior to next meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, on 19 June 1979. The: Commission representatives to this meeting discussed other with /P.C. members this new liaison (perhaps!). Before going into executive session on personnel, sparked by Mr. Rosenberger, there was some discussion as to deferring decisions on zoning and other questions until the new Planning Director is appointed. Mr. Golladay moved the Commission go into Executive Session, The Commission reconvened after the Executive Session. Discussion began about Baker Land. Frank-Brumback moved to again go into Executive Session to dis- cuss a legal matter. The Commission reconvened and the meeting was adjourned. 707 (PC 6/6/79) P. 19' Respectively submitted, Dorothea L. Stefen, Acting Secretary rM.