PC_07-05-79_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room , 7/5/79
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Elmer Venskoske; Thomas B. Rosenberger; W. French Kirk;
Manuel DeHaven; James W. Golladay, Jr.; Herbert Sluder.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called-the meeting to order. The first order of business
being the correction and approval of minutes of the previous meetings, June 20 and
June 26, 1979.
The minutes of the meeting of June 20, 1979 were corrected by the
deletion of "Mr. Brumback asked to chair the meeting" in paragraph six.
With the foregoing correction, the minutes were approved unanimously.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Ms. Stefen explained, in response to a question concerning Mr. Shirley's
Site Plan, that he had been notified of the changes needed, that the surveyor has been
contacted, and that plans should be received anytime.
revision.
Mr. Venskoske asked if a time limit could be placed on this site plan
Ms. Stefen further explained that in revised site plan the building is
placed where it is not supposed to be and Mr. Shirley has a chance of going to the
Board of Zoning Appeals which would hold up when it comes to the Commission. Ms.
Stefen further explained that the building was built on his property, but too close
to the rear line and that going to the Board of Zoning Appeals would be the route to
take.
Chairman Gordon suggested that Ms. Stefen contact Mr. Shirley and ask him
not to drag out application on this site plan, which was applied for in May, on a
building which already exists.
Ms. Stefen noted that Mr. Shirley does not have a building permit because
the site plan has not been approved and he is in violation of building code and zoning
at this time.
In response to Chairman Gordon's request for summarizing of the Miller
rezoning, Ms. Stefen noted that Miller Auto Sales is asking for an extension due to
the fact that they would like to buy an adjoining piece of property for a display area.
The Bimonthly report was accepted as information.
720
(PC 7/5/79) Page 2
follows:
Mr. Gordon then outlined the Committee on Prime Agricultural Land as
Mr. Brumback, Mr. Kenneth Stiles, Gary DeOms, Robert Holmes, and the
State Soil Person.
Chairman Gordon then suggested Mr. Brumback proceed now that committee is
completed.
Mr. Brumback noted that the committee would he meeting just as soon as
an agenda could be worked up.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST
Request for subdivision approval by Messrs. Strawson and Glass, Oak Hill Subdivision
26 lots, 1.3 to 2.111 acres, approximately 140 ft. frontage, zoned R -1, Back Creek
District.
Action - Recommend Denial
Ms. Stefen's summation: All review evaluations satisfactory, staff
recommends approval. Ms. Stefen further commented that a recreation impact fee of
$96.20 will be required.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked how long this property has been zoned R -1 and
how it came about as it is surrounded by agriculture.
Ms. Stefen reflected that it had been zoned R -1 since at least 1973 and
that it went through proper channels at that time.
At this time 'Mr: Ti. singer came forward and introduced himself for the
record as representing Oak Hill and Tom Glass.
Chairman Gordon explained that the hearing would first hear the petitioner,
then the opposition and then the petitioner would have a chance for rebuttal and also
entertain both sides on rebuttal.
Mr. Tisinger, was then given the floor for his presentation. He noted, " the
current land which has been platted for subdivision consists of thirty eight and one
half acres, originally it was a thirty five acre piece and a seven acre piece. The
thirty five acres was purchased in 1971 and the sevenacres was purchased in 1973. The
land was rezoned in 1973 per the petition of Mr. Strawson, the current owner. It was
approved by the Board of Supervisors in March of 1973. Since then, you have adopted
721
(PC 7/5/79) Page 3
the Comprehensive Plan and it remained R -1 since that period of time. It was zoned
agricultural prior to 1973. Since 1973 two lots have been subdivided off that land."
Mr. Tisinger then referred to the subdivision plat, showing the area along the road
that is not platted and "L" shaped, indicating those were the two lots subdivided in
i
September of 1973.
Mr. Tisinger continued, "the subdivision that is before you today is thirty
eight and one half acres, there are restrictions on these lots per contract with the
prior owner, Mr.. Carter, and per contracts of restrictions and easements with Mr. Raymond
Anderson who is the neighbor to the west who owns sixty six point one nine seven acres."
Mr. Tisinger further explained that what is proposed is a twenty five lot subdivision,
with Mr. Strawson living on one of the twenty six listed in the agenda. The sizes
range from 1.317 acres to 2.111 acres and are mostly in the category of 1.333 acres.
Mr. Tisinger noted that under the present subdivision ordinance, the requirement is
40,000 sq. ft. in the particular zone. The final plat shows 60 ft. right -of -way on
which will be constructed a road to State specifications and the 60 ft. right of way
which will come out on Route 681. Fifteen feet will also be dedicated along Route 631
to make that a sixty foot right -of -way. The land is located approximately 2 miles west
of Stephens City._
Mr. Tisinger continued, "The land at the present time, gentlemen„ and for the
last I don't know how many years . . . has been wooded. There are gigantic trees on
this land. Most of it is wooded except for 6.5 acres which lies at the southwest corner.
The remainder of it is wooded and has been in woods for a long period of time. It has
not been tillable agricultural land. I believe that some pasture use was made of it in the
past. Now, on the southwest corner of the plat you will see a twelve foot restrictive
cutting easement and if you have been to the land, you will notice that pine trees have
been planted in the open spaces with the border along that edge of taller pine trees
and that will go in the restrictive convenants that are put on record." Mr. Tisinger
added that on November 15, 1978 Mr. Strawson was asked to submit final plat, with all
reviews having been completed under the ordinance, and that it complies in all regards
722
(PC 7/5/79) Page 4
and has all necessary approvals under the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Tisinger noted
that this was not a zoning hearing, but the submission of a plat of subdivision and
that once the law was complied with, they were entitled to the approval. He expressed
the desire to remedy any deficiencies existing. Mr. Tisinger then commented that this
proposal is for houses in the range of $70,000 to $100,000, with restrictive convenants
that will make this area retain its'character, with cutting restrictions on trees over
six inches and all homes being in the wooded area except one. The proposed timetable
would be three to eight years in order to develop and sell out. Mr. Tisinger added
that a review committee will police the construction of the property for the use that
was adopted in 1973.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question regarding soil types, Mr. Tisinger noted
that the Health Department had been on every lot.
In explanation, Mr. Sluder of the Health Department explained that in 1972 -73
about forty perculation test holes were dug and all holes except one, according to the
records, perked. Generally, Mr. Sluder commented, the soils in the wooded area are
the best and the soils along the road are where the best soils are from the front half
of the lots on the western side to the eastern side. Mr. Sluder added that there is a
lot of Frederick /Lodi soils, rather deep with some clay overlays and in going over these
areas with Dr. Lietzke, one of the top soil experts in the State, it was his opinion
that the soil and drainage field sites were ideal drain field sites. Mr. Sluder stated
that from the Health Department's standpoint the soils are certainly adequate.
Mr. Venskoske then asked for more specific information about the trees that
could and could not be cut.
In answer, Mr. Tisinger replied that on the western portion of the land there
would be a 12 foot restrictive covenant against any trees being cut at all and as far
as the wooded area is concerned, anything over 6 inches in diameter would have to re-
ceive approval from the review committee. Also, the only time trees larger than 12
inches would be cut is when they place the house or drain fields.
To Mr. DeHaven's question, "Has there been any money spent for roads or
water lines or anything at all on this piece of property since it has been rezoned ?"
723
(PC 7/5/79) Page 5
Mr. Tisinger replied that there has been no construction at all on this property but
that money has been expended for engineering studies and surveys and plats.
Mr. Rosenberger then raised the question regarding water easement on the
property.
In answer, Mr. Tisinger remarked that he had relied on the Highway Department
decision saying it was right. In addition, Mr. Tisinger continued, "We have had our
own independent analysis of those drainage rights -of- way." To further explain, Mr.
Tisinger noted that Buffalo Marsh Run is west of this and that there are approximately
2400 acres in the drainage area, 720 acres open and 680 acres wooded and that this
subdivision represents only 28 acres of the drainage area.
Regarding the safety of Route 631, Mr. Brumback asked what the traffic count
is on this road.
Mr. Tisinger stated that he had no idea, reiterating that they relied on the
Highway Department to put it where it was to go.
Mr. Brumback then asked if Mr. Tisinger knew how many trips per day each
house would generate. For the record, Mr. Brumback continued, the traffic count of of
Route 631 is 829 trips per day and that each family, according to statistics, generates
7.5 trips per day. So you are talking about 25 lots times 7.5 trips, giving Route 631
an increase of more than 25%. Additionally, Mr. Brumback asked if Mr. Tisinger had any
idea of what the deficit to the County would be in each of the houses.
Mr. Tisinger questioned if Mr. Brumback meant if it was developed the way
the Planning Commission said it could be developed, and answered•no.
Mr. Brumback quoted that, according to the County's statistical data, the
twenty five houses would generate at least eighteen students and would cost the County
about $500 per house per year.
Mr. Tisinger acknowledged having no quarrel with those figures.
Chairman Gordon then called on Stan Pangle from the Public Works Department
for comment.
To give some of the background, Mr. Pangle noted, after first review and having
a problem with the drainage easement, it was felt that further anaylsis was needed to
724
(PC 7/5/79) Page 6
handle the storm water. Our department contacted Tom Glass through Ron Berg, with
the Highway Department having the same feelings, and asked for changes in this area
which they have made. We have studied their water calculations and feel the plan as
submitted is satisfactory.
Mr. Kirk asked if the curve of Route 631, as drawn, was true.
Mr. Tisinger answered that the curve is more accute to the west, but .off
this property and that he would assume that the survey is correct.
To add some clarification, Mr. Pangle noted that he thought there was a
sharper turn east of the property and that it does meet the sight requirements required
by the State Highway Department of 150 ft. - 200 ft. each way.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question "how do increased trips affect the other
roads going out ?" Mr. Pangle answered, it is a secondary road, but as far as the plans
for it having improvements on it based on priority, I don't think the priority would be
moved ahead because of this extra traffic. Mr. Pangle added, that he would have to
get back to the Highway Department to answer any further.
Mr.Golladay then expressed a desire to discuss the Buffalo Marsh area, asking
if he was correct in assuming that it is a major drainage area from Stonebrook Area all
the way through the back country, down to Cedar Creek.
In response, Mr. Tisinger answered that the drainage area starts about
14,000 ft. above the road.
Chairman Gordon next called for anyone in opposition.
Mr. Bob Mitchell then came forward and identified himself as representing
adjoining landowners. Mr. Mitchell stated "There are a number of folks here who appear
in opposition to the application for this subdivision and I would like for the Commission
to recognize who they are and where they live."
Chairman Gordon inquired if any others were going to speak.
Mr. Mitchell acknowledged there would be others speaking.
Chairman Gordon asked to hold Mitchell's request in abeyance and asked
Mr. Mitchell to go ahead with his presentation at this time.
725
(PC 7/5/79) Page 7
Mr. Mitchell stated, "I feel the persons who are in the best position to tell
you about the property and the consequences this subdivision would have on the adjoining
property in the area are those people who live in that area." Mr. Mitchell summarized
the relevant points for the Commission to consider as follows: (1) This is an agri-
culatural community, and, in 1973 rezoning did not require notice being given to
adjoining landowners. (2) Records from Clerks Office show this property characterized
in land use for taxing purposes, having been applied for and obtained land use category
as agricultural land. (3) The records in the Clerks Office also indicate that a final
plat was recorded for this property in 1978, showing seven lot subdivision, with each lot
being just over 5 acres. This plat was vacated by deed of vacation recorded just a month
and a half ago, May 1979. Certainly the five acre lot category is more compatible with
the area than twenty six lots. (4) The question of traffic on Route 681, which has
become a feeder road for people coming from West Virginia to the industrial park and
on weekends being a feeder road to recreational areas in West Virginia. Also, with
respect to the safety, the curve is in both directions of the entrance and the children
who locate in this area will have to ride a bus to school and will have to get on across
the road from the subdivision. Given the amount of traffic on the road at that time of
morning, it is a dangerous situtation. It is felt that this needs further study.
(5) We believe there is a problem concerning sewer disposal and drain field locations
which needs more study. It is our belief that Dr. Lietzke has indicated certain parts
of the property are not suitable for drainfields and drainfields would have to be
located between the house and the road and in some cases would have to be pumped in order
to get from the house to the drainfield. There are problems of ground water by com-
pounding a number of lots that individually perk into a confined area. (6) The drainage
going west of the property is a major concern. The property is hilly in nature and
slopes down hill to the west where Mr. Anderson lives. There are patterns of water
drainage on this property that cause problems now and it is critical that the complete
County file on this matter include,enough information. It is noted that when this
subdivision was orginally proposed , the Highway Department said that you have to get
a drainage easement across Mr. Anderson's . 726
(PC 7/5/79) Page 8
Mr. Mitchell continued stating "if subdivision approval was merely a
question of getting departments to sign off on plats, you folks.wouldn't be here
listening to the pros and cons of a subdivision application. Surely there is some
reason to have a Planning Commission look at that. And, we think that a subdivision
ordinance makes it plain why you do and gives you some authority and some ability
to deal with these problems that we are talking about ". Mr. Mitchell then quoted the
statute, that the subdivision ordinance is part of a long range plan to guide and
facilitate the orderly growth of the community and to promote the public health, safety,
convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare.
Mr. Mitchell also stated, "specifically as to some of the drainage problems
and the suitability of the land" referring to Section 18 -20 of the ordinance emphasizing
the need for adequate investigation to determine that the best interest of the public
is being considered. .Mr. Mitchell commented that there are a number of provisions in
the ordinance that are applicable here.
In summary, Mr. Mitchell noted, the County said they could submit their final
plat. Section 18 -72 says the subdivider shall have not more than six months after
receiving official notification to file a final subdivision plat in accordance with this
ordinance, failure to do so shall make preliminary approval void. The administrator
upon request of the subdivider may grant an extension of which there was no record I
could find. Mr. Mitchell stated he believed the plats before the Commission came in
last week, more then six months, and under terms of ordinance, would start the pro-
cedure over again, giving the Commission the opportunity to look into some of the
questions raised.
In answer to Mr. Venskoske'.s question regarding the lot size in 1973, Mr.
Mitchell related that he thought you did not need, at that time, a lot size for
rezoning and explained that it was zoned A -2 to R -l. It was some time following the
original application that the plat was put on record with five acre lots and that plat
was vacated.
There being no further questions of Mr. Mitchell, he stepped down.
727
(PC 7/5/79) Page 9
Mr. Raymond Anderson next addressed the Commission, introducing himself
as an adjoining property owner and stating he lived on Route 631 west of Mr. Strawson.
Mr. Anderson stated "there is some water problems and with the additional run off, I
am sure the problem will increase." Mr. Anderson further explained that water run off
in back of his house was good when it rained and expressed concern with the additional
runoff that could be generated from the subdivision and what it could do to his well.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question regarding the amount of property he
owned, Mr. Anderson noted he has owned 67 acres since 1973, buying after the rezoning.
Mr. Golladay then addressed the question of drainage of Buffalo Marsh and if
it ever flooded.
Mr. Anderson responded that it flooded up to the road. In answer to a
question raised by Mr. Brumback, Mr. Anderson further located his property about west
of Lots 7 and 8, and noted that there is drainage to the front of 631 that is not shown.
Mr. Mitchell then asked to address the subject of drainage, adding that it was
natural drainage around Lot 5 and that the Highway Department said that the developer
could pave the ditch along the in the subdivision to carry the water that would
have come across the road into that drainage easement carried down to Route 631. Since
water from east of street in the subdivision would not be carried under the street
on to those lots, there is still a drainage area.
Mr. Stanley Bauserman, a resident southeast of this subdivision then took
the floor and expressed his feelings, noting "Route 631 consists of three miles from
the Stephens City Town limit to the intersection of Route 628. Right now there are
twenty nine occupied houses on that road. If the proposed twenty five lot subdivision
goes in, you will be doubling the density of the residency. I would like for you to
address the problem of sewerage, not using tunnel vision like the Health Department
does, but looking at the total overall affect." Mr. Bauserman further stated that
Health Department figures that each bedroom in the house generates 100 gallons of
sewerage a day. The approximate figure for the subdivision would be 10,000 gallons
to be absorbed by 25 or 28 acres. Mr. Bauserman stated that he was there when
Dr. Lietzke was there and that his understanding was different.
728
(PC 7/5/79) Page 10
Mr. Bauserman then mentioned the presence of inclusion of grey soil
which is detrimental for absorbing sewerage and rock outcrops and sink holes. Mr.
Bauserman also noted that Mr. Boyce and Mr. Banks in the vicinity acquired their water
off the top of the ground, with no wells or backup systems and contamination would
affect them. Mr. Bauserman commented that a study of the impact on the water table
needs to be undertaken. Mr. Bauserman continued by saying that South Frederick
produces two things, fruit and beef, and needs abundant water to do this. It was
then brought out that Mr. Bauserman was born and has lived in this area for 41 years,
with his father being there since 1919. Mr. Bauserman also suggested that State
agencies evaluate the effect of the subdivision on this ponding area flowing into
Cedar Creek.
Next, Mr. Paul Anderson introduced himself to the Commission noting he lived
on the west side of Route 625, adjacent to the North /South boundary line of the property
and that he also speaks for his father -in -law who owns the property adjacent to Lots
15, 16, 17. Mr. Anderson stated "if you noticed one thing that was brought up on
drainage easements that the Highway Department has approved, we were talking about the
discrepancies in the letters where they approved it and disapproved it'.' Mr. Anderson
suggested that the alterations in the drainage should be studied. Mr. Anderson
also noted that the land had been logged off in 1950 and some of the larger trees in
the area are 19 inches, and estimated that 30% of the trees are six inches and under and
could be cut.
Mr. Rick Beatty next introduced himself to the Commission, noting that he
lives on Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision. He noted that erosion is a problem and his
lots are wooded. He also addressed the safety of the road adding "its dangerous, its
real bad. I think the Highway Department should re -study it." In answer to Mr.
Rosenberger's question regarding the size of his lot, Mr. Beatty answered that it was
two acres, but that he had to dedicate 30 feet off one side to Mr. Strawson.
Mr. John Pickeral, owning land on Route 625 south of proposed subdivision
then introduced himself to the Commission and stated "I travel these roads at least one
729
(PC 7/5/79)
round trip per day, coming to my residence and town and I think I have a fair know-
Page 11
ledge of the safety factor. It is one of the worst roads I know of in Frederick County,
especially in the Valley area of the County." Mr. Pickeral commented that he thought
he was as much affected by this project as adjacent landowners except for the question
of runoff. He expressed that his greatest concern is subterrain drainage, questioning
if a perk test could give you the answer to how one lot would affect the adjacent lot
with sink holes. Wells and springs in this area, he continued, could be subject to
contamination. Mr. Pickeral further expressed the thought of what should be done when
a subdivision is allowed and then a health problem arises. He also stated "I think the
County Government has a responsibility to the people who are going out to buy and build
homes and when they are approving subdivisions, are they protected from the property
becoming uninhabitable because of health problems ". Mr. Pickeral also addressed the
problem of drainage and noted that drainage would increase from compaction, cutting
trees and roofs. Mr. Pickeral emphasized that this area is a prime agricultural area
with some large lot development and that putting small lot, compact subdivision in the
middle will affect the value of adjacent land and also affect service costs of the County.
Mr. Anderson next requested time to clarify his statement with regard to
trees on the property, noting " the back half or two thirds of the property is what was
logged off, when Mr. Beatty was talking it reminded me that the front part of the
property has some large trees. The back half to two thirds was logged off and is the
area where the drainage problem is created that we are concerned about."
Mr. Mitchell stated that he had no summary to present and asked that those
in opposition be recognized.
Mr. Brumback answered that this would be done after the vote.
Ms. Stefen, at this time, as a result of Mr. Mitchell's presentation, noted
that in Section 18 -31 Private Water and Sewer installation of privately owned water
distribution systems with sewage collection and treatment facilities must meet
all the requirements of the State Water Control Board, State Health Department
and any other State or local regulations having authority over
730
(PC 7/5/79) Page 12
such installations. Ms. Stefen noted that the State Control Board has not been
contacted. Ms. Stefen further stated that there was adequate reason to table this
until all those agencies had replied.
Mr. Sluder suggested that what was read by Ms. Stefen pertained to central
water and sewer.
At this time Mr. .. Tisinger stated "I believe the people who have voiced
their concern, including Mr. Mitchell who represents more of the people who did not
speak. I can understand their concern and I would categorize what they have said in
two categories. I would categorize statements such as Mr. Anderson made that it is a
bad idea to do it, the trees will be cut, the run off will be bad. . . things of
this type are planning type things and this Planning Commission and more specifically
the Board of Supervisors some five years ago has told us that this is what can be done
with the land. This is what should be done with the land." 'Mr. Tisinger commented
that the second category included such things as more study needs to be done and we should
study this. These people should rely on their agencies and their recommendations, noted
Mr. Tisinger.
I
Mr. Gordon then asked if Mr. Tisinger was suggesting that there were no
grey areas in making these decisions, noting that there would be no reason for the
Commission if they did not have some criteria that they make these decisions on. If it
was a cut and dry legal proposition, why should the Commission hear the case.
Mr. Tisinger expressed his feelings, that the prime function of the Commission
is to see that there are nice subdivisions after you have said that we could subdivide.
Mr. Sluder then addressed the matter of grey areas as far as the Health
Department is concerned and commented that there were two areas that were mapped C -2
and does not mean that a septic tank will not work, but just at a slower rate. Mr.
Sluder noted that when Mr. Glass was notified of this, he put the two lots together.
With regard to sink holes, Mr. Sluder explained, if there were sink holes on the property,
I did not see them, understanding there were some on the west side of the property
where there will not be drain fields anyway. Mr. Sluder also noted that there will be
731
(PC 7/5/79) Page 13
as many as five or six systems that will be pumped.
In rebuttal, Mr. Mitchell pointed out that the Board of Supervisors'
rezoning action only permits the use of the land as R -1 land, not that this is what
the use of the land should be. Also, Mr. Mitchell noted that the adjoiners were not
notified when the Board of Superviors made their decision, keeping in mind that the
statute did not require it at that time. Addressing the question of agency reviewing
of subdivisions, Mr. Mitchell said "we are not saying that agencies don't do their job,
what we are saying is that when these things go to an agency with a subdivision plat
there is very little to make one look different from the next one, and we believe there
are a number of significant issues in this particular case from just the ordinary one."
To clarify a point, Mr. Sluder stated that it took the Health Department about
six weeks to complete the soil borings and another additional 3 weeks waiting for
Dr. Lietzke to come up and look at it.
Mr. Brumback then asked for clarification of the question of the time limit
running out. In answer, Ms. Stefen responded that the subdivider shall have no more
than six months after receiving official notification concerning the preliminary plat to
file with the Administrator final Subdivision Plat in accordance with the ordinance.
Failure to do so shall make preliminary approval null and void. The Administrator may
by written request by the subdivider grant an extension of this time limit. Ms. Stefen
noted that it might be considered that a verbal granting of time did occur, but no
written request is on file.
Mr. Golladay suggested that since Mr. Sluder stated he had tied them up for
six weeks and Dr. Lietzke another three, the petitioner should have -. the benefit of
the doubt.
Mr. Rosenberger noted that he was not as concerned regarding the time as he
was with what had been said today. He further stated "as a member of this Commission
and as a representative of the District of which this subdivision is requested, I would
like to state that Ifeel this is an agricultural community, one of the best in Frederick
County, and I do not think it complies with our Comprehensive Plan in any means to put a
732
(PC 7/5/79) Page 14
subdivision in a prime agricultural area. I feel further, the timing of these people,
on the fact that they only knew about it being presented in the last couple of weeks,
and the fact that the people in the community when it was changed from A -2 to R -1 were
not aware of it has a bearing on the case, eventhough that may have been legal in 1973 ".
Mr. Rosenberger went on to say that he felt the people in the community have a right
to further studies on impact in this agricultural community and further made a motion to
deny this request for the subdivision to allow for further impact studies.
Mr. Golladay then expressed a desire to amend:the motion for the following
points: (1) traffic study on Route 631, keeping in mind its safety. (2) Change in
zoning procedures since 1973, with the lack of notification of adjoining property owners.
Mr.Golladay noted that 1973 was abanner year for the Planning Commission having 31
applications and approving 30 rezonings versus 10 in 1977 and 1978 each year. (3) The
introduction of the subdivision ordinance Section 18.1, keeping in mind the purpose of
these standards and procedures being to serve as a guide for the change that occurs
when lands and acreage become urban in character as a result.of development for
residential, business or industrial purposes to provide assurance that the purchasers
of lots are buying a comodity that is suitable for development and use. (4) We did
not have a guide for growth in 1973 which is our Land Use Plan that we have now and
this subdivision is in direct conflict with that guide. Mr. Golladay expressed his
desire to amend Mr. Rosenberger's motion with the foregoing points and second it at
this time.
Asked if it was agreeable to include these five points, Mr. Rosenberger
acknowledged acceptance of the points to further qualify this motion.
Mr. DeHaven noted that in all fairness this issue should be decided today
rather than postponing the decision and asking the people involved to again appear.
Vote was as follows: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Brumback; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Gordon -- YES
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of
Supervisors, denial of the Oak Hill Subdivision request including the four considera-
tions enumerated above.
Chairman Gordon then asked that all those in opposition stand.
733
(PC 7/5/79) Page 15
Chairman Gordon announced a five minute recess at this time.
Request for subdivision plat readjustment by Mrs. Bond, John Anderson, Sr, and Allen
Bond, Jr, to show surface water drainage as it is actually on the ground.
Action - Recommend Approval
Ms. Stefen noted that Mr. Whiting would be giving all the necessary
background information on Glenside Subdivision request.
Mr. Whiting then introduced himself to the Commission, explaining there
are three lots in the Quaker Lane Subdivision, north of Winchester off of Apple Pie
Ridge out of the thirteen lots in the subdivision, that need to be changed with regard
to surface water drainage. Mr. Whiting further explained, while referring to a map of
the subdivision, that the contractor did not put the surface water drainage in on the
ground where the plat said, but where it was easiest to work. Mr. Whiting noted that
he was asking the Commission to approve the moving of the drainage from the plat as
platted the ground as it actually existed and that no one was affected because Lot 7
has already agreed to this and the client owns 5 and 6 and the water dumps out in the
culvert exactly where it would have originally.
Mr. Whiting noted that every landowner except the husband of one has signed
the replatting and the Virginia Statute expressly says that the consort of a property
owner does not have to sign. Mr. Whiting also stated that everything that was moved
is entirely on their land and in no way affects the entire subdivision.
Ms. Stefen added that the staff has no objection to this routine proposal.
Normally, Ms. Stefen noted, something like this would just have gone to the Board,
however, the developers wanted to be sure.
There being no opposition or further discussion, Mr. Brumback made a motion
for approval of this plat readjustment. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay.
Vote was as follows: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Brumback; Venskoske;
Rosenberger; Gordon -- YES
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plat readjustment
of Quaker Lane Subdivision to show the surface water drainage as it is actually on
the ground:.a::c _—
734
(PC 7/5/79) Page 16
SITE PLAN
Request for a Site Plan Revision by Everette Emerson, No. 029 -7q, 1 acre, Stonewall
District, revision of topography and reduction of parking spaces.
ACTION: Recommend Approval as
Amended
Ms. Stefen specified that there has been an additional comment received
that is not reflected in staff recommendations from the Director of Public Works,
requesting that approval be given but that the plat not be released until a temporary
occupancy permit can be obtained. Ms. Stefen added that the property, as it exists now,
comes in compliance under the plat that was approved the other week before the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Emerson next introduced himself and stated that he is proposing a 20' X
40' addition facing Lenoir Drive in order to beautify his property and acquire more space.
Ms. Stefen noted that her staff comment would include that a temporary
occupancy permit be secured before this further addition be put on, further noting that
the original 'Site Plan work has not yet been completed.
Mr. Emerson added that he had the shell put up himself, doing all the
plumbing, electrical and inside work himself. He noted that he has been operating on
a generator and that everything inside the building has been inspected and approved.
Also, Mr. Emerson commented that the sewer and well have been approved and the pending suit
is in regards to his working on the building and occupying it.
In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, "what is your objection to completing
the first building so you can get the occupany permit ", Mr. Emerson noted that everything
has been inspected and he still cannot get the occupancy permit.
Chairman Gordon then called upon Ms. Stefen to clear up why Mr. Emerson could
not get an occupancy permit.
Ms. Stefen replied that a temporary occupancy permit cannot be granted until
the drainage problem created by improper drainage be corrected and that a gate be
installed and ribbon screening added to the fence and the storage out side of the designated
area cease. Ms. Stefen noted that these conditions were placed on the original Site Plan.
735
(PC 7/5/79) Page 17
In response to Chairman Gordon's question regarding the reason the Commission
was being asked to approve an addition when the original building requirements have not
been completed,_ Ms. Stefen responded that the staff has been accused of harassing the
applicant and it is before the Commission to show good faith.
Chairman Gordon then addressed Mr. Emerson, asking if there was a reason
why the original request of several years ago has not been completed.
In response, Mr. Emerson noted that it took time and money and that everything
has been completed and he cannot understand the holdup of the approval. Mr. Emerson
commented that it was his understanding from the Department of Inspections that he could
take as long as he wanted as long as was working on it.
Chairman Gordon explained that his understanding was incorrect, as the
Planning Commission imposed the conditions in conjunction with the Board.
Mr. Rosenberger expressed that it was apparent that Mr. Emerson is trying,
and if the Staff recommendation is for approval, needing only final approval on one
thing, there seemed to be no problem. Mr. Rosenberger then made a motion for recommenda-
tion for approval with the stipulation that a temporary permit be secured before this
further addition be put on. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay.
Chairman Gordon then asked if there was anyone in opposition. There being
no further discussion the motion voted on as follows:
Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Gordon; Brumback; Rosenberger;
Venskoske -- YES
BE Ir RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Revision
No. 029 -77 to build a proposed 20 X 40' addition with the stipulation that approval not
be given until a temporary occupancy permit can be obtained.
Mr. Emerson was then advised by Ms. Stefen to contact the Department of
Inspections when he feels the requirements of the temporary occupancy permit have been met.
SITE PLAN
Request for Site Plan approval by Coca -Cola Bottling Company for a bottling and storage
plant in Stine Industrial Park.
Action -- Recommend Approval as Amended
736
(PC 7/5/79) Page 18
Ms. Stefen gave the background: Approval being sought for a 91,200 sq. ft.
plant with a paved entrance and surface treatment over the rest of the lot. Ms. Stefen
mentioned that a portion of the rear of the property should be landscaped rather than
paved to avoid problems for the drainage basin.
Representative for the petitioner, Mr. Henry Lowery, Manager of the
Winchester Coca -Cola Company introduced himself and explained that they had outgrown
their present plant and have proven from past performance that they keep buildings and
grounds in nice condition.
In answer to Mr. Brumback's question "what reason is there for so much
blacktop ", Mr. Lowery answered that it was for trucks and car parking, having thirty
trucks.
Mr. Kisner,- Realtor for the company, asked as to how far back staff was
suggesting.
Ms. Stefen noted that she suggests that the 721 line back would be what
should be landscaped, further explaining that what was being talked about is not paving
but surface treatment which is also impervious. In lieu of landscaping, she added,
gravel could be used, noting that if additional blacktopping was needed in the future
a revised site plan could be submitted and a study done on the drainage at that time.
Mr. Lowery acknowledged that he could live with the line 720.
There being no objections, Mr. DeHaven moved for approval of this site plan
as adjusted, seconded by Mr. Golladay and approved unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan for Coca -
Cola Bottling Company, No. 015 -79, with the amendment that from line 720 to the rear
be landscaped or graveled, rather than paved.
REZONING
ACTION - Recommend Approval as a
Conditional Use Permit as amended
Request for rezoning by Loring R. Nail, No. 006 -79, for the sale of lawnmowers in Back
Creek Magisterial District.
Ms. Stefen gave the background information noting that no new building is
proposed. It was noted that a commercial entrance could be required.
737
(PC 7/5/79) Page 19
Mr. Nail then came forward and introduced himself saying that this rezoning
is for work on lawnmowers, noting that the house and its property adjoin his property.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question as to why this did not constitute a
home occupation, Ms. Stefen explained that the house is very small and that the home
was not going to be lived in and is on an adjacent lot. Ms. Stefen further explained
that if this property does adjoin Mr. Nail's property, it could be a home occupation if
the two properties were combined and a conditional use permit obtained.
Chairman Gordon mentioned that under the present Ordinance, Mr. Ambrogi's
ruling on such action would not interfere.
Ms. Stefen, in answer, said she did not agree with Mr. Ambrogi's opinion on
this and that, if such was the case, the Board did not have to hear Mr. Grim's and
Mr. Hick's requests as they are also talking about a home occupation in an accessory
building.
Mr. Gordon explained that this is something the Commission needs to work on
and that what is to be addressed is the rezoning before the Commission today.
Mr. Brumback then asked what the parking requirements are for a B -2 zoning.
In answer, Ms. Stefen, noted that the square footage of the building would
have to be known along with how much retail use there will be.
Mr. Gordon then asked Mr. Nail if he might want to consider approaching this
from the conditional use permit consideration and withdraw the rezoning request.
Ms. Stefen noted that the two properties would have to be combined first with
a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office.
There being no opposition or further discussion, Mr. Rosenberger then moved
that a conditional use permit be approved with the stipulation that the properties be
combined and a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven
and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors
approval of a conditional use permit for a home occupation at the Intersection of
Route 50 West and Route 615, with the stipulation that the owner's two properties
first be combined and a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office.
738
(PC 7/5/79) Page 20
REZONING
Request for rezoning approval by Thomas and Sheila Baker, Back Creek District, from
M1 and B2 to M1, 3.873 total acres.
ACTION -- Recommend Approval
Ms. Stefen briefed the Commission on the background information, noting that
rezoning was desired for uniform zoning.
Mr. Thomas Baker introduced himself to the Commission and noted that what he
is requesting is that a small strip be rezoned from B -2 to M -1, assuming that the 400'
line of B -2 zoning came off Route 7, and asking that this line be extended forward to
the property line.
Mr. Golladay -asked if Lot 3 goes parallel on the back property line with the
American Legion.
Mr. Baker answered that this was right.
Opposition was then called for and, in answer to a question from the audience
regarding the impact this rezoning would have on other lots along Route 7, Chairman
Gordon noted that this would not affect any other land in any way.
Mr. Brumback then made a motion that the Commission approve the rezoning.
Mr. Kirk seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors
for the Rezoning request of Thomas and Sheila Baker from M -1 and B -2 to M -1, 3.873 total
acres in the Back Creek District.
REZONING
Request for Rezoning by Harry L. McCann, Stonewall Magisterial District, from A -2 to
M -1, 6 acres.
ACTION -- Recommend Denial
Ms. Stefen was requested to give;; background information, noting this could
be spot zoning, however, the B & 0 Railroad runs along one side of the property.
Mr. Benham next introduced himself as the attorney representing Mr. McCann
and also introduced Mr. Rudy, the gentleman with a proposed contract to purchase the
6 acres. Mr. Benham then presented an aerial photograph for the Commission to refer to
739
(PC 7/5/79) Page 21
and noted that Mr. McCann has several hundred acres in the area, most of which is located
on the east side of the railroad. The parcel to be rezoned is at the southwest corner
marked in red on the map. Mr. Benham noted that adjacent to the west is the railroad
track and on the other side of that is Mr. Hunt's property and Route 11. On the north
and east sides is the rest of Mr. McCann's property. To the South of the property is
Red Bud Road and Fred Stine's field and Route 81. To the west is where the electrical
transformers are located. Mr. Benham then noted that the request for rezoning was being
requested for several reasons: (1) There is a need for it. Mr. Rudy's business in
Winchester has a need for a railroad siding. Warehousing with railroad sidings are not
plentiful. (2) The property is not'�particularly.desirable for residential housing.
(3) Railroad siding and highways make it desirable for M -1 type uses. (4) This use
is appropriate to M -1 zoning and the house on the property will be torn down.
Mr. Benham continued saying "Mr. Rudy would like to construct a warehouse on
the property, planning to locate it on the northern rear portion of the property and
intends to keep the apple trees and landscaping in the front portion of the property."
Chairman Gordon then asked if there was anyone else in favor present. There
being none, opposition was then called for.
Mr. Sempeles-next introduced himself to the Commission, noting that he lived
on Route 661 and would represent many in the audience who opposed this project, feeling
it may be considered spot zoning and would open an entire area to industry. Also,
Mr. Sempeles stated that a building may obstruct the view for school buses crossing the
railroad tracks, that additional wear and tear would affect the roads, that spillage
could occur, could increase road flooding, could affect value of land, and the Highway
Department could take more land from landowners to widen the road in the future.
Mr. Kirk then inquired if a traffic count was known.
Mr. Sempeles answered that he did not know.
Mr. Charlie Boyd then came forward and introduced himself to the Commission,
explaining that the railroad crossing is a grade crossing and the road is much more
narrow from the substation end. Mr. Boyd noted he has lived in the area for 62 years
and the area just east of the railroad, downgrade from this proposed warehouse has
gut
(PC 7/5/79) Page 22
had water as high as the hubcaps on a car.
Next, Mr. Joe Harbor introduced himself and noted that he was a professional
driver and doubted that an entrance could be safely located. Mr. Harbor stated there
were at least 20 children of driving age on this road and they did not need the additional
hazard of trucks pulling in and out below a siding.
Mrs. Starliper from the Stonewall District next addressed the Commission
noting she was presently on the committee studying the Opequon Creek situation which
at this time is deplorable. Mrs. Starliper further noted that Red Bud Run is the only
clean stream left in the area and that there are industrial parks for this type of
development.
Mr. Sempeles then added that there are at least five industrial parks where
industry can be located.
Mr. Benham then expressed his desire to clarify a few points , noting
"the question of school bus traffic at the railroad crossing, I think will be improved and
not more hampered by the rezoning and building of the warehouse because:(1) there is
presently located at the intersection an old house which if torn down will provide
better visibility, (2) the warehouse will be built in the rear of the property and will
improve visibility." Addressing the question of increased traffic, Mr. Benham continued .
that every time you build a house, etc. you increase traffic. However, this business
only has one delivery truck which leaves in the morning and comes back in the evening
and has a UPS truck coming in daily. Mr. Benham noted that once a week there might be a
large truck coming in addition to the railroad and would not substantially increase the
use of the road. With reference to the spillage of chemicals, Mr. Benham continued,
everything comes in sealed containers and safe guards could be provided. The real
question, he continued, is what is the best use of the land adjacent to a railroad.
Chairman Gordon then asked Stan Pangle for input on this case.
Mr. Pangle noted that Public Works did not have any objections to the rezoning,
but did advise Mr. Rudy to contact the Highway Department for traffic impact and also
the entrance road into the property, noting there is sufficient length of roadway
741
(PC 7/5/79) Page 23
frontage to bring the entrance road down the other side and, hopefully, provide
adequate sight distance and adequate braking distance.
Chairman Gordon next read a letter of opposition for the record:
July 5, 1979
Manuel DeHaven
and /or Members- Planning Commission
I feel at present time we have enough industries in our area.
It certainly does affect the value of our homes and takes away
the beauty of our countryside. Our farmlands and our crops are
decreasing to a very low ebb in Frederick County. Your concern
in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Dave Fahnestock
Mr. Brumback made note that once this is rezoned, there is nothing to say
that the next time you come back the intentions can be altered.
Mr. Rosenberger noted that if this was spot zoned to M -1 this would be a
policy decision for the future.
Chairman Gordon expressed that this is a departure from the Land Use Plan.
Mr. DeHaven then made a motion for disapproval of this request which was
seconded by Mr. Brumback and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of the Rezoning
Request by Harry L. McCann, Stonewall Magisterial District to the Board of Supervisors.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Request for a conditional use permit for David B. Grim, No. 010 -79, for a home occupation
of commercial photography, Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION -- Recommend Denial
Ms. Stefen was then requested to give just a brief summary of this for
the Commission. Ms. Stefen explained that Mr. Grim, located on Route 11, Stephenson
would like to engage in a home occupation of commercial on- location work and proposes
to build a concrete block building 26' X 33', containing three rooms.
Mr. Grim next introduced himself and noted that his home was not suitable to
work out of and that he needed a building now for a darkroom and workshop.
Mr. Kirk asked if the adjoiners, specifically the church was notified.
742
(PC 7/5/79) Page 24
Ms. Stefen acknowledged they had been.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question regarding the frontage on Route 11,
Mr. Grim responded that it was approximately 212
Mr. Rosenberger then noted that this intersection was the inside of a curve.
Mr. Golladay. next asked about the frequency of accidents.
Mr. Grim said they occurred frequently.
Chairman Gordon asked Mr. Ambrogi what the difference is between existing
buildings and ones to be constructed as far as home occupations are concerned.
Mr. Ambrogi reported that the ordinance does include existing buildings and
could allow a building to be put on the premises for a home occupation.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked if since this is a new construction a Site Plan
would be needed?
Ms. Stefen answered yes, putting up a building for professional or commercial
use would require a Highway Department approved entrance.
Ms. Stefen then informed Mr. Grim of the staff recommendations and reason
that the Highway Department is requiring a standard commercial entrance and since this is
a new construction, a site plan would be required with provisions of parking and paving.
Since new construction would be a great expense for a home occupation permit, that if
approved would be limited to employing only resident family members, and since this area
has not yet become strip commercial, staff recommends disapproval.
Mr. DeHaven then made a motion for denial of this conditional use permit.
This was seconded by Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Golladay noted that his major concern was strip commercial development
and the safety of the highway on Route 11, noting the Land Use Plan addresses the
clustering of commercial development along major highways. He expressed concern also
regarding the approval of a home occupation in an accessory building not yet built.
The vote was unanimous for denial.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of the conditional
use permit of Mr. David Grim, No. 010 -79 to the Board of Supervisors.
743
(PC 7/5/79) Page 25
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Request for Conditional Use Permit, No. 011 -79, Ervin D. & Margie Mates, requesting
a home occupation for child care center for up to 10 children.
- ._ -c-
ACTION: Recommend Approval
as amended
Ms. Stefen related background information at this time.
Mrs. Nates next introduced herself to the Commission and related that she
would like to keep up to 9 children in her home, 3 infants, 3 pre- school age and
6 year old to 9 year old children part =time.
Mr. Sluder then asked Mrs. Nates if they were on water and sewer, to which
she answered No. Mr. Sluder noted that the water and septic should be inspected.
Ms. Stefen noted that over nine children would constitute a day care center
and those center for under six children would not go back to health department.
Mr. Sluder stated that he would want to check the well and all himself.
Mr. Rosenberger then made the motion to approve, with the provisions that it
be for one -year non - transferable, with no one employed but family members, hours 8 a.m. to
6 p.m. and no more than nine children and no parking on the highway right -of -way. Also,
that a fenced play area be provided and that the permit would become void if the
Virginia Department of Welfare or the Department of Inspections cannot approve the use.
This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven.
Mr. Sohn Anderson then came forward and introduced himself to the Commission,
noting he owned three lots in the Green Acres subdivision and that he was concerned
that after the permit is granted, if it should be abused, what recourse he had.
Ms. Stefen noted that a condition could be added that this be reviewed if
a complaint is made and it would be up to the Board at that time to rescind it.
Mrs. Nates added that fencing would be done, but that the children would
only be up to school age and would require fulltime adult supervision at all times.
The vote taken and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors
the request of Ervin D. & Margie Nates to have a home occupation of child care center
for up to 9 children and that it be for one -year, non - transferable with no one employed
except family members, hours 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., no more than nine children, no parking
744
(PC 7/5/79) Page 26
on highway right -of -way, that a fenced play area be provided and that the permit would
become void if the Virginia Department of Welfare or the Department of Inspections
cannot approve the use or if a valid complaint were received.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Request for conditional use permit by Alfred and Annie Hicks, #012 -79, for a home
occupation to operate garage for frontend alignment and wheel balancing shop, 3.448
acres, Back Creek District.
ACTION -- Recommend Approval
Ms. Stefen was asked to relate the background information to the Commission.
Next, Mrs. Hicks introduced herself to the Commission and noted that this
would be a one - person operation.
Mr. Brumback noted that reviewing agencies all have given their approval
and Zoning, at the suggestion of the Commonwealth Attorney, noted that this could be
considered a home occupation in an outbuilding. Mr. Brumback also noted that the
present use is in violation of the zoning ordinance simply because there is no conditional
use permit on record.
To this Ms. Stefen concurred.
Mr. Brumback noted that this business is only operated five days per week in
the daylight hours and is an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Alfred .Snapp-.then- introduced himself to the Commission noting that he
adjoins on two sides and would speak in favor of this request.
There being no opposition, Mr. Brumback moved to recommend approval. This
was seconded by Mr. Venskoske and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend for approval to the Board of
Supervisors the conditional use permit request of Alfred and Annie Hicks to operate
a home occupation of garage for frontend alignment and wheel balancing.
Chairman Gordon next noted that Conditional. Use Permit #013=79 be considered for
Reverand Allen Baltimore and Edward Baltimore. Ms. Stefen noted this has been withdrawn.
The next order of business is Board Request for action on access road to
745
(PC 7/5/79) Page 27
Stine Industrial Park. At this time Mr. Golladay made a motion to retire into
executive seassion to discuss this matter. This was seconded by Mr. Venskoske and
voted on unanimously.
Before the start of executive session, Mr. Dawson requested to be recongized,
noting he has a conditional use of 18 months to use access road and that another road
was to be built during that time. Mr. Dawson mentioned talking to Mr. Stine by telephone
recently and noted Mr. Stine indicated he would like to build with the access funds a
paved road to Baker Lane.
Mr. DeHaven asked how far along the eighteen months would be.
Ms. Stefen then offered to clarify why Mr. Dawson was attending this meeting.
Ms. Stefen commented that she had sent a copy of a letter regarding Stine from Mr. Renalds
to Mr. Stine and that Mr. Stine had called Mr. Dawson right before this meeting. To
further explain, Ms. Stefen related that the Board took action when they approved
Mr. Dawson's Site Plan for the eighteen month temporary use of the road on 1/11/78.
Chairman Gordon commented that this would be considered in executive session.
Chairman Gordon reconvened the meeting at this time.
Mr. Golladay next made the motion that the Planning Commission recommend
to the Board of Supervisors that Mr. Stine in Stine Industrial Park establish a second
agreeable access or right -of -way that meets all reviewing agencies' qualifications and
specifications before the requested State access funds be approved by the Board. This
was seconded by Mr. Rosenberger and passed unanimously.
Ms. Stefen then relayed information available on down zoning: At the joint
meeting of 3/7/79 of the Planning Commission and Board, Mr. Kootz noted that it was a
general consensus of the Board of Supervisors to place the work in abeyance.
Mr. Brumback moved that a copy of the minutes of 3/7/79 be sent to each member
of the Board of Supervisors. This was by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
746
(PC 7/5/79) Page 28
Chairman Gordon then addressed the proposed changes in the home occupation
section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Stefen, to bring it up to date, noted that the distributed ordinance in
the Commission's possession is a legally approved version of what was discussed at
the last meeting.
Mr. Brumback commented that this is more of what was intended for the purpose
of this segment and that he feels more comfortable with it.
Chairman Gordon then directed the acting secretary to set up a public hearing
on this.
Ms. Stefen noted that there would be a joint hearing on Campgrounds at the
August 22, meeting, and. this could be considered at the same time.
This was agreed upon by consensus.
Chairman Gordon then relayed a thank you from D. B. Hope, Department of
Highways and Transportation, thanking the Commission for their support in the renaming
of Route 50 to John S. Mosby Highway.
Ms. Stefen then asked if the Commission would like to address Mr. Dawson's
request for an extension of the temporary use of road in Stine Industrial Park which
will expire in September.
Mr. Brumback moved to recommend a six month extension. This was seconded
by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimously. Mr. Brumback noted that Mr. Dawson should be
notified that the Commission expects all necessary effort to obtain a permanent solution
to this problem.
Mr. Golladay then made a motion that Mr. Stine be notified of the actions
taken at this meeting. This being seconded by Mr. Rosenberger and passed unanimously.
Mr. Venskoske then brought before the Commission a letter from Mr. Don
Richardson, State Water Control Board, asking several pertinent questions.
747
(PC 7/5/79) Page 29. -
Mr. Venskoske suggested this be put with the work session agenda.
There being no further business, Mr. Golladay made a motion to adjourn.
This was seconded by Mr. Brumback and the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Dorothea L. Stefen, Acting Secretary
'�
O W e