HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_08-01-79_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room
August 1, 1979
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman; W. French Kirk;
Manuel DeHaven, James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger; Herbert Sluder.
ABSENT: Elmer Venskoske
CALL TO ORDER
The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes from the
previous three meetings, July 5, 18, and 24, 1979. Corrections were as follows:
Page 722, addition of Allen to Mr. Carter's name; Page 746, change "Mr. Stine in" to
'Mr. Stine of ": Page 746, correct spelling of Mr. Koontz; Page 741, change Mr. Harbor to
Mr. Hulver; Page 730, change'Mr. Brumback answered" to'Mr. Gordon answered" in 4th para-
graph; and, add- Rosenberger in attendance on July 24.
Mr. Golladay then made a motion that the three sets of minutes be approved as
corrected. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Mr. Golladay first asked when there would be available two figures to compare
for the Building permit section.
Ms. Stefen responded that it would be the Fall.
Mr. Brumback then asked why miscellaneous figures where so different between
1978 and 1979.
Ms. Stefen noted that miscellaneous included things such as porches, yard buildings,
churches, etc. and such a difference was not unusual.
The Bimonthly Report was received as information.
REQUEST
Request for subdivision approval by Mr. Edwin L. Rhodes, 2 Lots, 200 ft. frontage, zoned
R -1, Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommend Approval
Ms. Stefen's summation: Staff recommends approval since all reviewing agencies
can approve. Ms. Stefen further explained that this ten acre piece existed before the
subdivision ordinance so this is not one that has been recently broken down.
Mr. Edwin Rhodes then came forward and introduced himself to the Commission
noting that a survey has been made and the Health Department gave preliminary approval.
755
(PC 8/1/79) Page 2
In answer to Mr. Gordon's question regarding any other buildings, Mr. Rhodes
noted that he owns a mobile home on the back five acres which he intends to keep with
possibility of building a more permanent home later.
Mr. Sluder then stated that this situation is different because there is a
right -of -way dividing these lots:. .Mr. Sluder further stated that there are drainfield
sites there, adding that he prefers to see 5 acre tracts in outlying areas remain 5 acre
tracts rather than subdividing.
Mr. Rhodes explained that the right -of -way, which has been there for a number
of years, serves the home on the back five acres.
Mr. Kirk then asked for clarification of adjoining landowners.
Mr. Rhodes acknowledged that he adjoins Donald L. Newcome and John A. Light and
that this is the only land he owns in the County.
There being no one in opposition and no further discussion, Mr. DeHaven then
made a motion to recommend approval. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend,to the Board of Supervisors, approval
of Rhodes Subdivision.
The next order of business was a presentation of a development proposal.
Mr. Roy Parks then came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Parks explained
a proposed subdivision to the Commission, referring to a visual aid, that now has R -3 and
Agricultural zoning, situated on Route 663, near an existing subdivision, Welltown Acres,
consisting of a total of approximately 205 acres. Mr. Parks explained that the proposed
subdivision would use a clustering of homes to best utilize the area without disturbing the
character of the land as it exists or creating drainage problems. Mr. Parks stated that
the land surrounding this area is currently farmland. Mr. Parks noted that most of the
water would drain in a natural watershed to a holding pond, which would be left undisturbed
along with a barn. Mr. Parks added that the houses would be nestled in the wooded areas
to maintain the rural quality that exists. He further noted that slopes of 25% and more
would not be built on, 15 -25% slopes would be considered buildable, and 10 -15% slopes would
be used to design proper roads. Mr. Parks continued that what is being proposed is a 90
756
(PC 8/1/79) Page 3
unit subdivision on this land, placed according to how they fit, retaining areas for
common use, avoiding the stripping out of interior roads.and which could be called a
neighborhood development. Mr. Parks also explained that runoff after this project would
be 0 %, soil would not be disturbed and that vegetation would remain as is except where
the houses and roads are shown. Mr. Parks also stated that there would be buffers on
all sides that would remain and that this land cannot be used for farming and will be
developed.
Mr. Rosenberger asked how much common area was being represented to which
Mr. Parks answered that approximately one third, and that a 25% minimum is usual on
this type of project.
Mr. Golladay then asked what the average lot size would be.
Mr. Parks remarked that the smallest would be 50,000 '.square - _feet and added
that culdesacs and eyebrows should not be public roads, but limited right of ways and
that there would be one unit to every 2 2/3 acres less the roads.
Mr. Golladay then noted that Route 663 ties into Route 661 and asked if Route 661
was the location of Gilpin Industrial Park.
To this, Mr. Parks answered yes.
Mr. Golladay further noted that the only logical entrance close to town would
be at, 11 where the block plant is located.
Mr. DeHaven then asked for clarification of what land.thisis being considered.
Mr. Parks acknowledged that it was the R. E. Campbell Farm, adjoining Gunner Land.
Mr. Golladay then inquired as to present use.
Mr. Parks remarked that it was presently wooded.
Mr. Brumback then asked how close this development would be to orchards on
the back side.
Mr.. Parks noted that it would be approximately 100 feet with a buffer of
40 -60' trees, suggesting that this land is not suitable for farming and it is to be
developed.
Mr. Brumback noted that this might be too close for orchard spraying.
757
(PC 8/1/79) Page 4
Mr. DeHaven then asked who will maintain the common areas.
Mr. Parks answered that a home owners association would maintain the common
areas, adding that the Highway Department would maintain the roads and the small roads be
maintained by the home owners association.
Ms. Stefen noted that the roads would have to be State maintained according
to the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Icing was then . asked to comment. Mr. King noted that the State would
require a 20 ft. right -of-way and the culdesacs would be considered entrances and
r
would be acceptable if located in safe locations and that drainage easements would be
necessary.
Mr. Parks remarked that all drainage would be kept on site, with the use of
the holding pond.
In answer to Mr. Brumback's question regarding the size of the pond, Mr. Parks
answered less than an acre.
Mr. King added that there would be a need for drainage easements to retention
basins with Frederick County accepting responsibility for them.
Mr. Gordon then raised the question of 90 homes feeding traffic out to Route 661
and the Highway Department's thoughts on this.
Mr. King noted that he did not see any problem and that there would soon be a
light on Route 11 and Route 661. Mr. King added that 600 -650 cars per day would be
generated, considering one home equals 7.3 trips.
Mr. Kirk then asked if there was a traffic count on Route 661.
Mr. King explained that he did not have one with him, but this road was rebuilt
four years ago and is one of the County's better roads.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, "is this limestone soil ", Mr. Kirk
remarked it was.
Mr. Sluder then asked if water and sewer, now coming into Gilpin Industrial
Park, had been looked into.
Mr. Parks said that he could just look at it and know it is too far and
758
(PC 8/1/79) Page 5
cost would be prohibitive.
Mr. DeHaven then questioned if this drained into Red Bud.
Mr. Solenberger then introduced himself and explained that this all
drained the other way.
Mr. Sluder again suggested that central water and sewer should be looked
into since a lot of money would be put into wells and drainfields.
Mr. Parks stated that there is no way the economics would work.
Ms. Stefen then addressed Mr. Parks, explaining that he had expressed the
desire to have a Planned Unit Development which would require public water and sewer to
have that designation. If you feel the economics of this do not work this should not be
your goal, continued Ms. Stefen.
Mr. Rosenberger expressed that he was concerned about trees being taken out
for buildings, roadways and drainfields and the increased run -off.
Mr. Parks noted that runoff would be off, with structures and culdesacs geared
to this goal. He also noted that an increase of 5 -7% would be accomodated on site.
Mr. Gordon stated that something of this magnitude needs time for thought
and that possibly the Commission should take time to digest the information.
Mr. Parks remarked that they would explore the possibility of central sewer
and larger buffer strips.
Mr. Brumback then asked what the Land Use Plan designated this area.
Ms. Stefen noted it was Agricultural in the Land Use Plan which would be in
conflict.
Mr. Kirk expressed a desire to drive out and look the site over.
Mr. Golladay stated that there are reservations with regard to traffic problems.
Mr. Brumback expressed concern with it being situated between apple orchards
and being in direct conflict with the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Gordon then suggested that Mr. Parks at a later time request time on the
agenda again, explaining that the Commission did not mean to stall but that it needs time
to consider.
759
(PC 8/1/79) Page 6
Mr. Tisinger then came forward to address the Commission regarding his
client James Bowman, Stephens City, who has a storage tank underground for his trucks
which has gone bad. Mr. Bowman, Mr. Tisinger continued, would like to erect a tank
vertically above the gound and would like to submit a survey with just the location
drawn in without the expense of a survey for a site plan. Mr. Tisinger noted that this
did not constitute a change in the use and that tanks last longer when out of the ground.
Ms. Stefen stated that the acreage is slightly under two acres in which case
the site plan can be modified, however, under the M -2 section all permitted uses require
a conditional use permit. Ms. Stefen noted that she had no objection to the request
for a modified site plan, since the tank will be in the same location. Ms. Stefen
continued that.by� the Conditional Use Permit process the Commission would have a chance
to look at other angles.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question regarding the proposed installation of
the tank, Mr. Tisinger stated that it would be vertical and would be built according to
code.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked if there were any objections from neighbors.
Ms. Stefen related that there had been a question from a neighbor, but the
question was satisfied when the neighbor learned that the tank would be put on the M -2
property rather than on the property adjacent to the neighbor.
Mr. Tisinger then asked if the Commission would accept a modified site plan.
Ms. Stefen noted that a site plan would not bring out any difference in under-
ground versus above ground installation. A modified site plan would be acceptable with
a conditional use permit. Ms. Stefen suggested that a modified site plan be requested
showing location of the tank to scale, but not surveyed, and notarized (signed by
drawer as being correct) in addition to a conditional use permit requesting it not be
renewed annually.
Mr. Gordon noted the consensus of the Commission in doing it the way suggested
by Ms. Stefen.
760
(PC 8/1/79) Page 7
REZONING
Request for rezoning by George L. Miller, No. 009 -79, for sales display area in Shawnee
Magisterial District.
ACTION - Recommend Approval
Ms. Stefen gave the background information, noting that this was for
additional sales display area.
Mr. George Miller then came forward and introduced himself to the Commission.
Mr. Kirk, in order to place the property, asked if this was near the motorcycle
place to which Mr. Miller answered yes.
Mr. Miller was then asked by Mr. Gordon if the business to the north was
nonconforming, to which Mr. Miller answered yes, and noted that he leased that property
too
Mr. Golladay asked for clarification that this would be only for sales not
repairs.
Mr. Miller acknowledged that this would be used just for sales, noting that
this would be just outdoor storage with no buildings.
There being no opposition or further discussion, Mr. Kirk made a motion to
recommend approval of this rezoning request. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and
passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors
approval of the rezoning request of Miller Auto Sales from A -2 to B -2, .99 acres in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
The next order of business was a discussion of entrance requirements with
Mr. Reginald King of the Highway Department and Mr. Carroll Brown, Department of Inspections.
Mr. Gordon noted that the Commission was asking for input regarding entrances.
Mr. DeHaven stated that when a property owner back in a subdivision puts in an
entrance off a right -of -way there seems to be a question as to proper installation of
these entrances.
761
(PC 8/1/79) Page 8
Mr. Brown noted that his contact with the Highway Department for the permit
process is limited to houses both on State maintained roads or subdivisions where the
roads have been accepted by the Highway Department and they must have a highway permit
obtained from Mr. King's office. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. King forwards to the
Department of Inspections a list of subdivisions accepted. Mr. Brown suggested that
Mr. Pangle could be contacted as he has been checking entrance problems, viewing it from
storm water management point of view.
Mr. Golladay then asked if a person in a five acre subdivision puts in a sixty
foot right of way, would he need to get an entrance permit from the Highway Department
in order to tie into a State road before any construction is done.
Mr. King answered that this was right.
Mr. Golladay noted that another person could go -back in the five acre subdivision
and buy a five acre parcel, put in an entrance and no one has any control over the placement
of the culvert.
Mr. King said this was quite often the case on.lots that do not have frontage
on State maintained roads. Mr. King further noted'that control is : needed between the time
the deed of dedication is recorded and when the State is asked to add it to the system.
Ms. Stefen noted that the only restrictions on five acre subdivisions would be
the required amount of frontage on a State maintained road or non -State maintained road.
Mr. Gordon noted that there seems to be no control until there is another
adoption in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Brown suggested that perhaps Mr. Pangle could address a future meeting
on this subject.
Ms. Stefen asked if Mr. Brown thought perhaps the Storm Water section would be
the most appropriate section to change rather than the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Brown agreed, and suggested that with changes in the Erosion and Sediment
section a building permit could be held up until such problems were addressed by Mr. Pangle.
762
(PC 8/1/79) Page 9
Mr. Brumback observed that this problem seems to be cropping up continually
and perhaps now is the time to change the ordinance with regard to five acre and larger
lots
Ms. Stefen stated that this is the second time in two weeks that the Commission
has gone to other parts of County Law to address something that is basically a subdivision
problem.
Mr. Sluder added that there are many five acre lots that are being developed
and sold that can never be used because of septic and well problems.
Mr. Gordon added that this seems to come down to either a stop -gap solution
along the lines of erosion and sedimentation section versus repairs to the subdivision
ordinance.
Mr. Gordon also stated that no determination had to be made today and that
Mr. King's and Mr. Brown's input is appreciated.
Mr. King also suggested that perhaps the definition of subdivision could be
changed to include everything above five acres and any division of land where the
construction of a new road is required would be brought under the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Gordon asked if Ms. Stefen would put this on the agenda for a worksession.
Mr. Golladay added that he felt if this were a planning or subdivision matter
the Commission should take care of it. If it is an erosion and sedimentation matter,
Mr. Golladay continued, this should be addressed.
Mr. Rosenberger noted that when this gets to the Board he could see no change
in their response at this time.
Ms. Stefen acknowedged at this time that she would ask Mr. Pangle to the
next Planning Commission meeting as there was not too much for the agenda at this time.
Mr. Kirk next addressed the specific entrance of Windy Hill subdivision on
Route 522, asking :about the safety of this entrance on a curve.
Mr. King noted that this subdivision had only enough sight distance for one
entrance.
763
(PC 8/1/79) Page 10
Mr. Gordon next asked for more information on this type of concentration of
entrances on a highway.
Mr. King stated that there is not a great deal that can be done because property
owners have abutter's rights and unless it is considered too hazardous access cannot be
denied. Mr. King continued that entrances must be twenty -five feet apart.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question regarding accidents in areas containing
group entrances, Mr. King noted that the Highway Department Traffic and Safety Division
in Richmond keeps records of locations having accident problems which are looked into.
Chairman Gordon then asked if the Highway Department prefers for local juris-
dictions to make precautions on too many entrances.
Mr. King stated that if an entrance meets all standards, the Highway Department
cannot deny it.
Chairman Gordon next asked Mr. Rudolph to come forward to discuss downzoning
for reassessment purposes.
Ms. Stefen explained that there were a lot of people rezoned during the 1973
rezoning who neither requested rezoning nor wanted it. It is the thought that a lot of
problems will be solved by downzoning now rather than waiting until later. Ms. Stefen
continued that the Planning Commission could consider allowing downzoning on a voluntary
basis.
Mr. Rudolph was then asked by Chairman Gordon what instructions were given
to the appraisers.
Mr. Rudolph related that the appraisers, this year, have to put classification,
zoning and pick up all new taxable property to put on the books for this reassessment,
noting that this was mandated by the State for 100% appraisal. Mr. Rudolph noted that
he remembered Mr. Berg saying that a party would have to take an eighty dollar ad for
downzoning. In disagreement, Mr. Rudolph stated, "If the County made the mistake, why
charge the public." Continuing, Mr. Rudolph noted that correcting mistakes while doing
this reassessment is vital.
764
(PC 8/1/79) Page 11
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, Mr. Rudolph explained that the
appraisors had in their possession records of the 1973 rezoning.
Mr. Brumback then asked what the difference would be in an R zone appraisal
and an A zone appraisal if the land is being used for the same purpose.
Mr. Rudolph stated that the difference in zoning would have a bearing on the
tax and that the board of assessors will review the appraisor's figures. Mr. Rudolph
further explained that he could not tell the Commission the dollar difference since this
is determined by the board of assessors who have not been appointed as yet. Mr. Rudolph
added that the procedure is a State law, however, the value is determined by the County.
Mr. Brumback then asked for clarification on Land Use with regard to R zoning
with no buildings.
Mr. Rudolph noted that if it was zoned prior to a certain date it could be
signed up in land use. Also, Mr. Rudolph continued, there are large lot subdivisions
that have five acre lots which can be signed up for land use.
In summary, Mr. Gordon noted that the County will call the shots on the differentials
in value, noting that the Board directs the local board of assessors as to what is
wanted.
Mr. Rudolph, with reference to the Committee on Prime Agricultural Land, then
asked Mr. Brumback if this committee was set up to develop agricultural districts.
Mr. Brumback answered that at the present time the only thing the committee is
being involved in is basically to identify the different types of land in Frederick County.
Chairman Gordon then noted that since more information seems to be needed to
make a decision, perhaps the appraisors could come to the next meeting. The Commission
members all noted their consensus to this suggestion and Ms. Stefen was asked to put this
on the next agenda.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, Mr. Rudolph noted that the taxes on
this reassessment would not be received until 1981, noting that Frederick County is the
last in the State to be going to 100% assessment.
765
(PC 8/1/79) Page 12
Chairman Gordon then opened discussion on the Wheatlands correspondence.
Ms. Stefen noted that the A -95 form represented the request for approval.from
localities for Federal monies to be given. 'Ms. Stefen continued, noting that the
Commission's recommendations were being sought in this regard. Ms. Stefen added that
copies of two letters to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries are attached to the
agenda and state that Section 21 -85 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with R -5 zoning says
the Lake can only be conveyed to a non - profit corporate owner or association of the
individual owners in the development. ,
In answer to Chairman Gordon's question regarding why these persons did not
know about the County ordinance, Ms. Stefen explained that the Commission on Game and
Inland Fisheries called the day before they went to public hearing with just specific
questions by telephone. Ms. Stefen further noted that if the State purchased this Lake
they would be in violation of the County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Golladay then made,a motion that this be tabled and that the Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission be informed that this is in violation of the zoning ordinance
and the Planning Commission needs time to consider before any action is taken. This was
seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
Mr. Golladay then made a motion to go into executive session to discuss a
personnel matter. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
Mr. Golladay next made a motion that the meeting be reconvened. This was
seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
Chairman Gordon announced that during executive session personnel matters
in the Planning Department were being discussed and no decision was reached.
.:
(PC 8/1/79) Page 13
Chairman Gordon noted that the next order of business was correspondence
on notice of public meeting.
Ms. Stefen explained that this was notice of a public hearing on water
pollution control abatement, a Federal Public Hearing submitted for your information.
Chairman Gordon acknowledged that this is received as information.
Chairman Gordon also noted that a letter of thanks from Mr. & Mrs. Hicks
is only for information of Commission members and received as such.
Chairman Gordon then noted that the Conditional Use Section of the zoning
ordinance could be advertised for public hearing as there is no further discussion.
Board of Zoning Appeals variance applications were next for discussion, .stated
Chairman Gordon.and accepted as information.
Ms. Stefen added.; that no further information has become available with
regard to the upcoming 1'nstitute for Planning Commissioners on September 9, 10 and 11.
There being no further business Mr. Golladay made a motion that the meeting be
adjourned. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,, m
Dorothea L. Stefen, Actin 'Director
126 A—
.dJ Gord
767