PC_09-19-79_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF MEETING
OF THE
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, September 19, 1979
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Cha Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman, W. French Kirk,
Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Herbert Sluder.
ABSENP: Elmer Venskoske
WKTIUMV WOX•:•�;
The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first order of business,
corrections and approval of the minutes of the previous two meetings, September 5, 1979
and September 7, 1979. Corrections were as follows:
Page 6 - 7th & 9th paragraph, change "Robert" Fulton to "Arthur ".
Page 8 - last paragraph "Ervin" Cather should be changed to "Irvine ".
Page 7 - 3rd paragraph, change "then" to "than"
Page 11 - 2nd paragraph. omit "the ".
Page 3 (9/7/79) - Section 21 -25 should be changed to Section 21 -35.
voted.
On motion by Mr. Golladay,seconded by Mr. DeHaven, unanimous approval was
Mr. Golladay first noted that we are now beginning to pick up comparative
data from last year.
Mr. Riley noted that this was correct.
Mr. Gordon then asked staff for comments on staff approved site plans.
Mr. Riley explained that Mr. Lummp's Site Plan was an addition to a Site Plan,
Round Hill Fire Department is an addition to a Site Plan, and Dr. Gremlin is an office
building.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked if the Zeiger Subdivision was a completion or new
subdivision.
Mr. Riley noted that this was su}snitted on August 20, 1979 probably to avoid
the requirements that were amended at the August 22, 1979 Board of Supervisors' meeting
regarding lot area requirements. Mr. Riley continued, noting that this section was
vacated by the Board.
Mr. Sluder further explained that this is part of the original-subdivision.
Mr. Golladay then asked if a one - sentence explanation could be given on staff
approved site plans.
Mr. Riley ceimented that this would certainly be possible.
Chairman Gordon stated that this has been a re- occurring question and the
Co mission would request a one - sentence explanation if that is possible.
Chairman Gordon then acknowedged the receipt of the bimonthly report as
information.
e
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 2
Request for Site Plan approval by Amoco Foam Products for a plastics manufacturing
plant on the Cather property, east of U. S. 11, North, immediately west of Interstate
81 and South of Route 839, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Site Plan ,#024 -79.
ACTION - Recom<end Approval
Mr. Riley then commented on background information, noting that residential
property also adjoins this land and noting the Highway Department has given formal
approval with the engineering division considering the entrance permit at the time it
is applied for. Mr. Riley also noted that the final submitted site plan has addressed
all issues of concern from the Department of Public works, zoning and Planning.
Chairman Gordon then asked what the standing is on the vacation of portions of
lots in the access area.
I4r. Riley explained that it was his understanding that extensive research has
been done on three lots recorded but not built upon located in the area of access.
Mr. Frank Eskridge, Eskridge and Long Construction and Mr. Conrad Mazur, Amoco
Foam Products next came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Mazur stated that they
had tried to answer all questions put to them and they would like very much to proceed.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked if County water and sewer has been worked out.
Mr. Eskridge noted that they are in the process of finalizing this.
Mr. Bnmmback then asked if this site plan was complete now.
Mr. Riley stated that the applicants had extensively researched requirements
before contacting our office. Consequently, Mr. Riley continued, when they did contact
the office, they presented a preliminary site plan which was routed for comment.
These comments, Mr. Riley added, were given to the applicant and addressed in their final
site plan. Mr. Riley commented that site plan requirements have been satisfied.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked if there seemed to be any problem with water and
sewer.
Mr. Eskridge suggested that there did not seen to be any problems since there
is water and sewer near the site.
:1�
(P /C 9/19/79)
Page 3
Mr. Pangle commented that Public Works had reviewed the final site plan
and all questions seem to be answered.
Chairman Gordon then related that he and two members of the Board of
Supervisors and Mr. Riley visited the Amoco Plant in Wisconsin and the general concensus
was that they all liked what was observed. Chairman Gordon noted the plant was clean,
with minimal noise and nothing detrimental outside. Chairman Gordon added that this
operation would seam to be a welcomed neighbor to Frederick County.
Mr. Mazur noted that this plant in Wisconsin is located on a State Highway,
with a river across from the plant, with a rail siding in back of it and with 20 to 25
homes located on a bluff behind it. Mr. Mazur added that there were no problans with
the area residents. Mr. Mazur further explained that the front of the building is
attractive and landscaped.
Chairman Gordon commented that there seemed to be pride in their plant and
that the general climate of the employees was one of satisfaction.
Mr. Mazur noted that the company has a very low turnover in employees, with
the operation in Wisconsin having 180 hourly employees and 45 salaried employees.
Mr. Mazur noted that, generally, very few employees are transferred in from other areas.
Cha Gordon next asked about the time frame for expansion.
Mr. Mazur commented that they would look, hopefully, to coming back next year
to start expanding; this, however, being dictated by the market place.
Chairman Gordon then called for anyone else in favor of the petition. There
being none, Cha irman Gordon next called for anyone in opposition.
Mr. Dave Fahnestock came forward and introduced himself to the Commission,
noting that he owned the property adjacent to this property and then passed out copies
of a plat to the Commission members. Mr. Fahnestock continued, saying "we do buy our
hares for the privacy we get." Mr. Fahnestock commented that he bought his hone for
privacy and its convenience to stores and schools,etc. Mr. Fahnestock noted that this
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 4
proposed highway from Route 37 and Route 11., which is in front of the property,
borders my property. Mr. Fahnestock explained that the right- of-way is his major
concern, expressing a desire to move it away from his property line or move it to the
dead end road since it is just a few feet from his yard where the traffic and noise of
three to five hundred automobiles daily (and possibly more in the future) would make it
impossible for anyone to live in his hone. Mr. Fahnestock also commented that Route 11
is already congested and questioned if a traffic count has been made on Route 11.
Mr. Fahnestock added that his water system is located between his house and this proposed
access. Mr. Fahnestock then stated that he opposes the plant and more strongly opposes
the right -of -way location.
Mr. DeHaven then asked if there were any vacant lots along that road.
Mr. Fahnestock noted that he thought there were vacant lots.
Mr. Br mback then asked how long Mr. Fahnestock owned this property.
Mr. Fahnestock answered that he moved there in April of this year.
Mr. Riley explained that the zoning line cuts off on the center line of
Route 839 and has been zoned industrial since 1973.
Chairman Gordon asked if any consideration had been given to the access road
being on the south boundary of this property.
Mr. Eskridge noted that they had, however, the rail siding dictates the
placement of the warehouses and trucking traffic. Mr. Eskridge further explained that
truck and car traffic need to be kept separated and added that there are also severe
topography problems involved. Mr. Eskridge noted that the estimates of car traffic
would be a maximm of 100, since car pooling is more prevalent now.
Mr. Mazur added that they would do everything possible to build up a screen
on that road, so it will not be in plain view of Mr. Fahnestock's house.
Mr. Mazur also noted that the traffic would only be at shift change.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, Mr. Fahnestock remarked that he did
not know he was zoned 14 -1.
ME
(9/19/79) Page 5
Cha irman Gordon then asked if there was anyone present to speak further
in opposition-
Mr. Golladay then asked for clarification regarding traffic coning in South
versus North.
Mr. Eskridge noted that the cars and trucks will use the same road getting in
and the area in the southwest corner is a truck maneuvering area. There are also grade
problems, Mr. Eskridge continued,-.noting also that it is not a good idea to build in an
area that is more suited to be a drainage area. Mr. Eskridge also stated that the proposed
access road would be primarily fill, without a great deal of earth work.
Cha irman Gordon then asked what type of screening would be used near Mr.
Fahnestock's house.
Mr. Mazur noted that there is an existing stand of trees and they would be
putting in low growing evergreens to fill in lower area as a visual and noise screen.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question Mr. Fahnestock noted that his house
is approximately 30 feet from the boundary line next to Cattier property.
Mr. DeHaven expressed that he could like to see this situation at the site.
Mr. Mazur then came forward with an aerial photograph and pointed out the
area in question.
Mr. Rosenberger then questioned Mr. Pangle as to what would make a good
screen.
Mr. Pangle commented that the law growing evergreens would do fine in there
and the control of noise would depend upon haw closely they were planted. Mr. Pangle
added that his department could cone up with a good recamtendation on planting after
going back out and measuring the area.
Mr. DeHaven then asked if the buffer could be widened by moving the pavement
further away from Mr. Fahnestock's house.
Mr. Eskridge noted that they are also trying to keep a buffer on Mr. Cather's
side because there are no trees in that area.
LO
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 6
Mr. Rosenberger made a motion, taking into consideration that this area
has been zoned M -1, for approval of this site plan and have our Public Works Department
along with the Extension Personnel recommend the best buffer to screen the access.
This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pl annin g Commission recommend approval of the Amoco Foam
Products site plan to the Board of Supervisors with the stipulation that the reconnen-
dations from Public Works Department for screening be taken into consideration.
REZONING
Request for rezoning approval by Richard and Leona Nicholson, Shawnee Magisterial
District, from Business- Limited (B -1) to Agricultural - General (A -2), 14 total acres.
ACTION.- Recommend Approval
Mr. Riley briefed the Commission on the background information.
Mrs. Leona Nicholson then came forward and introduced herself to the Commission,
noting that the health department could not
find a place
to perk on their
land
and,
consequently, they will not be moving a home
on it. Mrs.
Nicholson added
that
this
fact made it even more advantagious to have this downzoning, since they could do
absolutely nothing with the land.
Mr. Sluder noted that he had not seen this property, however, soils in the
area have been a problem.
There being no one present in opposition, Mr. Brmmiback made a motion to
approve this request. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Richard and
Leona Nicholson rezoning request to the Board of Supervisors.
Cha irman Gordon next stated that the report from the Prime Agricultural
Committee be the next order of business.
Mr. Mark Davis, Service and Mr. Gary DeCms, Extension Agent
then came forward and introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Mark Davis then
:o•
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 7
reported on committee ittee meetings, noting that a number of orchard people were contacted.
Mr. Davis then read the following report:
The Prime Farmlands Committee met on July 31, 1979 and August 30, 1979 to formulate
recormiendations on identification of different types of farmland in Frederick County.
Input was also received from several area fruit growers and forage producers. The
following is a list of proposed farmland classes that the Committee recommends to the
Planning Co m fission to be identified on soil survey field sheets as they became available
to the County.
1. Prime Farmland - Land best suited and available for producing food, feed, forage,
fiber or oilseed crops. This land must meet specific U.S.D.A. criteria as pertains
to moisture supply, temperature, Ph, water table, depth, erodibility, permeability
and rockiness.
2. Unique Farmland - That land other than prime farmland which is presently in orchard
production or in a production cycle.
3. Additional Farmland of Statewide DTportance - That land other than prime or unique
farmland which falls into capability classes III or IV according to Soil Conservation
Service land capability classification. Also included is land which falls in
capability class VI because of stoniness that can be cropped using minimum or no-
tillage. The lands in this category are on 25% slopes or less.
4. Additional Farmland of Local Importance - This land is potential high producing
orchard land which meets the criteria outlines below:
Limestone Areas - Land with deep, well- drained, moderately permeable soils
with good air drainage generally confined to slopes of 25% or less.
Shale Areas - Land with moderately deep, well - drained, moderately permeable
soils with good air drainage generally confined to slopes of 25% or less.
Also included is capability Class I and II land that is not considered Prime Farmland
due to flooding and /or a seasonally high water table butte otherwise is highly pro-
ductive farmland.
5. Other Land - Land of other uses or land used for the production of food, feed or
fiber not covered in other classes of farmland.
=_In .- addition;. the Committee recommends that two orchardists each from the limestone
area and the shale area be asked to assist in the identification of Additional Farmland
of Local Importance on a periodic basis as needed when a sufficient number of field
sheets berme available.
Mr. Davis then noted that the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District
has offered to let their secretary (as her time is available) to help with the coloring
of these sheets. As the sheets became available, Mr. Davis continued, we would like to
have the orchardists sit down with us and go over this additional farmland of local
importance.
M
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 8
Mr. Davis also emphasized that this is an identification map, another tool
for the Planning Commission, not a land use map.
Mr. DeCms stated that one concern that showed up in the meetings was the
ultimate use of this information.
In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. DeCms noted that they did not
seem to object to the use of this information as a tool, but were fearful of what else
it might be used for.
Mr. Brumback commented that Unique Farmland seemed the hardett.to pin down.
Mr. DeOms further explained that everything that could be put in prime farm
land would be put there and it would then be worked down on a level of importance.
Mr. Brumback then asked how long it would be until this work is completed.
Mr. Davis noted that the soil survey should be ready in 1981, however, this
planning tool can be used,in part,as soon as the first field sheets are ready.
Mr. DeCms remarked that the field sheets could later be used to develop a
master map.
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, Mr. Davis noted that Unique is a
separate category, not part of Prime.
Mr. DeCms further explained that first you would identify all the prime farmland
in the County and some of the unique farmland will probably be included in this. Unique,
Mr. DeOms continued, will pick up the next category.
Mr. Rosenberger then asked what percentage of farmland would fall into the first
two categories.
Mr. DeCms said he would guess orchard land would run about 8,000 acres and
15% of the County land would be considered prime and unique.
Chairman Gordon in review noted that this committee is making two recommendations;
one, that the soils be identified on the soil survey maps and the other being additional
orchardists having input into the lands of local importance.
Mr. DeOns added that it might be helpful to keep the committee intact, also,
:M
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 9
to help complete field sheets.
Mr. Brumback then made a motion to adopt as part of the minutes the Prime
Farmland Committee Report. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the report of the Prime Farmlands Committee became a part of the
minutes as presented.
It was also decided by general consensus that the Committee be left intact
to carry on the work of putting data on field sheets and that the committee designate
the orchardists needed to aid the committee.
Cha irman Gordon then commented that the next order of business was a discussion
of the Gilpin Industrial Park.
Mr. Riley noted that Mr. Kenneth Gilpin was invited to cane to this meeting
at the Commission's request to discuss the overall concept of the Stonewall Industrial
Park. Mr. Riley added that this would give him an opportunity to do research on it.
Mr. Riley noted that, regarding industrial park development, the concern of the Planning
Commission in general about acreage requirements and what is required of an industrial
park need to be addressed. Mr. Riley commented also that an industrial park should be
planned around things like the availability of transportation, roads, rail availability,
availability of public water and sewer, etc. Specifics regarding acreage requirements,
Mr. Riley continued, should not be gotten into because a particular industrial park may
want to attract somebody that has a small service area and only needs an acre or two.
Mr. Riley added that the master plan for an industrial park must be flexible so that it
will not discourage certain types of industries. Mr. Riley noted that this industrial
park (Stonewall) seems to have addressed these issues and are trying not to commit themselves
on specific acreage requirements.
Messrs. Thomas and Kenneth Gilpin then came forward and introduced themselves to
the Commission. Mr. Kenneth Gilpin first explained that the housing area was only one
consideration for that area, given to us by the planner, which we are not considering now.
WM
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 10
In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question regarding the residential area,
Mr. Kenneth Gilpin noted that he could not see going back to the idea of having residential.
Cha irman Gordon then asked Mr. Riley if this was not a larger park than most
industrial parks.
Mr. Riley noted that an industrial park could be twenty acres in size or as
large or larger than Stonewall, it really centers around the availability of amenities
to develop the site. Mr. Riley suggested that this industrial park is moderate to fairly
large as far as industrial complexes are concerned. The design of this park, Mr. Riley
continued, is such that can accomiodate industries which will use quite a bit of land
for development.
Mr. Golladay then questioned when the proper time would be for looking at the
traffic problem.
Mr. Riley commented that the time to look into this potential problem is now,
before the problem exists.
Mr. Golladay related that Mr. Rosenberger had questioned Mr. Chiles on the
upgrading of that road at a past Borad meeting and Mr. Chiles said it had just been
repaved and nothing further was going to be done about it.
Mr. Golladay then asked if Mr. Chiles and Mr. King of the Highway Department
have seen this plan and gone over it.
Mr. Thomas
Gilpin stated that the plan has not been gone
over with Mr.
King,
however, he had gone
to see Mr. King regarding traffic counts. Mr.
Thomas Gilpin
added
that a meeting with Mr. King is an excellent idea.
Mr. Rosenberger noted that now might be the time to go over.the master plan
with Mr. Chiles, indicating the size, etc. in order to get on the six year plan.
Mr. Thomas Gilpin noted that in 1977 the traffic count on Welltown Pike was
1962 vehicles and Route 11 between Route 81 and the City limits was 10,365 vehicles. For
caparison, Mr. Thomas Gilpin continued, Stine Industrial Park had 3220 vehicles on the
road leading to Fort Collier Park and Route 11 had 10,365 vehicles.
[Ii .
(9/19/79) Page 11
Mr. Kenneth Gilpin then asked Mr. Rosenberger if he thought perhaps if it
is put on the six year plan now, if the need does not materialize, this could be dropped.
Mr. Rosenberger acknowledged that this is what should be done; by getting it
on the list now, should the need arise, there will not be the wait.
Mr. Brumback suggested that perhaps this could be discussed at a work session
to go over the specifics with Mr.'.King.
Mr. Golladay then asked Mr. Riley if it was a good idea to have a 2.5 acre
tract setting next to a five acre tract.
Mr. Riley noted that you could have two similar industries that are going to
be putting out basically the same product or same type of service, and one industry
could be dealing in volume needing five
acres to
produce.
Mr.
Riley
continued that you
could have a similar industry that does
not deal
in quite
the
volume
and will not need
quite the land:
Mr. Thomas Gilpin noted that they do have an area for small lots for five
acres and under. Larger lots will be sold in other areas, Mr. Thomas Gilpin continued.
Mr. Kenneth Gilpin then explained that an industry such as Bulbs International
does not need five acres to build on and that water and sewer will be at the site.
Mr. Riley stated that in the portion Mr. Gilpin is working in now,2.5 acres
is adequate for the type of industry he is trying to attract at this time.
In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Kenneth Gilpin remarked that he
had no intention of subdividing to anything less than two and_ one -half acre parcels.
Mr. Golladay then asked if when the small lot area is completely sold, would
another section of the industrial park also be sold in small lots.
Mr. Kenneth Gilpin noted that this is a hard question to answer and stated
that it will be governed by a lot of things such as how many fifteen or twenty acre parcels
have been sold. Mr. Kenneth Gilpin added that after water and sewer serve this park, the
larger lots may sell better, since there have been inquiries to this regard.
�iO
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 12
Chairman Gordon stated that this discussion served to give the Commission
some answers.
Mr. DeHaven then announced that there is present a gentleman in attendance
who would also like to address the Commission on this subject.
Mr. Douglas Grimm, Stonewall District came forward and introduced himself
to the Commission, noting that his property adjoins the Gilpin Development. Mr. Grimm
noted that he was in attendance today regarding traffic problems. Mr. Grimm stated
that he had not intended to address the subject of Johnny Blue, however, he could not
understand why a fence was required when you can see through it. Mr. Grimm also noted
that the required shrubs have never been planted. Mr. Grimm next addressed the traffic
problem of vehicles racing in this area. Mr. Grime related that he had contacted the
Highway Department regarding the placement of speed signs-and the marking of a curve.
Mr. Grimm noted that he thought it was the Planning Commission and Board's responsibility
to have signs put on Lenoir Drive.
Mr. Kenneth Gilpin expressed that he agreed that the Highway Department should
cooperate in this regard.
Mr. Rosenberger suggested that this could be included in the work session.
Chairman Gordon then noted that next on the agenda is a discussion of changes
in the conditional use section.
Mr. Riley stated that this had been included and would be heard at public
hearing on October 3, 1979. Mr. Riley noted that the conditional use permit section,
home occupations and the definition of frontage would all be heard on October 3, 1979.
Chairman Gordon next announced the discussion of the 14-2 Section of the
Ordinance.
Mr. Riley explained that this was included in the agenda because another
MM
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 13
request had been received to expand an existing M -2 use by putting up a building to
put items in for storage for winter. Mr. Riley noted that here again the present
ordinance requires this individual to apply for a conditional use permit, a site
plan and go through the public hearing process before the Planning CmYnission and Board,
which will put him into the middle of November to try and get his building up. Mr. Riley
noted that perhaps this should be considered at a work session and perhaps flexibility
can be added in this section.
Chairman Gordon suggested this may be a weak spot in the zoning and should be
put on next work session.
Mr. Golladay next made a motion to go into executive session to discuss
personnel matters. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
Mr. Golladay then moved to go back into regular session. This was seconded
by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
Cha irman Gordon announced that the discussion summary of executive session will
be in the form of a motion.
Mr.Golladay then made a motion to appoint Mr. John R. Riley as secretary of
the Planning Commission effective September 19, 1979. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk
and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission has appointed John R. Riley secretary of
the Planning Commission effective September 19, 1979.
Mr. Riley explained that the letters attached to the agenda were informational
and that discretion was going to be used in the Shenandoah Hills problem.
Mr. DeHaven next reported on the school for Planning Commissioners he attended
recently, noting that everything was much the same as in past years except more urban
development was gone over. Mr. DeHaven related that it was recotmiended that the Cha irman
should sign all plats.
811
(P /C 9/19/79) Page 14
Chairman Gordon noted that this was the procedure in the past and this could
be done at the desire of the Commission.
Mr. DeHaven then made a motion that the Planning Conmission Cha irman sign all
subdivision plats. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission Chairman sign all subdivision plats, effective
September 19, 1979.
Mr. Brmmmback next commuented that some thought should be given to the res-
ponsibility of the Planning Commission with regard to citizens who buy in industrial
zones and then cane in and complain to the Planning Commission, .
Mr. Rosenberger suggested this be addressed in the down zoning committee
meeting.
Mr. Golladay then made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This was seconded
by Mr. Brumback and passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jokmm;/R. Riley', S retary
• • ••
812