Loading...
PC_10-04-78_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, October 4, 1978. PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; W. French Kirk; Thomas Rosenberger; Elmer Venskoske; Herbert L. Sluder ABSENT: NONE CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first order of business. Minutes of the meeting -- September 20, 1978 -- approved with Corrections page 521 -- typographical errors -- add Fred, III,to Mr. Glaize's name Upon motion made by James Golladay,.Jr. and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve the minutes of September 20, 1978 with corrections. The vote passed with a unanimous vote. SUBDIVISION Request by Nora L. Garber Trust for four (4) lots off Route 522 South and Garber Road, Shawnee Magisterial District. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission that this was a subdivision of four (4) lots which have been approved by the Health Department and the Highway Department. He stated the property was zoned business. Donald Garber, applicant, appeared before the Commission to represent the request. Mr. Golladay asked Mr. Garber if he had received a notice requiring his presence at the meeting of September 20. He stated the Commission was concerned about whether the notices were getting to the applicants. 529 (P /C 10/04/78) p 2 Mr. Garber stated he had received the notice but due to an accident with one of their Garber Ice Cream trucks he was unable to attend. A discussion was held by the Commission, and Mr. Garber pointed out that water and sewer would be provided to the property by the City of Winchester. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of this subdivision request. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- YES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Conditional Use Permit No. 011 -78 -- request by John Hoover for Ernestine Hoover for a conditional use permit to reopen a nonconforming vehicle sales lot at the intersection of Route 50 West and Route 654. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission Mr. Hoover would be using the property for a used truck sales lot. It was being proposed to rejeuvenate the old existing service station building. The name would be "Oates' Used Truck Sales." Guy Oates, leasee, appeared to represent the request. He told the Commission Mr. Hoover had to attend a funeral and could not be present. Mr. Oates stated he would be using the property for the sale of trucks. Mr. Sluder was asked to comment on the septic system. He explained that the soil is of poor quality, therefore the business should be limited to two employees. Mr. Sluder also stated the Health Department would like the option of checking on the system yearly to make sure the system continues to function properly. 530 (P /C 10/04/78) p 3 Mr. Oates stated that he was satisfied with limiting the employees to two and maintained that he would probably be the only one at the site. Mr. Rosenberger told the Commission that this property had been one of the "eyesores" on Route 50 West, however, since Mr. Oates had considered the lot there had been quite an improvement in its' appearance. Upon motion made by Thomas Rosenberger and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of a one year permit to the Board of Supervisors with the stipulation that employees be limited to two. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- YES Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 006 -78 of Boyco, Inc. by Rufus C. Boyce, Jr. (President) 2214 Stonebrook Road, Winchester, Virginia, requesting that 1.01 acres on the southwest corner of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and Sunset Drive now zoned Agricultural - General District ( -2 ) be rezoned: Residential - General District (R -3). This parcel is designated as property identification number 65(A)35 and is in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission this request:.was a rezoning that had been brought before them in July and had been tabled. The petition had also been discussed at the meeting of September 20 but due to lack of representation no action had been taken. Mr. Berg stated the Sanitation Authority was projecting water and sewer to be available to the property in November. Rufus Boyce, Jr., applicant, appeared before the Commission to represent the petition. A discussion was held as to whether the one lot should be rezoned or the entire subdivision of Burning Knolls. It was decided that the entire area should be considered, however, the Commission did not feel Mr. Boyce should have to wait for action. It was noted that the Sanitation Authority was planning on serving the entire area with water and sewer. 531 (P /C 10/04/78) p 4 Mr. Brumback stated that the area was conforming to an R -3 zoning district because it would be served with water and sewer. Mr. Berg told the Commission that they could vote on Mr. Boyce's rezoning application and then the Commission could advertise for a November Public Hearing to consider rezoning the remainder of the property. A brief discussion was held and the following motion was made by W. French Kirk and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of this rezoning request to the Board of Supervisors and request that the balance of the subdivision be advertised for public hearing in November to change the zoning to R -3. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- YES SUBDIVISION Request by E. L. Peters to subdivide one lot in Senseny Heights Subdivision, Shawnee Magisterial District. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission that at the time Senseny Heights Subdivision was recorded, Williamson Road was not dedicated, therefore, the road can not be taken into the state system. Joseph A. Massie, Jr. attorney representing the request, appeared before the Commission and stated that there had been a mistake made in the survey of the Subdivision and Mr. King of the Highway Department had found this mistake when the State started taking over the road. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr. and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of this subdivision request. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- YES 532 (P /C 10/04/78) p 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 014 -78 of Julian T. Garber, and O. L. Garber for Nora L. Garber trust P. 0. Box 67, Winchester, Virginia, requesting that approximately 2.217 acres, on the east side of U. S. Route 522 South, one -half mile from U. S. Route 50 East now zoned Business - Limited District ( -1 ) be rezoned: Industrial- Limited District ( -1 ). This property is designated as property identification numbers 64(A)4 and 64(A)5 and is in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg read the application to the Commission and told them the property was to be used for a plumbing wholesale and warehouse business. He stated there would be a building constructed of approximately ten thousand (10,000) square feet Donald Garber, applicant, and Ken Kisner, of Plaza Realty, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Garber told the Commission he had received a letter from the Department of Highways and Transportations with recommendations and stated he could meet the requirements. A brief discussion was held concerning the letter from the Highway Department and the following motion was made by James Golladay, Jr. and seconded by Frank Brumback, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby move to make the letter from Mr. Chiles of the Highway Department a part of the minutes. The motion passed by a' unanimous vote. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION Edinburg, VA 22824 Sept. 8, 1978 Ref: Rt. 522 Proposed Commercial Entr. Frederick County Mr. Donald E. Garber 2033 Garber Road Winchester, Virginia 22601 533 (P /C 10/14/78) p 6 Dear Sir: In regard to your plans for an entrance, this is to advise that our District office has reviewed and have the following comments: 1. In order to obtain adequate sight distance to the south of this location, it will be necessary to cut twenty feet (20') of the slope across Mr. Wilkins property down to the existing curb line elevation. 2. The proposed curb should tie into the existing curb at the Lowe's property line. 3. A minimum of eight inches (8 ") of crushed stone plus two inches (2 ") of S -5 plant mix will be required from the edge of the pavement to the right of way line. I am enclosing a copy of the sight plan for your information. Very truly yours, J. W. Chiles, Jr. Resident Engineer By: K. D. Walker Inspector A discussion was held about Mr. Wilkins property. The Commission asked if there was anything in writing concerning Mr. Wilkins knowledge of the grading that would have to be done to his property. Mr. Garber assured the Commission that Mr. Wilkins was aware of the grading of the property and a letter was presented to the Commission from Mr. Wilkins concerning the matter. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr. and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby move to make the letter from Mr. Wilkins a part of the minutes. The motion passed by a unanimous vote. WILKINS SHOE CENTER, INC. 7 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 August 14, 1978 Mr. Ken Kisner Plaza Real Estate Agency 2400 Valley Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 534 (P /C 10/04/78) p 7 Dear Ken: Reference is made to your letter of August 11, 1978, concerning the Garber property on the West side of Route 522. I would be glad to give my permission to have the front portion of my property graded in a manner such as to allow better visibility as well as ingress and egress to the Garber property and my own land. Naturally this grading would have to be done at no expense to me and also with my further approval at that time. As you.are well aware, I support the Garber rezoning and if I can be of any further help, please feel free to call upon me. /s/ James R. Wilkins, Jr. A discussion was held and there being no one opposing the request, the following motion was made by W. French Kirk and seconded by James Golladay, Jr., BE IT RESOLVED, That Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of this rezoning request. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- yes Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 015 -78 of J. P. Darlington P. O. Box 368, Winchester, Virginia requesting that 20.282 acres north of and adjacent to Winchester between Baker Lane and Battle Avenue extended now zoned Residential - General District ( -3 ) be rezoned: Multi - Family Residential District ( -6 ). This property is designated as property identification number 54(A)95 and is in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action -- Recommend Denial The Chairman removed himself from his chair and stated he would not be taking part in the discussion or action on this request. Mr. Brumback, Vice Chairman, was asked to take the chair and conduct this part of the meeting. Mr. Berg read the application to the Commission and told them this was a contemporary multi - family housing project with courtyard effect and common areas. He stated it was proposed that the following buildings would be constructed: 535 (P /C 10/04/78) p 8 twenty -seven (27). buildings with..forty (40) efficiencies, seventy (70) one - bedroom, sixty -five (65) two - bedroom, twenty -three (23) three - bedroom apartments and including thirty -eight (38) townhouses. J. P. Darlington, applicant, and Jim Anderson, of Delmar Bayliss Realty, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Anderson stated that they wanted to put in a multi - family development and he felt there was a definite need for this development based on the number of inquiries they have had for housing in this area. He stated the development would be strategically located for its use. The area would have access to water and sewer. Mr. Anderson stated that when the County made the master plan of the County he understood that this area was designated for multi - family dwellings. Mr. Darlington told the Commission the property was adjacent to the Stine Industrial Park. Mr. DeHaven asked if the property was served by a state maintained highway. Mr. Darlington stated that the property was not servedcby a state maintained highway but.it would have to be if the property was developed. He stated it was a necessity to have the road state maintained and he had met with Mr. King of the Highway Department on the property and they had discussed the road and they had found several different ways for the road to be built. Mr. Darlington stated there was a right -of -way that goes back to the property but it is not wide enough for a state maintained road however, Mr. King had told him that an ease- ment could be obtained from the property and the road could be built. Mr. Berg stated that the staff had not received any new information concerning the road. He told the Commission he understood the property was changing hands but he didn't think that had happened at this point. Mr. Darlington stated that the road had to be put in and he was going to see that it did get there because he had more land behind this property and in the second place Mr. Stine would have a new way out of his industrial park. 536 (P /C 10/04/78) p 9 Mr. DeHaven stated that the rezoning request was asking for a R =6 zoning which would require water and sewer and he was sure it would require more than one exit out and the road would have to meet state specifications and it would just be another road to go into the system for taxpayers to have to share. Mr. Anderson told the Commission there would be approximately two hundred (200) housing units. Mr. Golladay asked Mr. Berg if the three problems (being highway; setback; floor area ratio ) could be handled during the site plan. Mr. Berg stated all but the roadway could be handled during the site plan. He stated Mr. Darlington could build a sixty foot right -of -way on his own property if the road will line.up with the street in the City. If the roadway does not line up and he has to cross Shenandoah Brick and Tile Company property in order to get to the City then it can not be built. Mr. Berg stated at this time he did not know if a roadway can be constructed. Mr. Darlington stated that the roadway did not have to run in an absolute straight line. Mr. Berg pointed out the corner of the property and told Mr. Darlington if a house was on the corner then the road could not go through the house. He stated he did not know where the corner of Mr. Darlington's property was in relation to the existing street. Mr. Darlington stated there was another possibility and that was to obtain one of the properties and put the road through to Green Street. Mr. Darlington stated that the Planning Commission in Winchester had discussed the proposal and the only thing they stated was to keep the buildings thirty (30) feet away from the lots in Briarcliff, and that Battle Avenue should be a deadend. Mr. Brumback stated that this was a bigger project than the Commission is usually faced with. 537 (P /C 10/04/78) p 10 Mr. Rosenberger asked about the staff comments in the agenda on open space and recreation requirements may be met, approximately thirty (30) more parking spaces are needed, and a majority of the proposed buildings do not meet setback and /or yard requirements. He stated these items seemed very important and he would like for them to be addressed. Ms. Stefen, Zoning Administrator, stated that the open space and recreation requirements as it stands can be met, and if the developers removed a building or two or whatever it would require to meet the floor area ratio there would be even more open space. Ms. Stefen stated the parking. are computed based on what is proposed but if there was less floor area then the parking would not be a problem. Setback and yard requirements could be worked out, but it is not correct as it stands. Mr. Anderson stated that they were aware that when a site plan was presented it would have to meet all the requirements. He stated the numbers might be less than what is being proposed but the plan presented is the concept they want. Mr. Anderson stated that he was aware some of the buildings may have to be deleted or moved around so that the water and sewer lines could be installed, etc. Mr. Anderson stated he knew that when the site plan was presented it would have to be absolute and the same way with the streets, he would not even consider building without having a state maintained road. He maintained that there is too much land in the area that is available to water and sewer that is going to be developed. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the land is within the confines of Interstate 81 and he felt this is a natural barrier and the farm land would not be destroyed in the County. 538 (P /C 10/04/78) p 11 Mr. Darlington asked if the basic concept in the past was to provide water and sewer to certain areas and keep the development in these areas in order to conserve the farm land in the County. He stated he had heard this concept for quite a few years and now a development was being proposed to use the water and sewer. Mr. Brumback stated that he didn't feel anyone had a negative view of the proposal, they were just bringing out certain views that needed attention. He asked what the time table would be for the construction of this development. Mr. Anderson stated there would probably be about fifty units built a year for four years. Mr. Brumback stated that he would like to know how many school children that would produce. Mr. Anderson argued that there were students graduating every year and a new school was being built and the students that were graduating needed housing to stay in this area and in order to provide housing there was going to have to be a development to rent. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the staff had referred to the Comprehensive Plan, yet when you look at the area there are several different zoning categories, and he wondered if this was good planning. Mr. Berg stated that he was referring to the Comprehensive Plan which calls for higher density activity in that area. Mr. Sam Lehman, President of the Taxpayers Association, asked Mr. Anderson why he had indicated that we need higher density development in the County and he wondered what evidence Mr. Anderson had that it should be in the County. Mr. Lehman asked why we should have multi - family development in the County instead of in Winchester. Mr. Anderson stated that people want to live in the area and they want to rent in the County and there is nothing available. He maintained they wanted their children to go to County schools because they grew up in the County. Mr. 539 (P /C 10/04/78) p 12 Anderson stated that there is no land available in the City for the construction of multi - family dwellings. He stated the only thing that was available in the City was business property but it is usually in a commercial area and people are looking for open concept. Mr. Lehman stated that they want to rent from the County's green space, put their children in the new high school and pay lower taxes. Mr. Anderson stated he didn't feel this was the case, he maintained that the people would like to live in the County and there is no housing to meet their needs. He stated that we need more multi - family housing for younger people who can not afford to buy houses and for older people who do not want to own their own home. Mr. Brumback stated that the need is there but he felt there were several issues that needed addressed. He stated that when this many houses are put up in one year then this should be taken into consideration by the School Board because it is their responsibility to come up with an educational system to educate these children. Mr. Brumback stated that the number of children from this project is a lot greater than from a multitude of smaller projects and he felt it was a big impact on the.County and this needed to be taken into consideration. Mr. Anderson stated that they were advocating around seventy to eighty one- bedroom .apartments and most of the people would probably already have children and probably would be living within the County so they didn't feel the impact would be that great. Mr. Brumback stated that if the people were already living in the County and they moved from "point A" to "point B" then someone would be coming in to move into the other houses, so unless you have a stock of unused housing then you still have the same number of people. 540 (P /C 10/04/78) p 13 Mr. Darlington stated that there were less children in the schools this year then last year. Mr. DeHaven asked about Mr. Darlington's other property in back of this property. Mr. Darlington stated that he intended to develop the property. He asked what was the idea for the Sanitation Authority and public water and sewer, if you don't have development? Mr. Darlington asked what was the reason for having it, was it just to serve factories? Mr. DeHaven asked if Mr. Darlington would be paying to get the water and sewer to his property. Mr. Darlington stated that he would be paying for the lines to get to his property. Mr. DeHaven stated that all the taxpayers would be paying for the lines. Mr. Darlington argued that Butler, Stine, Sanitation Authority, the City of Winchester and himself was paying.for the lines. Mr. Rosenberger stated that water and sewer would not even be available if the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had not started the Sanitation Authority with a loan of a million dollars which came from all the taxpayers. Mr.Darlington stated that he realized that and he was a taxpayer, also. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he wanted to raise one question and that was that the Board of Supervisors had spent many hours talking about lot sizes on large lot subdivisions to control growth. He stated if you are talking about controlling growth when you have to raise the size of a lot from three to five acres to control growth and yet here is a proposal for twenty acres to house two hundred families. He stated he felt it was a big question and it should be considered carefully. Mr. Rosenberger stated the property was now zoned R -3 which means single families and the surrounding property adjacent to this property is zoned R -3. 541 (P /C 10/04/78) p 14 Mr. Darlington stated there might be one hundred eighty units and he wondered which would be better -- going out into the County and building one hundred eighty single family houses with individual wells and drainfields, or putting them in one spot served with water and sewer. Mr. Brumback stated that it might be more feasible to put families that close together, but everyone might not want this. Mr. Darlington stated that if the requirements are met, what would be the objection. Mr. Brumback stated that there would be a certain impact on the County when you crowd that many people into one specific area. The services, facilities, schools, police departments, trash collections, etc., need to be taken into consideration. Mr. Brumback stated that he was sure from a developers' view- point it was the thing to do and he had no objection to that, but the other e factors enter into the picture also. Mr. Darlington asked if the policy of the County was no growth. He stated If that in the County the lots had to have an eighty foot front with twelve hundred Esiq u square feet, and a developer can not take these lots and put in roads and build the houses that people can afford to buy. Mr. Kirk asked Mr. Darlington if he joined Mr. Stine's property directly? Mr. Darlington stated his property did join Mr. Stine's property directly, and Mr. Stine also joins Butler's property. Mr. Darlington stated Mr. Stine needs.. a right -of -way out of the Industrial Park and he had the right -of -way Mr. Stine needs. Mr. Golladay stated he had a few questions. He stated it would seem to him that when the Commission did their Comprehensive Plan.they sort of invited this proposal, and if they didn't want it then why did they put it in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the tools were there to work with; water and sewer is available to the area, and the only problem he could foresee so far as rezoning the property is the road requirements. Who is responsible for the 542 (P /C 10/04/78) p 15 road? If the Commission didn't want the R -6 at that particular place, why was it in the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Rosenberger asked if the Comprehensive Plan listed the area as R -6 or R -3. Mr. Golladay stated he was under the impression it was zoned R -6. Mr. Rosenberger asked why it was R -3 now, then. Mr. Brumback asked Mr. Berg to clarify the situation. Mr. Berg stated the Comprehensive Plan called for high density residential which is R -6. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide and could be changed as time goes along. Mr. Brumback stated the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide and it runs to 1990, and what would be feasible in 1978 versus 1985 or so forth is different, too. Mr. Venskoske stated he was stumped by the size of the proposal and he thought it was way out of proportion for Frederick County. Mr. Darlington asked.,in other words anything that is big is bad? Mr. Venskoske stated he did not say it was bad. Mr. Darlington stated that he felt that is what was inferred. Mr. Anderson stated they were not talking about going in and putting up two hundred units. He stated they would be developing the proposal over the next four or five years. Mr. Anderson stated the County is going to have growth because people are going to have babies and we are going to have more children and we are always going to have this problem. We are going to have to cope with it the best way we can. Mr. Anderson stated the City was fast filling up and people are going to be living out in the County whether we like it or not and he is in favor of low taxes like the rest of the County. Mr. Anderson pointed out that his children go to private school and he has to pay for someone else's child.to go to school and he pays a lot of taxes but he is saying that the County 543 (P /C 10/04/78) p 16 needs a situation like what is being proposed. If R -6 is bad then why does the County even have a R -6. Mr. Anderson stated there are a lot of people who can not afford housing otherwise they have to live or want to live in an apartment and we have a lot of it in the area and it used to be the Metropolitan area had it. But now, we are getting more people and more industry and if we want to get more industry then we are going to have to educate more children. Mr. Anderson stated he was with sympathy with everybody on this but he didn't think two hundred units were out of line. Mr. Brumback stated that he hoped the Commission had had time to go over the staff comments and recommendations, and he asked the Commission how they felt about this project. He stated it was a fairly large project by Frederick County's standards and he felt it needed a lot of thought and study and a lot of home- work put into it. Mr. Brumback asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in opposition to this request. OPPOSITION Sam Lehman stated that he represented the Frederick County Taxpayers Association and stated they were against this project because they feel a rural county tax jurisdiction do not want to pay urban taxes and they believe that the houses spread out minimize the cost. Experience showsthat there are more police calls, more health problems and more welfare wherever people are packed together. Living cost more in the City than it does in the rurals. 544 (P /C 10/04/78) p 17 oFnnmmar. Mr. Darlington stated that once upon a time there was quite a problem that went on for quite a while and finally a man from Richmond was brought in to straighten it out. He stated when Gordondale was built, everyone was practically against it because they figured by it being a Farm Home project it would turn into a swamp. He stated he had heard the remarks. He suggested that the Commission.drive up and down the roads and look at the homes and stated it was better.-kept than 2/3 of Winchester. Mr. Rosenberger stated that in view of the review comments which leave a lot of unanswered questions.in his mind, not only the zoning change -- many things come to mind when he considers this project; other things happening more recent in Frederick County;so with these things in mind and many other unanswered questions, he made the motion which was seconded by Manuel DeHaven: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby move to recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of this rezoning request. Mr. Brumback asked for any other comments and stated that this was some- thing that they wanted to give a lot of consideration to and they wanted to be as fair and honest as they possibly could. Mr. Darlington asked about the unanswered questions. He stated Mr. Rosenberger had stated he had unanswered questions and so on, he would like to know what they were. Mr. Brumback stated that the discussion was for the Commission only and asked if the Commission had any other questions for the applicants. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he was referring to the review comments and they had left many questions in his mind -- some of them related to Winchester, some were related to Highway, some were related to parking, some could be addressed in the site plan.he realized, but some couldn't. He stated he was not clear on 545 (P /C 10/04/78) p 18 the Comprehensive Plan; if we have the Plan does the Commission have to follow it or can they vary from it, if it is only a plan or a suggested plan -- these are the questions he had and that was his reason for moving for denial. Mr. Brumback asked if there were any other questions. The vote was called for and the motion passed by the following vote: Chairman -- ABSTAIN Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger -- YES Mr. Kirk made the comment that he would like to study the proposal and he would also like to look into the Comprehensive Plan a little more. Mr. Golladay stated he thought the Comprehensive Plan should be used as a guide line yet on the other hand he felt the Commission should follow it 0 because it is a plan. If the Commission doesn't want R -6 in that area than it should be changed now, he doesn't think it can be changed on the spur of the moment. Mr. Golladay stated he would vote to deny the request on the basis of the road situation. Mr. Brumback stated the motion passed to deny the request. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he had to leave the meeting at this point. There followed a lengthy discussion about the Comprehensive Plan and its. relationship to zoning. Mr. Berg stated that throughout the discussions of the Comprehensive Plan it was repeatedly stated that the plan was to be used as a guide. He stated if the Commission wasnot going to use the plan as a guide, then they .needed to state some specific reasons for not using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. Mr. DeHaven stated that,in other words,if you use the Comprehensive Plan as a guide all the way through, you made your decision when you adopted that map on every case that comes before the Commission. He stated he believed every case should be considered on its own merits and forget about the map. 546 (P /C 10/04/78) p 19 Mr. DeHaven maintained that he thought every case should be weighed on its own merits that has always been his decision whether there is one map, two maps, or the whole building is full of maps, because if you go by the map it is no use to come to the meetings because the Land Use Map will tell you the zoning. The Chairman stated he couldn't agree with Mr. DeHaven because they had the definition of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is possible to make allowances and still keep in the general concept of the Plan. Mr. Brumback stated that another fact to point out was that because the application was denied this time does not mean that it would not be approved at another date down the road or under another set of circumstances. It is not that the door has been shut forever on the thing and he would like that under- stood. Mr. Venskoske stated that if he felt that something wasn't good for the welfare of the County he didn't feel he was being arbitrary. He stated when the Commission is arbitrary then it would be getting into trouble. The Chairman stated that perhaps they would get another chance to discuss this in a worksession. The Chairman noted that they had a letter in their agenda regarding the Board of Supervisors'action on the large lot subdivision requirements. The Commission discussed the subdivision changes and it was decided that they should meet with the Board of Supervisors and discuss this with them. The Commission also discussed their plan of work and decided that this should be presented to and discussed withthe Board of Supervisors at the joint meeting. The Commission discussed their plan of work for 1978 -79 and listed then according to priority as follows: 1. Complete the Capital Improvements Program. 2. Revise Agricultural zoning districts. 3. Complete work currently in progress, new zoning maps and business zones. 4. Conditional Zoning and revision to Conditional Use Permits to strenghten decision guidelines. 547 (P /C 10/04/78) p 20 5. Revisions -to Residential Zoning Districts. 6. Historic Districts. The Commission also noted that the property identification maps were ready for the Board to review, and they decided this should be discussed at a second meeting with the Board. GENERAL, Mr. Golladay stated he would like to thank the County for sending several of the Commission members to the Institute for Planners in Charlottesville. It was also suggested that perhaps a worksession could be arranged to discuss what the members had learned during the Institute. Adjournment Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby adjourn its meeting; there being no further business. Respectfully Submitted, 0 - // Y/ -^- �d III- -. Ronald Berg, Secretary ll Wopordo n, Chairman ME