Loading...
PC_04-20-77_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION I[ Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room April 20, 1977 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger; George G. Snarr, Jr. ABSENT: Elmer Venskoske; R. Wesley Williams CALL TO ORDER The Chairman Called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business. MEETING MINUTES -- April 6, 1977 -- Approved as Submitted • r 1 LJ Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and ap- proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia does hereby approve the Minutes of the Meeting of April-6, 1977 as submitted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CUP No. 004 -77 D. Emory Wilson (R -2, Back Creek Magisterial District) Located North side of Route 652, approximately 3/10 mile West of intersection with Route 11 South. To repair small engines for garden tractors, lawn mowers, and some automobile tune -ups. Action - Recommended Denial i D. Emory Wilson appeared before the and stated that he intends to only be. engaged in this business on a part -time basis -- as a fill -in for retire- ment and to supplement Social Security benefits. He stated that he planned to store nothing outside the proposed building addition (18' X 34'). He also stated that it is not his intent to do vehicular engine work such as overhauling, trans- missions, differential, etc. The Commission discussed with Mr. Wilson the adjoining property as well as the applicant's. - Mr. Berg opined that this is not a home occupation as defined in the County Code. He described two previous actions that had been taken by the Commission 215 (PC 04/20/77) p 2 and Board for the Commission's comparison and consideration as precedents. Mr. Wilson said that, at age 62, he had had 28 years experience in mechanics; • and he is now unable to work full -time at that type of work. He stated that he did not intend to have any employees, and that he would only work when he felt like doing so. He said that he eventually hoped to not have to repair automobiles, only do small engine repair of lawn mowers, etc.. He added that he planned no night work to disturb neighbors. Mr. Rosenberger asked Mr. Wilson if he would be agreeable to a condition of the permit being renewed annually to which Mr. Wilson replied that he would be agree- able and abide by such a condition. He also said that the anticipated cost of the addition would be only $2500 because he would have free labor available. If the permit were to be denied upon annual review, he said that he could store fam- ily automobiles during bad weather within the building. A discussion followed involving how the building would aesthetically affect • the neighborhood; how it would affect neighborhood property values; howl it would be used if Mr. Wilson no longer used it; and if noise would be bothersome. The Commission then discussed the applicant's age and long -time residency in the County in relation to whether or not it had any bearing on the application. They also discussed the matter of setting a dangerous precedent. Mr. Wilson stated, upon inquiry, that he had not discussed his application with any of his neighbors. The motion to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors with the condi tions that there be no employees and the permit must be renewed annually (by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel C. DeHaven) was defeated by the fol- lowing vote: Snarr, Jr.; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Chairman - NO, DeHaven; Rosenberger - YES. A discussion followed regarding the fact that the Zoning Ordinance could be changed to accommodate individual cases such as this one. • Mr. Berg opined that, once a use has been permitted, the possibility of policing any conditions is remote. He also opined that modification oflthe 216 (PC 04/20/77) p 3 1 Zoning Ordinance to allow loopholes can be dangerous because the public will cease to trust its credibility. i Upon Mr. Brumback's suggestion, the Chairman asked Mr. Berg to schedule the sub- ject of exceptions being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance for a Work Session. CUP No. 003 -77 Frederick County Fair Association (A -2, Stonewall Magisterial District) Located South of Stonewall District Ruritan Club property on the West side of Route 11. a) To provide space for camping units for people connected with carnival, circus, rodeo, etc., activities held on said fairground property. b) To provide space for camping units of clubs, organizations, etc., traveling to and through this area en route to special events other than those occurring on said fairground property, such as: Apple Blossom Festival, Fall Carnival, etc. All rules and regulations of the State Board of Health governing campgrounds will be complied with. No Action - Referred to Board of Supervisors No one appeared to represent the application. Mr. Berg stated that the Fair Association had waited until the last minute to sub- mit an application, while having made arrangements for Apple Blossom. He said that I other issues revolve around campgrounds in general, and that this application does not have health approval. The motion to refer to the Board of Supervisors with n recommendatio (by Frank Brumback, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger) was withdrawn Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Manuel C. DeHaven and ap- proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr., Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby refer to the Board.. of Supervisors of said County the Conditional Use Per- mit application No. 003 -77 of the Frederick County Fair Association with the fol- lowing comment: The Planning Commission could not act on the application because there was no representative from the applicant's group to submit information. Brumback Committee Report - Guidelines for "Down Zoning" Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by George G. Snarr, Jr. and ap- proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES: 217 J (PC 04/20/77) p 4 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia does hereby enter into the Minutes the following report as read by Mr. Brumback: • "While in the process of studying the impact of single - family dwellings, the Brum- back Committee discovered that there are very large tracts of land that have been rezoned, but not yet put to the stated use, or any other new use. Many of these old zonings do not meet the goals and objectives of the Land Use Plan, and many depend upon utility extensions that are not planned. To bring these old zonings into line with current planning, the committee sug- gests that all zonings approved from 1967 to 1976 be'reviewed and "down zoned" where appropriate. This can be done under the provision of the State Code as long as no vested interest is impaired. The code permits: 'For the amendment of the ... district maps from time to time ... Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice require The only restrictions to this article is that: 'Nothing in the article shall be construed to authorize the impairment of any vested right ...' Working within these two articles of the code it is possible, and legally sup- portable, to change the zoning where the current designation does not comply with the Land Use Plan, and where there is not a vested interest. Such interest does not include application fees or surveying, but rather improvements made to the property in good faith and relying upon the zoning granted. As a practical matter three simple tests can be applied to each application: 1) Has a subdivision plat been approved for the property? 2) Has a site plan been approved for the property ?, or 3) Has a building permit been issued for improvements to the property? If the land does not comply with the Land Use Plan, and no approvals have been given, then an amendment may be initiated. At least theoretically, there should be no need to review current rezonings. They should comply with the Land Use Plan when approved. However, it would be well to review rezonings on an annual basis to determine progress made, Iand to make comparisons of the use proposed versus the use constructed. At this re- view meeting any zoning action that had not yielded progress on the site and which did not meet the guidelines, could be advertised for amendment - -,or at least the applicant could be invited to discuss the zoning with the Commission." Mr. Brumback stated that this is a broad approach to a new thing. He said that it'appears that a great many speculative rezonings have been granted over the years that do not, thus far, conform to the Land Use Plan nor have access to public utilities. Mr. Rosenberger suggested that a determination would have to be made between which were speculative rezonings and which were not. He said that perhaps a timetable and a percentage could be used as a deciding factor. He questioned how much use should be required of the rezoned land. Mr. Brumback suggested the Commission's rezoning recommendations to the Board • could include 'a length of time specified for the applicant to begin use of the rezoned property. Also, he said, in ten years' time a lot of changes can take 218 (PC 04/20/77) p 5 place to the land surrounding a particular rezoning. He also suggested a Work Session be scheduled for spending several hours creating guidelines for "down • zoning" Mr. Berg stated that contacting a state agency for advice would not be necessary because, if past zoning is not in accordance with local planning, the Commission may make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. He said that the committee had, during their review, focused on residential lots, but that commercial and industrial zoning has not been as thoroughly studied. He opined that the Com- mission should begin a review with number one and continue in numerical order. Mr. Brumback added that he would prefer a consensus of opinion from the Board of Supervisors before proceeding further with this study. The Chairman stated the Commission's consensus of opinion that Mr. Berg should schedule this item fora Work Session. I • JUNK CAR ORDINANCE Amendments Presented Mr. Berg stated that the amendments were being presented in the most restrictive form because the committee had felt it to be the responsibility of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to make any dilutions either body felt neces- sary. He opined that enforcement would be less difficult, however, with these more severe restrictions. i Mr. Ambrogi opined that the Commission should deviate as little as possible from the State Code. He said that presently available is a ten - dollar inoperable motor vehicle sticker, but that citizens seldom make application for it. The Commission appeared to feel that the entire amendment was too restrictive and specified the following concerns: a) Isn't requiring more than the County Sticker too restrictive? b) Shouldn't farm use vehicles be stated as exempt from the Ordinance? c) Wouldn't public visibility be a factor in considering farm vehicles • that are abandoned for repair parts? 219 1 (PC'04/20/77) p 6 Mr. Berg said that, if it is the sentiment of the Commission for everyone having several cars for parts, he saw no need to further pursue this amendment; that it • might be better to refer it back to the committee. The Chairman stated the Commission's consensus that the amendments to the Junk Car Ordinance be returned to the committee for further study. SIGN SECTION Amendments to the County Code Discussed Mr. Berg stated that he had made a few revisions after the Public Hearing that was held April 6, 1977, which included Sections 18 -7 -8; 18- 7 -1(d) -- added identi- fication signs, removed the ban on illumination of information and identification signs, and removed substantially the section on real estate signs; and 18- 7 -9(a) reflects a supposition of a non - permanent type business such as a fruit market. The Commission suggested changes to Sections 18- 7 -1(d) -- 60 square foot maxi- mum size; 18 -7 -5 -- reshaping of last sentence to.include fifteen -foot setback requirement instead of a twelve -foot setback; and 18- 7 -9(a) total area square • footage be changed from 12 to 24 for two or three signs. The Commission's consensus, stated the Chairman, is that it is readylfor a Public Hearine to be advertised. Mr. Berg stated that advertisement could be made for the meeting scheduled June 1, 1977. He also said that Warren Teates had asked to meet with him to discuss the changes made at this meeting, and that he would issue a memorandum to the Com- mission regarding the outcome of that discussion. Mr. Golladay suggested holding an evening meeting for better public input on this item since it is exceptionally controversial. Mr. Berg suggested a night meeting could be held for this one controversial item without voting, if the Commission so wished. The Chairman stated the Commission's consensus to advertise a Public Hearing • on the proposed sign section amendments to the County Code only at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, May 31, 1977 I L 220 (PC 04/20/77) p 7 Re- alignment of BUSINESS & RESIDENTIAL ZONES at Sunnysid & Shenandoah Hills Mr. Berg made a presentation to the Commission by using zoning maps to illustrate zoning lines that do not agree with the Land Use Plan, and the improper relationship of business zoning to residential zoning in and near the subdivisions known as Sun - nyside and Shenandoah Hills. He stated that he would notify Mr. James R. Wilkins of the difficulty with the i zoning lines at Shenandoah Hills, prior to the scheduled Public Hearing of May 4, 1977. Mr. DeHaven expressed concern over losing possible tax base by changing these zoning lines. HOUSING PLAN COMPONENT of the Comprehensive Plan Presented Mr. Berg stated that he only wished to present the plan for the Commission's consideration. • The Commission's consensus was to be allowed more time to digest the plan's contents. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and approved unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia does hereby adjourn its meeting; there being no further business. THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Respectfully Submitted, i" 4 �:� H. Ronald Berg, Secretary C. Lang Gordon, Chairman 221 � J