PC_09-04-75_Meeting_Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION 14EETING
September 4, 1975
Held in the Board of Supervisors Room
PRESENT: Keith Williams, Chairman; Elmer Venskoske;
Manuel DeHaven; C. Langdon Gordon;
Richard Madigan; Frank Brumback;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi; H. Ronald Berg
ABSENT: R. Wesley Williams; James Golladay, Sr.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that
the first order of business is an A -95 Review of Virginia Seasonal
and Migrant Farmers Assistance Program.
A -95 Review
VIRGINIA SEASONAL And MIGRANT FARMERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
• Tabled
Ronald Berg read the A -95 Review to the Commission Members
as follows from R. Edward Duncan, Executive Director, Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission; which was received August 18, 1975:
"We are in receipt of an A -95 Review Project concerning the Virginia
Seasonal and Migrant Farmers Assistance Program. The purpose of the
program is to provide manpower and other supported social services
for individuals who experience seasonal unemployment and underemploy-
ment in the agricultural industry. The total amount of funds requested
for the State from the Federal Department of Labor by the Division of
State Planning and Community Affairs is $822,000."
The Chairman asked if this was for all of Virginia.
Ronald Berg stated that he was sure it is for the State of
Virginia and that it would come through the Planning District.
•
The Chairman
asked
if there were any definition
or explanation
of how funds were
to be
used other than broad terms.
/S�
Iq
P. 2
Ronald Berg stated that there was not and he had not received
• a copy of the review.
The Chairman quoted the second paragraph of letter from Lord
Fairfax Planning District Commission (see page 1):
"It is requested that the Planning Commission and interested persons
review the above project and provide us with an appropriate comments
and /or recommendations."
The Chairman stated that the letter wanted these comments by
September 11, 1975, if conveniently possible; but how can we review
anything when we don't have anything to review?
The Chairman asked what the Commission members would like to
do on this A -95 Review.
Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Frank Brumback
and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby postpone this until we get more
information.
A -95 Review
AREA PLAN FOR AGING
Approved
'Ronald Berg read the A -95 Review to the Commission Members as
follows from R. Edward Duncan, Executive Director, Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission; which was received August 18, 1975:
"We are in receipt of an A -95 Review Project concerning an area plan
for aging. The purpose of the project is to develop an area plan
for aging services, administer its implementation, and provide
services that identified during the planning process. The total
amount of funds requested from the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare is $65,004."
Ronald Berg stated that these are just "planning" funds for a
multi- county area and he felt that the monies asked for were not /
excessive.
l S��
l�c3
Mr. Berg further stated that approximately $30,000 would be used
• for the Regional Plan for Aging. He said that included would be
current "Meals On Wheels" Program as well as other "meals" programs
in the counties at this time.
C. Langdon Gordon asked if the City had approved this plan.
Ronald Berg varified that the City had approved this plan.
He continued that there is no district -wide plan in this particular
instance, but it is on the way -- striving for coordination.
The Chairman stated his opinion that he sometimes thinks it
is possible to put one program in jeopardy by approving another.
He said that he wished Lord Fairfax Planning District would furnish
us with an agenda of their. thinking.
• Ronald Berg commented that there is a "Meals On Wheels" Program
in.operation in the City of Winchester now. He said funding is
being done for planning; then an implementation program to follow.
Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Elmer Venskoske
and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of the A -95
Review of the Area Plan for Aging.
LAND USE PLAN
No Vote
The Chairman stated that.he was glad to see Larry Ambrogi at
this meeting.
• Mr_. Ambrogi brought:the Commission up to date on the details
of the cases of Williams and Allman (he indicated that he did not
i
�4
V
have findings of the Williams case, but elaborated on his knowledge
of the Allman case).
Mr. Berg read the following paragraph from the Opinion, Page 443,
Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax Co. v. Roy G. Allman, Trustee, Et Al
(01/20/75, Record Nos. 730991 and 740029):
"In the instant case we are not dealing directly with a compre-
hensive zoning ordinance. Rather we are dealing with the legis-
lative action of a Board of Supervisors in refusing to increase
the permissible development density of certain property to the
category established by a duly adopted comprehensive or master
land use plan. The effect of the action of the Board was to reaf-
firm the zoning of the Allman land in the RE -1 category. This
was a legislative act performed by a legislative body.
Mr. Berg stated that the Allman property was shown on the
•
Fairfax County Comprehensive Use Plan as a certain type density
development, but the Board refused to rezone property to that
as shown on Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Court ordered the..:
County to rezone the land and the Supreme Court ordered the County
to review the case. He further stated that his interpretation was
that when you plan land for a certain use and density that you must
be prepared to zone it.
Mr. Ambrogi stated his opinion that local governments are
responsible - -that courts won't do it and that if you do zone a
certain way you must be prepared if someone wants a certain type
zoning according to this Plan you don't have much choice other
than to follow the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The Chairman stated that he felt this Plan is apparently up
El
to local interpretation for development and that it sounds like
in an instance when we have a zoning ordinance, but all the land
is not zoned according to the Land Use Plan, when someone comes
before us we have no other choice but rezone that land. He said
F 14
E I
that it doesn't even make good common sense. He further stated
® that apparently land should not be planned for anymore than is
zoned and decide each instance individually -- perhaps do the Land
Use Plan and the Major Zoning Ordinance at the same time to pro-
vide consistency and less conflict with each other. He elaborated
that the first step would be to amend the Land Use Plan and then
amend the zoning ordinance. He posed the question of whether or
not Commission is required to zone accordingly when requested.
The Chairman stated that the next step would be the services
that are needed within the area that have to be provided by govern-
ment. He posed the question of local government affording to pay
for these services; such as, water, sewer and schools.
® The Chairman stated that this zoning is by a "legislative"
body at the local level as part of the local administrative state
police powers and are not a matter of the court decision, but
rather the local municipality who enacted the ordinance, passes
it and makes judgment. He further stated that the Court really
refused to hear the case or make a decision other than remand it
to the legislative body that passed the law and is responsible for
that law under the state police powers.
Richard Madigan stated that one use for the Land Use Plan is
to strengthen the zoning ordinance in case someone challenged it.'
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the Commission should encourage land
development that is consistant with the Plan.
The Chairman stated that since there was a very light Agenda
today he would entertain a motion for adjournment to an "Executive
Session" to discuss a legal matter.
/
PF
Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by C. Langdon
• Gordon and approved unanimously,
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS CALLED from which the public and
non - voting members (J. 0. Renalds, III; Ronald Berg; Bill Riley;
Flo. Day) were excluded for advice from the Attorney on legal
aspects of the Land Use Plan.
Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Elmer Venskoske
and approved unanimously,
REGULAR SESSION RECONVENED PUBLICLY continuing with the subject
of the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Berg stated (for the Commission's information) the pro-
cedure that must be followed for public hearings and that the
Commission did not have to adopt or recommend at such a hearing.
He said that the Board of Supervisors meets for their second
• meeting of the month of October on the 22nd. He further stated
that it might be well to make a presentation to the Board prior
to such a meeting
Mr. Madigan suggested presenting the Land Use Plan to the
Board on September 24, 1975; and try for the public hearing on
October 22, 1975 so that the Board may be given the Land Use Plan
beforehand. He further stated that it was necessary to see the
Board before a definite date can be set for advertisement.
The Chairman suggested posing several possible dates to the
Board -- decide upon a definite date; then advertise that date if
different from Board regularly - scheduled meeting date.
•
Richard
Madigan suggested
dates from
September 8
through
29 for joint
public hearing and
eliminate
dates that
are not
7
CJ 1 J
P. 7
•
:.agreeable to both bodies by telephoning the members for a quorum
agreement.
The Chairman stated that since the members were in agreement
the Commission would dispense with the Work Session until after the
public hearings.
ELLA R. BAKER
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 2.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF ELLA R.
BAKER, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 608, APPROXIMATELY 1.4
MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 522; IN GAINESBORO MAGIS-
TERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, LIMITED (A -1) TO RESIDENTIAL
LIMITED (R -1).
Tabled
Ronald Berg read the application to the Commission.
I[]
Mrs. Ella Baker appeared before the Commission. She stated that
she wanted to sell part of her property to pay for a new home that
she had built in 1972. She further stated that she is going to sell
one (1) lot containing three (3) houses.
Ronald Berg stated that the property is 2.608 acres; which is
not enough to divide into two (2) lots of 70,000 square feet each.
He further stated that the lot did not meet zoning requirements with
three (3) houses -- they would have to remain on one (1) "lot" if
land is zoned R -1.
Richard Madigan said that this would almost be creating another
little subdivision.
Mr. Berg stated that a two (2) -lot subdivision would be permitted.
•
Mrs. Baker stated that there are three (3) houses north of her
new house, but they are all on one (1) tract.
O�
Mrs. Baker stated that the two (2) houses on other side of
her three (3) houses were part of the property she did own at one
-time and now the whole tract is in her name. She said all her
houses were presently rented; except the new one in which she lives.
Mrs. Baker stated that she wanted to sell all three (3) houses
and she understood that purchaser could not divide that lot. She
said that these houses might have three (3) different septic sys-
tems, but do have water piped from one (1) house to the other two
(2) underground by electric pump.
Mrs. Baker stated that the three (3) houses had been approved
for septic last summer.
The Chairman stated that Mrs. Baker could still supply the water
• from one (1) well located at the one (1) house she rents and piped
to spigots located at the other two (2) houses she rents.
Mrs. Baker stated that whoever purchases the lot containing
the three (3) houses would have to also be responsible for the
water and electricity.
Mrs. Baker stated that she did not submit with her application
the Health Department Septic approval.
Mr. Berg stated that the Health Department had not replied to
their inquiry other than stating they had received it -- had not
had the opportunity to check the property.
Mrs. Baker varified that it had been a year since she had
• gotten the permit.
i
Eli
Opposition
• Dr. Cyrus Khrabi (pro - keberrie) appeared before the Commission
in opposition. He stated that there were a number of inaccuracies
in the presentation to the Commission by Mrs. Baker in reference to
the facts as they exist.
Dr. Khrabi stated that this property is surrounded by agricul-
tural and forestry in all directions. He further stated that he is
an adjoining property owner of 168 acres; further beyond him is 400
acres; and further behind him is 300 -400 acres -- nothing as far as
the eye can see except trees.
Dr. Khrabi asked the Commission to withhold a decision until
it has received all the facts. He stated that it is contrary to
• good planning to have those shacks there. He continued that he
believed it to be totally unsanitary and unsuitable for animals.
He said he considered these buildings to be totally unsuitable for
human occupancy.
Dr. Khrabi stated that the land is too narrow to accommodate
being divided because is only about three (3) feet across on one
side-and that the shape and size of the land with the existing
shacks all clearly in violation of any existing regulations that
we have..
Dr. Khrabi stated that Mr. Kern, an adjoining property owner,
had not been notified.
Mrs. Baker stated that Mr., Kern no longer owns that property.
•
L
P. 10
Dr. Khrabi stated that an issue of a tax matter is involved
and if this property is rezoned he will be bound to comply with a
different tax scale for his property and it will be due to an eyesore
adjacent to his property. He said that it is very unfair that he
should have to pay more taxes on that account.
Dr. Khrabi quoted from Statute 58 -769.4 through 58- 769.15
which provides a number of factors.
Dr. Khrabi asked that the Commission table this application
until it has more facts to properly evaluate.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition.
He then asked Mrs. Baker if she had any points she wished to make.
• Mrs. Baker stated that there is no farming land in that vicinity;
one cannot even have a garden; the land is only good for building.
She mentioned that she had had the land surveyed and the land dim-
ensions are shown on the plat.
Dr. Khrabi stated that he owned his property before Mrs. Baker's
houses were built. He said he objected when the power company came
to put up power lines. He continued that when he went to inspect
the property he noticed that one (1) shack had been built to which
he immediately objected because it was a question of boundary lines
(whether it was on his side or not). He further stated that he wrote
by certified mail and personally. He said that he retained counsel, -
Mr. Kuykendall. He stated that they wrote. He said that a matter
of human issues was involved because he did not want to leave a
bad impression--with his neighbors. He said that another shack was'
then built and the property is unsightly with junk, etc.
� 6Y
i
P. 11
Dr. Khrabi stated that, in his opinion, this application was
only to sanction what has already been done rather than for what
should be done.
Dr. Khrabi conceded that one (1) house was already on her
property when he purchased his.-
The Chairman asked if there were any further questions.
Upon motion made by C. Langdon Gordon, seconded by Frank
Brumback and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of
Frederick, Virginia does hereby table this until the meeting scheduled
September 17, 1975 at which time a health permit should be available_
and member(s) have viewed the site to prevent setting an undesirable
precedent.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Approved
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO DELETE SECTION 10 -1 -22. MACHINERY SALES AND
SERVICE.
The Chairman referenced the ordinance as being "B -2" as appears
on Page 38 which is business zoning and only states "machinery sales
and service"
Ronald Berg stated that it is a nebulous category with no
definition so he advertised it for public hearing.
A discussion followed detailing the pros and cons of B -2 by
comparison with M -1 zoning which included Mr. Ritter and citing
local examples and sales versus service versus rental.
I
Clinton Ritter stated that interpretation is certainly a factor
to consider and can lead to a difference of opinion.
`�=1�
P. 12
The Chairman stated that it was necessary to draw the line
0 somewhere and it was necessary to decide where.
Mr. Ritter stated that access and density should be considered.
Frank Brumback stated that we need tax base and certain amounts
of industry; that we have been discouraged because we couldn't get
property necessary to get it down.
Ronald Berg stated that the types of activities that belong to-
gether is a consideration. He further stated that he thought M -1
covered items such as contractors' yards, builder material sales
and wholesale businesses, etc.
C. Langdon Gordon stated his opinion that this should have
been in M -1 originally and he feels that it is in the wrong cate-
gory as far as our ordinance is concerned -- that by transferring
it to M -1 we would avoid penalizing too much.
The Chairman stated that we don't have categories in B -2 for
such things as building equipment; machinery sales and supplies.
He mentioned the need for clarifying office supplies and services.
Clinton Ritter suggested inserting the words "under cover"
to apply to appearance; such as "machinery sales and service under
cover"
Frank Brumback stated that unsightly appearance has really
been the only objection by adjoining property owners. He mentioned
that a building permit requirement would give some control.. He
• said that this term would be valuable for future categories.
<
P. 13
Ronald Berg asked if "office equipment, machinery sales and
• service under cover" is the term being considered for change.
Elmer Venskoske stated that he thought "light" should be
considered as helpful.
The Chairman stated that "light" is difficult to define, but
might be helpful.
The Chairman stated that he felt M -1 category is where this
fits -- farm and industrial equipment sales and service
The Chairman stated that this term for M -1 covers everything.
The Chairman stated that we are re- wording B -2 to read:
office equipment and light machinery sales and service under cover
• Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Elmer Venskoske
and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County
of Frederick,.Virginia does hereby recommend approval of an
ordinance to amend the Frederick County zoning ordinance adopted
November 1, 1973 to read:
SECTION 10 -1 -22 (B -2): OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND LIGHT
MACHINERY SALES AND SERVICE, UNDER COVER.
SECTION 12 -1 -22 (M -1): CONTRACTORS' EQUIPMENT STORAGE
YARDS OR PLANTS, RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT COMMONLY USED
BY CONTRACTORS, TO INCLUDE FARM AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIP-
MENT SALES AND SERVICE.
BLUE RIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK
Approved
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Located 2 -1/2 miles East of Winchester on
South Side of Route 7. Additional 10 new spaces to existing park.
(First 10 spaces recommended by Planning Commission on May 9, 1974
® - -Final Approval by Board of Supervisors on June 12, 1974.)
L.
1
r
�0
Ronald Berg showed the members on the map the property and
code requirement and stated that all the required health permits
are obtained.
The Chairman stated that Jerry Updike is doing a nice job.
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Frank Brumback
and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County
of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval of the
conditional use permit for Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park.
REZONING PROCEDURE
Mn Unto
The Chairman stated that he had thought there was no disagree-
ment about the fact that we need more time to evaluate these things
• so that the Commission, as a recommendatory body, can provide best
judgment possible rather than a spot judgment.
Frank Brumback suggested- visiting the location between times.
The Chairman opined that procedure should be discussed: during
work session and then pass on it at the next meeting; then review
at first meeting and then visit site and get public opinion, which
would allow an extra month.
Ronald Berg stated that the second consideration should not be
a public hearing so as to not hear the same arguments again unless
new issues are brought up.
u
6 (0
I
Pr
P. 15
Clinton Ritter spoke of continuances and legal matters and
the subject of Commission requesting counsel attend all meetings
(that the money is not sufficient incentive to warrant regular
attendance when in some cases a memorandum would suffice). He did
say he would make an effort to be at the meetings, however.
Clinton :Ritter stated that Thursdays are court dates and this
is how he makes his living -- can't be at two places at once. He
suggested the Commission not hesitate to say that there is a need
to confer until later in the meeting to see if a lawyer can get over
or defer until next meeting.
Mr. Ritter stated that occasionally he has a felony case on
Wednesdays, but otherwise pretty open on that day (schedule), but
• it would be unfair to change meeting dates to accommodate an attorney.
The Chairman asked Mr. Ritter if Thursdays were a bad day.
Mr. Ritter said that they are basically a bad day. He continued
that Monday: and Tuesday nights would conflict with Circuit Court.
Ronald Berg stated that Wednesday would be more suitable for his
office because everything that is said here today has to be written,
typed, xeroxed and punched; and then delivered to the Administrator's
office by noon on Friday following the meeting and that it would
simplify matters considerably.
RESCHEDULING OF MEETING DATES
Approved
• Frank Brumback stated that it would be an advantage to everyone
according to their prior comments.
1
P. 16
Upon motion by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel DeHaven
• and unanimously approved by roll call vote,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County
of Frederick, Virginia does hereby change the regular meeting
dates and times for the Planning Commission beginning October
1, 1975 from the first Thursday and third Wednesday of each
month to the first and third Wednesday of each month -- 2:00 P.M
to Adiournment.
THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION,
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
•
t eith Williams, Chairman
•
1�