Loading...
PC_06-06-12_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES • OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 6, 2012. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman /Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Carroll (Beau) Correll, Jr., City of Winchester Planning Commission's Liaison; Ross P. Spicer, Frederick County Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Roderick B. Williams, Frederick County Attorney. ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. 0 CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adopt the agenda for this evening's meeting as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of April 18, 2012 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of May 2, 2012 were unanimously approved as presented. is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2869 Minutes of June 6, 2012 -2- COMMITTEE REPORTS Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) - 5/24112 Mfg. Commissioner Triplett reported that the CEA discussed an upcoming dinner sponsorec by the Conservation Partners for persons who are potentially interested in placing their land into z conservation easement. The dinner is scheduled for June 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the Valley Farm Credit. Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 6/01/12 Mfg. Commissioner Madagan reported the EDC discussed the effectiveness of the Career Awareness Program both short and long term. He said it was clear from a short-term perspective that the program is a huge success, based on the post -tour surveys of the students, teachers, and VIPs involved. He said the EDC discussed at length how to better measure the effectiveness in the long term. Commissioner Madagan said that although a noteworthy solution was not reached, members from both industry and the school system indicated their continued involvement was the achieved success and is helping to change the stereotype related to manufacturing. Commissioner Madagan said the other item of discussion was thIe Valley Air Now Initiative and the staff provided an update on the continued steps to educate the public on the ozone and ways to keep it within check. i------- - - - - -- CITIZEN COMMENTS i Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda. No one came fonvard to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #03 -12 of James W. Frye for a kennel at 323 Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608). The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 30 -A -98A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning Inspector, Dana M. Johnston, provided the background information and noted this application is a result of a zoning violation reported on the property. Mr. Johnston stated that a conditional use permit (CUP) is one avenue to abate the violation. He noted this violation is pending a • court hearing in September. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2870 Minutes of June 6, 2012 -3- Mr. Johnston reported the property size is slightly greater than one -half acre and the closest dwelling is 45 feet away. He said the use will be conducted within the applicant's home. He said the applicant believes there should be no more than 30 dogs and puppies on the property at any given time, considering the number of female -owned dogs and the average size of potential litters for each female. Mr. Johnston stated the staff is requiring a six -foot, board -on -board fence on all sides of the property to mitigate any potential impacts on adjoining properties. He said the applicant intends to construct a 35 -foot by 127 -foot dog run on the southern portion of the property. Mr. Johnston next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate; Numerous questions were raised by Commission members. Commissioner Triplett asked how many dogs were currently on the property and staff replied there were 11. Commissioner Madagan asked staff to point out the location on the property for the proposed 35 -foot byl 127 -foot dog run. Commissioner Thomas inquired if a State agency would oversee the health and breeding aspects of a kennel; a health concern was raised about the potential for 30 dogs and two or more adults within the same dwelling. Staff replied they were unaware of a State agency that would oversee kennel operations; however, the Health Department commented on dog waste disposal. Commissioner Unger asked if there was a potential issue with voting on this application with a pending court date. The Istaff replied that if the Board of Supervisors ultimately approves the CUP, the pending court case would be dropped. Commissioner Madagan inquired about how recommended Condition #4, "All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking," would be monitored and enforced. Staff replied this would be treated similar to any other violation and would be on a complaint basis. Commissioner Manuel referred to recommended Condition 93, "This CUP is to allow breeding only. Boarding of dogs will not be permitted on property," and he asked if this included sales as well as breeding. Staff replied yes. Chairman Wilmot asked if the 30- dogIlimit was a staff recommendation and the staff noted that upon consulting with the applicant, the staff believed 30 was more than enough to accommodate the applicant's needs. Mr. James W. Frye, the owner and applicant, stated this operation st Irted out as a hobby with two litters sold last year and two litters sold this year. Mr. Frye said he placed a! sign out for sale of puppies and that is when he was informed by letter that he was operating an illegal business. Mr. Frye said he currently has eleven dogs which are all kept indoors. Mr. Frye said his home contains 1,200 square feet upstairs, an additional 1,200 -plus square feet downstairs, and the carport and garage. He said all the dogs are licensed and vaccinated. He explained he utilizes four shock collars for each group of dogs that go outside and in addition, he utilizes an ultra -sonic bark deterrent system to discourage barking. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Frye how he planned to dispose of dog waste. Mr. Frye replied that he contacted the Frederick County Landfill and they will accept dog waste. Mr. Frye said dog waste will go inside the dumpster at the landfill, the same as regular trash disposal. Commissioner Kenney asked about the approximate length of time between the breeding, when the pups are born, and when the pups are ready for sale. Mr. Frye replied the dogs have nine weeks of pregnancy and eight weeks after birth before they can be sold. Commissioner Crosen inquired if Mr. Frye knew if any of his neighbors may perceive of potential problems with the operation of this business at his home. Mr. Frye said he spoke with his neighbors and everyone is satisfied. Mr. Frye said the DeHavens suggested placing the fence 25 -30 feet back from the front of the property line to allow adequate site distance for exiting the driveways. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2871 Minutes of June 6, 2012 Commissioner Triplett asked Mr. Frye if he would be able to comply with the conditions • recommended by the staff. Under Condition 95, "All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m.," Mr. Frye asked if it would be permissible to take the pregnant and nursing females outside during the night as long as they are supervised. Commissioners suggested that Condition 45 should be revised to state, "All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m., unless accompanied by owners." Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Triplett stated that based on the applicant's claim that he could comply with all of the conditions of the conditional use permit, he had no problems with Mr,1 Frye operating his business. Commissioner Triplett made a motion to recommend approval of CUP 903 -12 of James W. Frye with the conditions recommended by the staff and with Condition 45 revised to state, "All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m., unless accompanied by the owners." This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kenney. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 903 -12 of James W. Frye for a kennel at 323 Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608) with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. • 2. No more than 30 dogs and puppies allowed on the property at any given time. i 3. This conditional use permit is to allow breeding only. Boarding of dogs will not be permitted on the property. 4. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 5. All dogs shall be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m., unless accompanied by the owners. 6. A six -foot, board -on -board fence must be constructed along all adjoining properties. 7. No signage allowed with this use. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2872 Minutes of June 6, 2012 -5- • An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165- 401.03, Conditional Uses, and Article 1, General Provisions Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101, General Provisions, Section 165 - 101.02, Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions would allow "Treatment Homes" as a conditional use in the RA District and revisions to the definition of adult treatment home. Action— Recommended Approval Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported the staff had received a request to include "Treatment Homes" as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District and to revise the definition of "Adult Treatment Home." Mr. Lawrence said Adult Treatment Homes are currently only permitted in the MS (Medical Support) District. Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment will revise the definition of "Adult Treatment Home" to "Treatment Home," it will add the provision that it is for all ages , and will include drug treatment. He said the proposed amendment will add "Treatment Home" as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) District; it will delete the definition of "Drug Treatment Home" because this use is being incorporated into the definition of "Treatment Home;" and it will revise the M i District to include the term "Treatment Home" and delete "Drug Treatment Home." Mr. Lawrence reported that the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations • Committee) endorsed the amendment and recommended it be sent to the Plannm g Commission for discussion. He said the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on; May 2, 2012; they agreed with the revisions and recommended it be sent forward to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. The Board of Supervisors discussed the item at their May 23, 2012 meeting and sent the amendment forward for public hearing. Chairman Wilmot commented that the State regulates who is within the treatment centers, thus eliminating her concern about allowing all ages within the treatment home. Along those same lines, Commissioner Thomas asked if the State recommends which zoning districts a treatment home should be located within. Mr. Lawrence said the staff has not seen any indications that the State recommends where a treatment facility should be located; however, they do regulate the use of the facility. Mr. Lawrence said the catalyst behind this amendment was an organization that wished to open a treatment facility with opportunities for children, as well as adults, and also provide treatments for chemical dependency. He said when the staff reviewed the ordinance, they determined the ordinance did not permit the operation as the applicant intended. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that with a conditional use permit process, there is more opportunity to learn about the particular operation and conditions may be established, if there are concerns about the size of the operation or the treatment types. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2873 Minutes of June 6. 2012 Commissioner Thomas said lie assumed a facility of this nature would most likely construct a new building or if an existing structure was used, it would most likely have a large amount of rehabilitation associated with it. He inquired if the use of structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District would fall solely under the BOCA Code or were there separate State regulations that would control the building standards, criteria, and layouts for treatment facilities. Mr. Lawrence said that he did not look into the building code requirements. He pointed out that if the structure is in the rural areas of the County, it would not have access to public water and sewer. Therefore, the structure would have a limiting factor as to how many people the facility could accommodate based on the drainfield and the health system. Mr. Lawrence said if the Health Department and Building Code requirements could be satisfied and the scale of the operation is appropriate for the location, then the use coild occur within the RA District. I Commissioner Crockett believed this type of medical treatment could! benefit from being within a non - medical, institutional environment. Commissioner Crockett said the only, downside he could predict is if the facility was placed in a rural environment next to a cluster of homes and the adjoining residents may have issues. Mr. Lawrence said the staff considered this and it is one of the reasons staff believed a conditional use permit was more appropriate than a "by right" opportunity. Commissioner Thomas expressed caution from the view of the fire and public safety departments because a treatment home would probably use those types of facilities more frequently than the average rural areas' resident. Mr. Lawrence replied that from a staff perspective, they would be looking for more information about the facility and making sure, through agency comments, that fire and rescue and health departments were satisfied. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to allow "Treatment Homes" as a conditional use in the RA District and Ithe revisions to the definition of adult treatment home. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Madagan and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, 'Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165- 401.03, Conditional Uses, and Article I, General Provisions Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101, General Provisions, Section 165- 101.02, Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions would allow "Treatment Homes" as a conditional use in the RA District and revisions to the definition of adult treatment home. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District; Article 1I, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses; Article I, General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits. This proposed amendment would provide revisions to the RP Zoning District and other sections of the zoning ordinance that pertain Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2874 Minutes of June 6, 2012 1 E • -7- to the RP Zoning District in order to modify the format, provide additional flexibility and housing options, and provide updates to the zoning ordinance to ensure it is in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. No Action Required Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, recalled that this item was pres Commission and the Board of Supervisors at a work session in early May of 2012. excellent discussion, he said the conclusion was for the amendments to come back passed to provide the Commission and Board members with sufficient time to revie Lawrence stated this proposed amendment is now being presented to the Corn mi: item. Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment presented this ever implementing the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said efforts were made du Residential Performance (RP) Zoning District to ensure that the requirements: 1) was easier to understand; 2) provided additional flexibility and housing options; 3) the current needs of the community; and 4) were in conformance with the 2030 Corr Lawrence next reviewed and discussed the proposed changes with the Commission. Chairman Wilmot asked those Commissioners who serve on the and Regulations Committee (DRRC) and who have been exposed to this on a nurr if they had any comments or suggestions regarding what was presented this ev Kenney believed the staff did an excellent job of incorporating all of the suggesti the revisions presented and captured the strategies needed to make the reside flexible and more attractive. Commissioner Crockett said he appreciated the work to revise the o that was easier to understand for those not working in the building community. He an excellent job with the revisions. Mr. Lawrence said the staff would forwan comments on to the Board of Supervisors. ted to the Planning dthough there was ter some time had the materials. Mr. on as a discussion is one aspect of the update of the in a format that e up -to -date with tensive Plan. Mr. velopment Review of different levels, ig. Commissioner and intentions into community more finance to a format rought the staff did the Commission's Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chaptei 165, Zoning, and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land. Revisions to the approval authority for waiver opportunities provided to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator are proposed. No Action Required Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that this proposed amendment is one the staff has been working on for a number of years. However, the urgency of finalizing the project has come about due to a court decision suggesting that the Planning Commission should not be the final authority on waivers; but rather, the responsibility for that decision should fall to either the staff or the elected officials at the legislative Board of Supervisors level. Mr. Lawrence said the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC), along with the staff, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2875 Minutes of June 6, 2012 • identified all of the waiver opportunities in both the zoning and the subdivision ordinances, and determined whether each one should be a staff administrative approval or whether it should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. He noted that if the waiver request goes to the Board of Supervisors, it must first come before the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Lawrence stated that in deciding whether the waiver request should be an administrative or a legislative action, the staff considered the application. If it was a waiver opportunity that would be requested during the process when the Board is making a decision, whether it is a master plan or subdivision plan review, then the waiver will also be a Board action. If the waiver is being applied at the site plan stage, which is an administrative action, then the waiver will be an administrative action. He said this was the method of thinking the staff and the DRRC used in deciding whether the waiver request should be an, administrative or Board action. Mr. Lawrence said another factor that was taken into consideration was if the waiver may have an impact on an adjacent property. He said it was recommended that this action should not be administrative, but should be a Board action; so those wail ers will continue to go to the Board. He said if the waiver would apply internally to a project and would not affect the adjoining properties, then the action was left at the administrative level. Mr. Lawrence added that if the staff is considering an administrative waiver, the staff will inform the Board of Supervisors about the waiver. He said this will Ibe an opportunity for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to see what development proposals are about to be constructed. He noted that the rezoning of the property would have already been approved, but the master plan shows the entire picture and the staff thought doing something • similar with the waiver would be appropriate. Chairman Wilmot said the Commission is aware there is a legal issue involved in this. Chairman Wilmot expressed a concern about whether this process would add additional time for the applicant to get through the review process. Mr. Lawrence said the staff is aware of this issue and the way it is proposed administratively —a- project submittal -could -get done- in -aday- or two. If the project goes to the Board of Supervisors, it does add a little more time; however, it's not a public hearing aspect, so it is just a matter of the time needed to get t the item on the Planning Commission's and Board of Supervisors' schedule. OTHER Citv of Winchester Planning Commission Chairman Wilmot introduced the new liaison from the City of Winchester's Planning Commission, Commissioner Carroll (Beau) Correll, Jr. Chairman Wilmot asked Commissioner Correll if there was anything lie wanted to share regarding the City of Winchester. Commissioner Correll stated the City of Winchester amended and re- enacted several articles of the City's zoning ordinance dealing with the possibility of a stadium locating within the City limits. Commissioner Correll said the City also • approved an administrative action regarding a proposed expansion for Carmike Cinemas. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2876 Minutes of June 6, 2012 is • CANCELLATION OF THE JUNE 20, 2012 AND JULY 4, 2012 MEETINGS Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission's June 20, 2012 meeting and the July 4, 2012 meeting was a holiday. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel the Planning Commission's ri gularly scheduled meetings of June 20, 2012 and July 4, 2012. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates and second by Commissioner Madagan, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 2012 Respectfully Lawrence, Page 2877