1

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - January 5, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 5, 2004 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, R. Ben Clopper, Bernard Moser, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff: Interim Planning Director, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill L. Baker and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. Don Ardinger was absent.

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding with old business, Mr. Goodrich stated that a site plan for Harries Millwork, will be added to the agenda and that the application for Gary Slaughter, under Other Business, would be omitted. He also stated that the staff report for RZ-03-002, Keedysville Land Company, had not been finalized and that the staff report for RZ-03-006, James & Beth Tribble, was distributed prior to the meeting. No action will be taken on RZ-03-002 and RZ-03-006.

MINUTES Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of September 8, 2004, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 2004 with a review of the tape, for clarification on the tot iot equipment, for St. James Village North PUD. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Whistling Hills Ms. Lampton stated that the Planning Commission had tabled a site plan for Whistling Hills at the December 2003 meeting, to allow time for the Members to visit the site and meet with the applicant and a representative from the Department of Natural Resources. Once again, Ms. Baker provided an overview of the site plan. The plan is for a wildlife preserve and, as defined by the State, a regulated shooting area. The site is located on the west side of Maryland 66, aiso known as Mapleville Road, on lands owned by Joe Michael. The site is approximately 137 acres and is zoned Agricultural. The former Zoning Administrator, Paul Prodonovich, determined the proposed use was permitted. Ms. Baker stated that the adjoining properties, owned by Robert Michael and Randolph Kind, are included in the wildlife preserve permit and will help to buffer the actual wildlife preserve. She further explained the location of the different phases of the adjacent subdivision of Meadows Green and how the phases will relate to the wildlife preserve. Ms. Baker stated that the site plan has met all of the Ordinance requirements. The only outstanding agencies are the Health Department and the Soil Conservation District and their approvals are anticipated in the near future. Mr. Michael was present and presented a chronology report of the regulated shoots and additional supporting documents for the record. Mr. Michael stated that, pursuant to the discussions during the site visit, a sign will be placed 150 yards from each completed neighboring house in the Meadows Green subdivision, which will state: "Safety Zone No Hunting Beyond this Point Occupied Residence Nearby." He also explained that he requires his guest to use shot gun pellets that are limited in size to a #6 or a #4 steel shot and if the pellets were to stray, the shot wouid not travel with any impact past 150 yards. The use of steel pellets also alleviates COnCernS about lead contamination. The direction of the bird flights are controlled, in a direction that is opposite from the residences in the adjacent subdivision. He also explained that the majority of his guests participate in "continental" or "driven" shoots, where the guest is stationary and supervised. Mr. Michael expiained that he also routinely gives a safety lecture before each session of hunting and volunteer safety marshals are used to supervise the participants. The safety marshals and guests are known to Mr. Michael and the hunts are not open to the general public. Mr. Michael confirmed that his property line is identified with the required DNR hunting signs, which are bright yellow and placed every 50 yards (Exhibit E). The signs have been inspected and Mr. Michael stated that he would maintain the postings. Ms. Lampton questioned the term "blue sky." Mr. Michael explained that the idea is to present a bird over a tree barrier, all the trees are approximately 40' high, so in order for the shot to be safe, all participants are instructed, ahead of time, that there needs to be "blue sky" behind the bird. Ms. Lampton also questioned the frequency of the hunts in a given year. Mr. Michael referred to the chronology of events, which also outlined the number of hunts that occurred since the wildlife preserve's inception in 1999. Mr. Michael commented that this season he has conducted 2 hunts and plans to conduct three more. Mr. Kercheval stated there was some discussion on an aerial photo being posted at the entrance of the property. Per DNR guidelines, it should be posted at all times. Mr. Michael stated that a laminated aerial photo is posted at the entrance, prior to the hunting events, and agreed to permanently post the photo. Ms. Lampton thanked Mr. Michael for working with the Planning Commission to address their concerns. Mr. Moser moved to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. 2

NEW BUSINESS

- VARIANCES:

Terry Baker Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a variance request for Terry Baker. The subject site is located along the north side of National Pike, west of Clear Spring. The property is zoned Conservation. The total tract is 21 acres. Currently, there are three existing older mobile homes on the property. Mr. Baker had submitted a plan to subdivide two lots without public road frontage, which was denied and appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals suggested that the property be divided into four lots, to provide each mobile home with its own lot and frontage. Mr. Baker's consultant redesigned the plan and thus the reason for the variance request. The plan is for four panhandles side by side but only two panhandles are permitted under the Ordinance. Two of the panhandles are in excess of 400' and the plan also creates the stacking of five tiers. As stated in Mr. Baker's letter, he wishes to convey two of the lots to his twin daughters, the mobile home will remain on the third lot for a disabled cousin, and the fourth lot will be the remaining lands for the owner. Mr. Baker was present and confirmed that the mobile homes do have wells and septic systems, and that new well and septic areas will be installed in the future when new homes are constructed. Mr. Goodrich stated that four lots using one driveway is not consistent with subdivision design requirements and if the Planning Commission were to approve the variance request, permission to allow four lots to use one driveway should be included. Ms. Pietro suggested that the lots could share the same lane with two-shared access points, subject to an approval from the State Highway Administration. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant the variance request, subject to State Highway Administration's approval and any other outstanding agency approvals that would be necessary. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval and Ms. Lampton voting "aye" and Mr. Moser voting "nay."

Daugherty Property - Panhandle Length Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a variance request for the Daugherty property. Some additional correspondence from the residents, of the adjacent Bent Willow subdivision, was received today and distributed to the Members. As reiterated in the memorandum to the Planning Commission members, this property was the subject of a variance request presented at the December 2003 regular meeting. A variance request was previously approved by the Planning Commission, for panhandle lengths that exceeded 400' for lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 was not part of the previous variance request because it was denied, as a lot without public road frontage, and it did not meet the criteria for an exemption in the Subdivision Ordinance. Since the December meeting, the developer has redesigned the three lots to provide each lot with road frontage to Stone Row Lane. The variance request is for the panhandle length for each of the three lots, and also a variance for the panhandle width. The proposed panhandle width is 16' and 25' is required. The third variance is for the number of panhandles stacked together. Only two are permitted and three are proposed. A shared driveway is also proposed. Mr. Weikert, consultant, of Fox & Associates, stated that the redesign presents the opportunity to abandon the old farm lane that used to serve the property. Mr. Moser questioned if the driveway would be paved. Mr. Weikert stated that, given the quality of houses proposed, he believed the lane would be paved. Mr. Clopper questioned why the developer did not extend the public road back to lot 1 and lot 2, which would present only one panhandle. Mr. Weikert stated that 400' of public road with a cul"de-sac would have to be maintained for three very expensive homes, which would also require the developer to eliminate a septic reserve area and the plan would be back to two lots with two panhandles. A discussion followed. Ms. Baker stated that a 3-dot intermittent stream runs through the property and the proposed driveway would cross the stream. A stream buffer has been delineated and the developer would have to comply with buffer requirements and stormwater management regulations. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that, if the existing road were extended with a cul-de-sac, it would eliminate the two panhandles and their concerns with the proposal. Mr. Weikert confirmed that, if the variance request were denied, the decision would be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the variance request. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Motion carried with Mr. Moser, Mr. Clopper, Ms. Lampton and Mr. Anikis voting "aye" and Mr. Kercheval voting "nay."

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Westfields. Section 1 Preliminary Plat & Preliminary/Final Forest Conservation Plan Ms. Pietro presented for approval a preliminary plat and preliminary/final Forest Conservation Pian for Westfields, Section 1. The subject site is located along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike. Zoning is Agricultural. Section 1 proposes a mix of 34 single-family lots and 42 semi-detached iots, for a total of 76 lots on 42 acres. The entire acreage for the subdivision is 443 acres. The density for Section 1 is 1.8 lots per acre. Setbacks will be 25' front, 8' side and 40' rear, as a result of the Planning Commission's approval to allow a cluster development. Mr. MacGillivray, consultant, of Ausherman Development Corporation stated that, originally all the duplex lots were laid out at 40' wide, however, in order to create some variety for the duplex lots and some price separation, lots would be 36' and 44' wide. The setback requirements will be met and no new lots will be added. The site will be served by water from the City of Hagerstown and sewer services by the County. The interior streets will be public. Eleven acres of open space will be included for Section 1 and will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Sidewalks will be provided in Section 1 and in future sections. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the streets in the more dense areas where the curb and gutter street design is utilized. All existing structures on the site will be razed, but the barn cupolas were donated to the local Ag Museum. Forest retention and planting will be completed on site. Section 1 will require the retention of 7.5 acres of onsite forest. A tally of the 3 forest conservation retention and afforestation requirements will continue in future sections.. Amenities for the development will include a pool, community center, tennis court, three tot lots, multi-purpose court, two soccer fields, 30 parking spaces for the courts, and approximately 3,600 linear feet of asphalt pathways to connect the open spaces throughout the community. Mr. MacGillivray stated that the proposed amenities would not be prompted by Sections 1 or 2 and that a proposed timeline for the planned amenities would be presented when Section 2 is presented for review. Mr. Kercheval voiced his concerns with the amenities and proposed timeline, given the size of the development and had asked Staff to provide a comparison on the proposed amenities with other counties. Jeremy Holder, consultant, Ausherman Development Corporation explained the proposed plan for the entrance. A monumental sign, with landscaping, will be located on the right side of the main entrance and will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The second entrance will be a part of Phase 3. The deveiopers are contemplating a paddock fence, accented with deciduous trees, to add to the visual effect aiong the frontage. Closer to the entrance, denser landscaping to provide a park-like setting is proposed. Members agreed that the proposed visual accents aiong Route 65 were pleasing. Mr. Anikis questioned the intentions for Parcel A. Mr. MacGillivray explained that Parcel A was reserved for a possible daycare facility. Mr. Anikis questioned what type of placard was proposed for the onsite cemetery and requested to view the proposal. Mr. Holder advised that, to date, no specific plans have been made for the placard. Mr. MacGillivray stated that they plan to have Section 1 and Section 2 substantially finished before proceeding with Section 3. The total build out is anticipated in 5 to 7 years, depending on the market. Mr. Kercheval questioned the status of the Annexation Agreement. Mr. MacGillivray stated that the Annexation Committee granted their approval and had forwarded an annexation agreement for signature. The availability of water service from the City is contingent upon future annexation. Mr. Anikis questioned if the stormwater management area behind the duplex area would be fenced. Mr. Holder stated that, in working with the Engineering Department on the design, a portion of the pond that exceeds the depths and does not have the appropriate slopes would be fenced. Mr. MacGillivray stated that a proposal was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners to address school adequacy. Mr. Goodrich commented that APFO issues would be addressed at the final plat stage. With a potential school site being donated and the mechanical details of the APFO policy being finalized, the final plat will be brought back to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. All agencies have approved or issued comments on -the preliminary plat. The Soil Conservation District and City Water Department have requested revisions to the plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval. Seconded Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the preliminary/final Forest Conservation Plan of 7.5 acres for Section 1. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Emerald Pointe PUD Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a preliminary development plan for Emerald Pointe PUD. The site is located at the intersection of Leitersburg Pike and Marsh Pike. The developer is proposing to create a Pianned Unit Development (PUD), on a 97-acre tract. The zoning is A1PUD. The proposed PUD is geared to residents ages 55+. The residential acreage will be approximately 69 acres and the PUD will be developed in four sections, for a total of 266 living units. Section 1 will confain 91 semi-detached units and 2 single-family lots; Section 2 will have 39 single-family lots; Section 3 proposes 46 single-family lots; and Section 4 proposes 92 townhouse lots. The retirement living center will be situated on 8.3 acres. The total afforestation requirement is 13.5 acres. Open space area for the PUD will be 25 acres. The site will be served by public water and sewer. The interior streets will be public and a 10' walkway will connect the retirement center with the development. The commercial area is located in the center of the PUD and will encompass a total of 2.5 acres. It will consist of the existing house that will be used as the sales office, a community center, pool and 9,000 square feet of commercial area. Mr. Crampton stated that a light commercial area is proposed for such uses as a coffee shop, pastry shop, and deli that will go along with the country club atmosphere and will be geared for the residents of the development. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a 50' buffer yard is required along the common boundary of a commercial area and any lot that will be used for residential purposes. Russ Townsley, consultant, of Fox & Associates explained that six of the one-story townhouse lots would be affected by a reduced buffer from 50' to approximately 30', and there is adequate spacing to add some landscaping around the pool and around the commercial area. The pool will be fenced and will only be accessible from the clubhouse. The fencing around the pool will most likely duplicate the wrought iron with brick detail, as proposed for the perimeter fencing. The pool, clubhouse and commercial area will be existing when the townhouses units are built. Mr. Anikis suggested that lot 187, which is closest to the pool, be eliminated from the plan. The developer, Mr. Crampton, agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Townsley stated that a concept plan of the area affected by the reduced buffer would be provided at the final plat stage, to show the elimination of lot 187, depths of the lots, actual dimensions, buffer area, and proposed landscaping. Mr. Kercheval questioned if Marsh Pike was expanded to a four-lane road would there be adequate spacing. Mr. Townsley stated that, the County's Highway Plan classifies Marsh Pike as a "minor collector", which requires an 80' right-of-way. With 40' provided on the Emerald Pointe side and 40' on the Foxleigh Meadows side, it appears to have adequate spacing. Mr. Kercheval requested that Mr. Goodrich follOW-Up on this matter with Terry McGee, County Engineering Department. All agencies have approved or commented on the plan. The Soli Conservation District is currently reviewing some revisions to the plan. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the preliminary development plat subject to a review and modification of the setbacks around the commercial area. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Crosspoint. Section 1 • Revision Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a request to grant Staff the authority to approve a revision to the site plan for Crosspoint, Section 1. The subject property is the Crosspoint Shopping Center, located off Massey Boulevard, between the Valley Mall and Virginia Avenue. Mr. Lung described the existing 4

businesses in the shopping center. On the approved site plan for Section 1, a 60,000 square foot buiiding was proposed for a potential grocery store. A revised site pian shows a reduction in the proposed building, to approximately 36,000 square feet, to accommodate five individual shops. There are no parking changes proposed. A site plan for Section 2 is anticipated in the near future. Mr. Moser moved to grant Staff authority to approve the revision to the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Vote was unanimous.

Harries Millwork Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for Harries Millwork. The subject site is located on Oak Ridge Drive, west of Maryland Route 65. The site is one acre in size and is zoned HI-1. The site plan proposes a 2,000 square foot steel building for a woodworking shop. The site is exempt from stormwater management and will be serviced by onsite water and septic from the City of Hagerstown. Four parking spaces are required and provided. There will be no outside storage of materials. Generally, this type of site plan is considered a "minor" site plan, which the Planning Commission gives the authority to the Director to approve the plan. However, HI-1 zoning has stringent criteria for screening, particularly from residential uses. The buffer yards for the property are 25' because, there are dwellings on either side of Mr. Harries' property. The owner is requesting a waiver from the screening in the buffer yards on either side of his property due to the fact there will be no outside storage. The hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Mr. Harries will be the only employee and no retail sales will occur on the site. Mr. Harries has submitted letters from the adjoining property owners indicating that they agree to the proposed use and do not request screening. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant a waiver from screening in the buffer yard for this particular use with a note being added to the plat that should a more intense use occur, the issue would be revisited. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

RZ-03-006, James and Beth Tribble, Map Amendment Mr. Moser made a motion to table RZ-03-006 to allow the Planning Commission members time to review . the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

RZ-03-003, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Text Amendment Mr. Goodrich stated that the proposed text amendment proposes two changes to the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance. Currently, the text specifies that a PUD or Planned Unit Development is permitted in the HI zone. The original Highway Interchange Zone, or HI, was amended into two more distinct designations. HI became HI-1 and HI-2. Apparently, the reference in the PUD designation was overlooked during that process. The proposed amendment would allow PUD's only in the HI-2 districts, because PUD's are mainly residential and HI-2 is where the residential uses are allowed. HI-1 is intended for commercial uses that are oriented to the highway. The other proposed change is to increase the time period for the Board of County Commissioners to make a decision on a proposed PUD from 60 to 120 days from the public hearing date. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, approval of the proposed text amendments to Article 16, PUD, Planned Unit Development, Sections 16.4(B) and 16.5(A)2. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, and Mr. Ardlnger abstained. Unanimously approved.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

- Workshop Meeting The Planning Commission workshop tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 8, 2004 will be rescheduled to Monday, January 12, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. to continue the discussions and recommendations on the individual Comprehensive Rezoning requests.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Clopper, to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Unanimousiyapproved. rwJ-~ Paula A. Lampton G' Chairperson 5

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - JANUARY 12, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, January 12, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. In the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson; R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, George Anikis, Jim Kercheval and Bernard Moser. Staff: Interim Director, Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planners, Tim Lung and Lisa Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill Baker and Misty Wagner; GIS Coordinator, Bud Gudmundson, Jennifer Kinzer, GIS Analyst and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. Goodrich reported that the County Commissioners recently adopted amendments to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance regarding school adequacy.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/INFORMATION RECEIVED

Mr. Goodrich stated that additional comments have been submitted after the 10 day comment period to the Planning Office on the Formal Requests to Review Zoning. They have been segregated from the previous testimony. The official repository of all the testimony has been distributed to the Members and the Board of County Commissioners. He also commented that the workshop meeting is not a forum for additional public comments on the rezoning requests.

FORMAL REQUESTS TO REVIEW ZONING

Mr. Ardlnger recommended that a vote be taken on each request to accurately reflect the individual votes. The members agreed with his suggestion. Mr. Kercheval stated that he would abstain from any action on the requests.

- Previous Requests The Planning Commission briefly reviewed their previous recommendations on nine requests discussed during a workshop meeting held on August 11, 2003.

- New Requests A table of the individual Formal Requests to Review Zoning after August 11, 2003, along with corresponding maps, were distributed to the Planning Commission members.

1) John Young The property is located at the southeast quadrant of 1-70 and the Maryland 66 interchange. The total tract is 57.83 acres. The proposed zoning is Agricultural and the owner is requesting Rural Business (New). Staff has recommended that the proposed zoning of Agricultural remain, because there is no existing business on the property and there is no proposal for a new business, which is necessary for the Rural Business (New) designation. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Rural Business district was designed for businesses that truly belong in the rural area to serve the rural popUlation. Mr. Kercheval stated that he had met with Mr. Young and it was Mr. Young's position that it is hard to market the property for economic development when technically, the zoning is not set. Mr. Moser commented that there are environmental issues on the property. Ms. Lampton stated that it is important to know what the business will be before considering a new rural business. Mr. Ardinger stated that given the close proximity of the property to the interstate he was in favor of the request. Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the applicant's request. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Moser, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, and Ms. Lampton voted "aye." Mr. Ardinger voted "nay." Mr. Kercheval abstained. The motion to deny the request was approved.

2) Harry & Nancy Bell The property is located on the east side of Maryland Route 67, off Locust Grove Road in Rohrersville. The property is proposed for Preservation zoning. The applicant requested the ability to keep the current Conservation zoning, which will not be available in the new Plan. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff did not speCUlate on some other zoning that may be better for an applicant and only addressed what the appiicant had requested. A motion was made by Mr. Clopper to deny the applicant's request, because there is no such zoning in the new Comprehensive Rezoning Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

3) Greg Spaulding/Garden State Tanning The property is located on the both sides of Bottom Road, west of Clear Spring. Staff had proposed Environmental Conservation for the subject property. The applicant requested that all of the properties owned by Garden State Tanning be included within the Urban Growth Area. Staff recommended that the request be granted for the portion of the property located on the south side of Bottom Road because of the natural division boundary. However, Staff does not recommend the portion on the north side of Bottom Road be included because there are no public utilities and it would expand the Growth Area out to the mineral extraction area. Mr. Clopper stated that he would be 6

inclined to include both properties because they bordered the Urban Growth Area and a portion of the property does border the Rural Village, which is almost completely surrounded by mineral extraction areas. Mr. Ardinger agreed with Mr. Clopper. A discussion followed on the criteria of Rural Villages. Mr. Anikis made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to include the property on the south side of Bottom Road within the UGA, but not to include the north side. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion carried with Ms. lampton, Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis voting "aye" and Mr. Clopper and Mr. Ardinger voting "nay." Mr. Kercheval abstained.

4) Marsh Run Associates/Dominick & Paul Perini On October 8, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners granted the applicant's request to include the property within the Urban Growth Area. No action was needed.

5) Ronald and Linda Staubs The property is located off of the National Pike and is proposed as Environmental Conservation. The applicants are requesting the previous Agricultural zoning with the 1:1 density. Staff recommended deniai because there is no such zoning in the new Plan. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

6) Pauline Stevens The property is located off of the National Pike. The total tract is 10.7 acres. The property is designated as Environmental Conservation. The applicant requested the previous Agriculturai zoning with the 1:1 density. Staff recommended denial because there is no such zoning in the new Plan. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

7) Gregory B. Delauter (Tax Map 28, Parcel 76) The property is located in the Cascade area. Staff proposed Environmental Conservation zoning for the property. The applicant is requesting a Rurai Village designation. Staff agrees with the applicant's request, based on the fact that the Rurai Village zone surrounds the property on three sides. Mr. Clopper made a motion to follow the Staff's recommendation to grant the request. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously Approved.

8) Gregory B. Delauter (Tax Map 28, Parcel 137 & 132) The property is located in the Cascade area. Staff had proposed Environmental Conservation zoning for the property. The applicant is requesting the Rural Village designation. The property, although it touches the Rural Village, it is surrounded on three sides by Environmental Conservation. There is no development on the property. The Rural Village zone was designed to protect the development that is existing, with limited development potential. Members agreed that the property is not "in-fill" and does not fit with the Rural Village guidelines. Staff had recommended denial of the applicant's request. A motion was made by Mr. Anikis to agree with the Staff's recommendation for denial of the request. Mr. Ardinger seconded the motion. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

9) Todd & Melanie Draper The property is located off of Falling Run Road, which is a private road. The property was proposed as Environmental Conservation and the applicants have requested the new Agricultural zoning at the 1:5 density. Staff recommended that the property remain as proposed, based upon the environmental constraints of fioodplain, slope, forest cover, and the close proximity of the C & a Canal and the Potomac River. Also, there is no road frontage on the property. In this case, Staff reviewed this property to determine whether it should be designated as Environmental Conservation or as Agricultural. Where properties were split by the policy area boundary from the Comprehensive Plan, Staff adopted a decision making rule that when the land use policy area was more than 60% that policy area designation was applied to the entire parcel. In this case, the split was between 40% and 60%, and all the properties that were in the 40% to 60% range, the Staff reviewed all the details of those properties individually. The sUbject property, of approximately 90 acres, was determined to be designated Environmental Conservation because of the environmental constraints, rather than the Agricultural zone. Mr. Moser made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request due to the environmental issues and the topography of the property. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

10) Bob & Mary Rotz, Owners of Antietam Recreation *(purchasers) The property is located off of the Old National Pike. Staff had proposed Agricultural zoning for the property. The applicants are the potential purchasers of the property and requested the Rural Business zone. Mr. Goodrich explained that there is no physical evidence of an existing business on the property and no site plan has been submitted. Staff followed the previous rule that, if there was no existing business on the property, it should not be designated as Rural Business (New). However, the requested zoning designation would be available in the future, if the applicants purchased the property and submitted a site plan for the proposed use of the property. Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the applicants' request. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

11) Arthur & Eunice Fouch The property is located on locust Grove Road. The property is proposed as Preservation and is located in the Rurai legacy area. The applicants had requested that the property remain as 7

Conservation; however, there is no such zoning available in the new rezoning Plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request because there is no such zoning in the new Plan. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

12) Ralph & Teresa Shank and Mary Creek The property is located on both sides of Wagaman Road and on the west side of Garris Shop Road. The property is proposed as Agricultural. The applicants' request is to include the property within the Urban Growth Area. Staff recommended that the property remain as designated. The roads are inadequate for urban development and public services are not available. 'The property is also located in an Ag Preservation district. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request, because the property is located in an Ag Preservation district. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

13) James & Bonnie Weddle The property is located off of Poffenberger Road. The proposed zoning is Agricultural. The applicants are requesting inclusion within the Urban Growth Area. Staff is opposed to the request because of the environmental issues. Staff also believes the Urban Growth Area is large enough and, if the property was included within the Growth Area, other properties would also have to be included. Mr. Anikis made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request, based upon the issues discussed. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

14) D. Bruce Poole for Nick Ginannaris The property is located on the west side of Marsh Pike. The proposed zoning is Agricultural. The applicant has requested that the property be included within the Urban Growth Area. Staff's recommendation was to keep the proposed Agricultural zoning due to mUltiple environmental issues, particularly the floodplain issues. The property is also within the Airport Overlay zone, which limits residential development to one unit per fifty acres in a Agricultural zone. Members discussed the previous action taken by the County Commissioners on the request for Marsh Run Associates, the floodplain issues, and the extension of public services. Members agreed it was appropriate to grant the request because of the development of Paradise Manor and the fact that the request by Marsh Run Associates to be included within the Growth Area had been granted and public services would be extended. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the request for the property to be included within the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

15) John Rhodes & Brent Norton (represented by John Urner) The property is located along the north side of Sandy Hook Road and the west side of US 340. The proposed zoning is Environmental Conservation. The applicants requested that the property be included within the Rural Village zone. The property is adjacent to the Rural Village, but it is largely undeveloped land. Staff recommended denying the request because the expansion of this size of the Rural Village is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan gUidelines. Mr. Clopper commented that, if the Sandy Hook Rural Village is extended to include this property, it would double the size of that Rural Village and would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Mr. Ardinger seconded the motion. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

16) Jacob & Lenard Easterday The property is located on Greebriar Road in Boonsboro. The proposed zoning is Environmental Conservation. The applicants requested inclusion within the Rural Village designation. Staff recommended denying the request because the expansion of the Mt. Lena Rural Village is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Mr. Goodrich stated that the property was designated as Environmental Conservation because there were multiple environmental issues. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the applicants' request. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

17) Stiles Family Ltd. (represented by John Urner) The property is located on Route 67, southwest of Boonsboro. During the Comprehensive Rezoning, a small portion of the property was within the Town Growth Area and the remainder was designated for Environmental Conservation. The applicant is requesting that the entire property be included in Boonsboro's Town Growth Area. Staff has proposed Environmental Conservation, given the environmental constraints of the property. A portion of the property is already in the Town's Growth Area and the Growth Area boundary generally follows the stream on the property. Staff agrees to the request for the inclusion of 69 acres on the north side of Alternate 40, because it is contiguous to the Boonsboro Growth Area. Staff is opposed to including the 5 acres on the east side of Maryland Route 67 because it is not contiguous to the Growth Area and the effect that it may have on other properties on that side of the road. Mr. Goodrich read the letter of September 2003 from the Town of Boonsboro. The letter stated that they have discussed the possibility of annexing the Stiles Farm as proposed by Mr. Easterday and find this request acceptable and consistent with town growth. The Town is willing to provide water and sewer to the property and would concur with the property being designated as County low density residential (policy area). The Town did not distinguish between the two separate parcels. Mr. Kendall, Town Manager of Boonsboro, stated that a formal plan was not 8

submitted, but a concept plan was shared with certain members of the Mayor and Council and confirmed that the proposai includes the relocation of Mr. Easterday's business from Main Street to this parcel that abuts Alternate 40. Mr. Kercheval questioned if the Town of Boonsboro was considering annexing both parcels. Mr. Kendali stated that annexation has been informaliy discussed, but an application for annexation has not been submitted. Mr. Kendali stated that it is logicai and consistent that the eastern boundary of Boonsboro to include the Stiles Farm and it has been the Town's position that they want to annex the entire property. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County's point of view is that the boundary line is where it should be. It is the Mayor and Council's position that they would prefer to have the fuli control of the entire Stiles Farm in the event of annexation so that they can develop it consistent with the Town's growth. Ms. Lampton expiained that the Planning Commission does not want to grant the applicant's request and then find out that the Town does not want to annex the property, which would permit high-density on the property that does not have the proper infrastructure.

Mr. Moser made a motion to grant the request for the property located on the north side of Alternate 40 and to deny the request for the property located along the east side of Maryland Route 67, per the Staff's recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Moser and Mr. Ardinger voted "aye" and Mr. Anikis and Mr. Clopper voted "nay." Ms. Lampton informed the members she needed more information from the Town of Boonsboro and could not vote on the matter. She voiced her concerns on the blanket inclusion of the property within the Town's Growth Area, without a specific density proposal. The vote was tied and did not pass. Ms. Lampton made a motion to table the matter to permit time to compile additional information on the subject property. The additional information would include written verification from the Town of Boonsboro, additional information from the Staff on the environmental issues, and what the Planning Commission's responsibility wouid be if the applicant's request were granted. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. A discussion foliowed. The motion to table the matter tili the next workshop was unanimously approved. Mr. Kerchevai abstained.

(5 Minute Break)

'18) John Shinham The property is located off of Taylors Landing Road. The proposed zoning of the property is Preservation. The applicant is requesting the (new) Agricultural zoning to permit future lots for their children. Staff does not support the request because the property is surrounded by permanently preserved land. Ms. Lampton asked that the requests specifying the request was for family reasons be noted on the table of formal requests to assist the County Commissioners in their review. Mr. Anikis made a motion to support the Staff's analysis and deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

19) Eugene Hornbaker The property is iocated off of Falling Waters Road. The proposed zoning is Environmental Conservation. The applicant is requesting Agricultural zoning. Staff does not support the request because the property is surrounded by Environmental Conservation and the request would create a "donut" effect. A permanent easement is adjacent to the property. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to support the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

20) Howard Payne "(see previous request) The property is located on Monroe Road and Route 34. Staff had proposed that the property be included within the Town Growth Area for Boonsboro. Previously, the Planning Commission agreed to the applicant's request that the parcel be included within the Town of Boonsboro Growth Area and, if the property was not included within the Town, it would retain the Environmental Conservation designation. The applicant had submitted a second request that, if the property is not included within the Town of Boonsboro that the current Agricultural zoning remains as the zoning. Mr. Clopper made a motion to include the property within the Town of Boonsboro's growth area, and ciarified that the Planning Commission cannot assign a zoning designation. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

21) Paul & Nancy Crampton The property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road. Staff proposed Agricultural zoning for the property. The applicants requested low-density Residential zoning, which includes inclusion within the Urban Growth Area. Staff is in favor of the applicant's request. The Growth Area surrounds the smali parcel on three sides and utilities are available. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant the applicants' request in support of the Staff's recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

22) 2003 Mason Dixon LLC "(see previous request by D. Martin) Mr. Goodrich explained that this request was previously reviewed and acted on by the Planning Commission. The request was to include four properties within the Urban Growth Area with an Industrial Flex designation. Staff's recommendation was not to include the property and the Planning Commission voted in favor of the Staff's recommendation. There is a slight difference in the acreage from the previous request, but it is for the same four parcels. Mr. Ardinger stated that he had voted in favor of the request mainly for economic reasons. Staff had recommended denial of the request because the Urban Growth Area is large enough and the current growth area was established based on multiple criteria. When considering the request, eleven other properties would also have to be included within the Growth Area (10 residences and a 197 acre farm along Maugansvilie Road. Ms. 9

Lampton explained that the previous request was denied and the Planning Commission had supported the Staff's analysis, based on overlaying factors and that other properties would also have to be included. Mr. Moser added that one of the major Issues was the lack of a site plan to see what is actuaily proposed and the potentlai impact on the area. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Board of Zoning Appeais (BZA) had approved the special exception for the Mason Dixon LLC which only permitted the development of the truck distribution center on 40 acres of the subject. Staff does not know the intentions of the other property owners. Mr. Moser stated that the BZA granted the Special Exception with the capability to ailow future associated uses on the adjoining property. Also considered was the fact that there were intervening properties and those residents are not asking to be included with the Growth Area. Members also discussed that by having an Industrial/Fiex designation in the middle of the farm would create an "island." There were concerns voiced about the residential homes around the acreage, the lack of public facilities, and the poor roads. Mr. Ardinger stated that he had previously stated that this area has economic development potential given the close proximity of railroad, airport and Interstate. He also felt the request would be consistent with the HI-1 and HI-2 designations. Mr. Clopper stated that he agreed with Mr. Ardinger's comments, and if the farm and strip of land that runs along Maugansville Road was also a part of the request for inclusion, he could agree to the request; however, It was not a part of the request. Mr. Anikis stated that the proposed request would also impact the roads that go into the State of Pennsylvania. The applicant, Mr. Fulton, stated that he was not aware of the decision on the previous request and that he was told that the owner of the farm in question who lives in Kentucky had no objection to including his property in the Growth Area. He also stated that the only access to the property would be Mason Dixon Road and that he believes a concept plan could be provided. The Planning Commission suggested that a letter from the farm owner that resides in Kentucky might be helpful to the County Commissioners when they review the request. Mr. Anikis suggest that, if the County Commissioners approved the applicant's request, a courtesy letter be written to the Franklin County Commissioners. Mr. Moser suggested that the applicant could submit a rezoning application with the details of the proposal for the next quarterly rezoning hearing scheduled for March 8, 2004, which would notify the neighboring and adjoining property owners of the request and provide an opportunity for public Input. Mr. Fulton stated that he only owns 172 acres of the land and that he could not speak as to a plan for entire 500 acres of land. Planning Commission members elected to stay with their previous action to deny the request on the previous request and no further action was taken.

FUTURE MEETINGS The next workshop was scheduled for January 26, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the Annex conference room.

ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

llW-t.- ~ "JJ Paula A. Lam~-----­ Chairperson 10

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - February 2, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 2, 2004 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Don Ardinger, R. Ben Clopper, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff: Interim Planning Director, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung; Associate Planner, Jill L. Baker and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. Paula Lampton was absent.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Ardinger at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding, Mr. Ardinger introduced and welcomed Terry Reiber, as the new Planning Commission member.

Mr. Goodrich stated that, at the request of the applicants, the rezoning application of RZ-03-006 would be removed from the agenda. The subdivision for Lois Stouffer was reevaluated and determined to be eligible for Staff approval. The Alfred Kelly/Kelly Family Trust subdivision owners have agreed to pay the APFO school mitigation fee. Both will be removed from the agenda. The Election of Officer was postponed to a future meeting. Commissioner Kercheval requested that the Stiles Property be added under Other Business.

MINUTES

Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on November 3, 2003, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Reiber abstained. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

-VARIANCES

Ridge Road, LLC Ms. Baker presented for Ms. Wagner a variance request. The property is located on the west side Cedar Ridge Road. The subject property is approximately 46.9 acres and is zoned Agricultural. In October 2003, Lot 2 was approved with an administrative variance for a panhandle length of approximately 500'. The variance request by Ridge Road, LLC is for two additional lots to be served by panhandles, and a panhandle of 600' in length would also service the remaining acreage of 40+ acres. The panhandles would each be 25' wide. The request would allow Mr. Myers to create building lots for his three children. The reason for the hardship was the irregular shape of the property, compounded by limited road frontage. A motion was made by Mr. Clopper to grant the variance request contingent upon one public road access be shared by all of the lots, the ten-year family member statement would be added to all the properties, and that there would be no further subdivision of the remaining lands. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

Terry Gardner Ms. Baker presented for Ms. Wagner a variance request for Terry Gardner. The property is approximately 25 acres in size and is zoned Conservation. The property is located on the east side of Crystal Falls Drive, north of Mt. Aetna Road. The variance request is for four new lots to be serviced by four new panhandles located side by side. Two of the lots have panhandles that exceed 400' in length. The panhandle for Lot 3 will be approximately 410' in length and the panhandle length for Lot 4 is approximately 560'. The reason for the hardship is the irregular shape of the property, compounded by limited road frontage. The consultant, Bob Bush, explained that the applicant plans to retain one of the lots. Motion made by Mr. Clopper to grant the variance request contingent upon the stipulation that Lots 1 and 2 would share one access and Lots 3 and 4 would share another access. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

Kenneth L. Cain Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a request by Mr. Cain for a variance from Section 401 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which states that all new lots should stand on their own in regard to on-site facilities. The property is located off the east side of Richie Road and is zoned Conservation. The entire parcel consists of 19 acres. The applicant owns an existing lot of record, which was created before zoning that contains an existing dwelling. The applicant wishes to create a new lot with a septic reserve area located off of the lot. The new lot would be approximately four acres in size and would contain the existing dwelling, which was constructed in the early 1980's. The septic tank for that dwelling is located on the adjacent existing lot. The plan also reffects the establishment of a 10,000 square foot reserve area for the adjacent lot. The Health Department does not regulate the location of the septic area, the Planning Commission makes that determination. Staff is not opposed to the applicant continuing to use the existing septic tank on the adjacent lot. However, Staff does not see a hardship for the request and is concerned that the lot does not have an approved future septic reserve area should the existing septic 11 tank fail and, if the adjacent lot is transferred, there is a potential for problems in the future. The applicant's letter states that the offsite septic easement has been in existence since 1983 and the applicant is also the owner of the property on which the septic system is located. In order for the applicant to get a septic system on site, the applicant would have to pump to the septic area. The current septic system has gravity flow. Mr. Frederick, consultant, Frederick, Seibert & Associates, explained the hardship that Mr. Cain would have the expenses of a perc test and pump, where the proposed location would provide ample space to utilize a gravity system. Discussion followed on the request. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant the variance request, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. l)nanimously approved.

-SUBDIVISIONS

Westfields, Section 2 Preliminary Plat & Forest Conservation Plan Mr. Lung presented for Ms. Pietro a preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Westfields, Section 2. The subject site is .located along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike, south of St. James. The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and is zoned Agricultural. The total tract is 443 acres. The ultimate build out of the deveiopment is 773 lots. Section 2 consists of 36 single-family lots on 23 acres. Sections of the new streets will be constructed and dedicated to the County. A 6.2 acre parcel wiil encompass the recreational/open space area in the middle of the subdivision that will uitimately provide some of the proposed amenities for the development. Setbacks will be 25' front, 8' side and 40' rear, as a result of the Planning Commission's approvai to allow a cluster development. Sidewalks wiil be provided within Section 2. Pubiic water and sewer will serve the development. The plan also includes 3.57 acres of forest conservation by a combination of retention and afforestation. The goai is to establish a large contiguous area of forest conservation in the rear portion of the property. Mr. Holder provided a schedule to the Planning Commission members on the proposed amenities. He explained that the amenities schedule is tied to the unit counts and the proposed amenities would begin, prior to the recordation of the 375'h lot, and that the homeowners association would be officiaily in place prior to the conveyance of the first lot. Discussion foilowed on the bus waiting areas, the proposed tot lot facilities, and the concern that no . amenities were proposed until the 375th lot. Mr. Holder stated that he believes a tot lot can be added before the 375 lot, along with some passive areas with pathways, and a gazebo at the entrance. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Holder to address the concerns voiced on the need for a more aggressive amenity schedule and information on bus waiting areas before the next section is submitted. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff could obtain some input and criteria from the Board of Education on bus waiting areas. He also commented that the school capacity issue would be addressed at the final plat stage, and regardless of the donated school site discussion, the subdivision would have to comply with the APFO. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Section 2 of the Westfields subdivision, assuming that the questions raised wiil be answered, and contingent upon approval by the Soil Conservation District. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Richard and Eileen Norkunas. Pashen Estates. Milton Stamper. and Frank Fearnow Before proceeding with the remaining subdivisions on the agenda, Mr. Goodrich provided an update on the amendments to Section V of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), which became effective on January 1, 2004. The main amendment reduced the student capacity threshold from 105% to 85% for elementary schools and 100% for middle and high schools. He provided a chart on the school capacity statistics showing the subdivisions that were under review by the Piannlng Department when the amendment was adopted. The subdivisions will be presented to the Planning Commission for disapproval because they cannot meet the 85% capacity threshold. Mr. Goodrich explained that the owners have three options to consider: (1) Request the Planning Department to place the plat on hold to see if the capacity becomes availabie; (2) Pay the fee of $7,355.00 per dwelling unit, or (3) The Planning Commission can disapprove the pian. He further explained that the six subdivisions on the agenda are a finite group that were submitted prior to the amendment that now requires the mitigation payment. The applicants do not want to pay the fee; therefore, they are being presented to the Planning Commission for disapproval. The denial can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Kercheval stated that there has been some discussion about collecting the fee at the permit stage on the smailer subdivisions. Mr. Goodrich stated that subdivisions for Gary Slaughter and Stephen and Elaine Showe are both located in the Sharpsburg Elementary school district. Sharpsburg Elementary was over capacity at the 105% capacity threshold and would be subject to the APFO fee, even if the Ordinance had not been amended.

Attorney Claire Baker was present and stated that a number of the owners have contacted him regarding the amendment. He read a portion of Section 3.3 that specificaliy addresses the administration of the APFO and suggested that the amendments cannot affect the subdivisions that are in the pipeline. Mr. Slaughter was present and addressed the Planning Commission on his concerns. Ms. Showe was present and stated that the three options had not been presented to her; however, she would not chose any of the options.

A discussion foilowed on the questions raised and the interpretation of Section 3.3. The Planning Commission members agreed that they would feel more comfortable with obtaining a formai opinion from the County Attorney on Section 3.3, before proceeding with any action on the subdivisions presented, with the exception of the two subdivisions located in the Sharpsburg school district. Mr. Moser made a motion to table the subdivisions of Richard and Eileen Norkunas, Pashen Estates, Miiton Stamper, and Frank Fearnow to obtain an opinion from the County Attorney on the applicability of Section 3.3 of the Adequate Public Facility Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval stated that the owners of the subdivisions that were tabled and those in attendance that have concerns, were welcomed to participate in the Citizen Comments portion of the County Commissioner's meeting or by sending emails to the Commissioners. 12 Garv Slaughter Mr. Moser made a motion to disapprove the subdivision of Gary Slaughter. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously disapproved.

Stephen and Elaine Showe Mr. Moser made a motion to disapprove the. subdivision of Stephen and Elaine Showe. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously disapproved.

-SITE PLANS

Westfields Temporary New Home Sales Area Mr. Lung presented for Ms. Pietro a site plan for a temporary new home sales area. The temporary sales area is located on the northern corner of the Westfields subdivision, off of the Sharpsburg Pike. The sales area will consist of three trailers, a stone parking area and a temporary entrance onto the Sharpsburg Pike at the existing location of the farm lane. The site will also consist of three flagpoles, and two signs. There will be three full-time and three part-time employees. The hours of operation will be daily from 11 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The required parking spaces are provided, along with two paved handicap spaces. The builders have expressed a desire to pave the entire parking area. A concrete sidewalk will be installed from the handicap spaces to each of the sales trailers. Landscaping is proposed around the sales trailers. A 5' x 3' sign and a 12' x 15' sign will be located 25' off of the right-of-way from Sharpsburg Pike and will be landscaped. A drinking water tank and a chemical toilet facility will be on site, which have been approved by the Health Department to address water and sewer for the temporary sales trailers. State Highway Administration has approved the use of the temporary entrance unto Maryland Route 65. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Holder stated that the duration for the temporary sales trailers will be six to nine months and the intention is that each of the builders will build model homes in Section 1 and the sales trailers will then be removed. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

AT & T Wireless South Mountain Inn Site Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for AT&T Wireless. A 90' high commercial communication tower is proposed in the vicinity of the Old South Mountain Inn, along the south side of Alternate U.S. 40. The property is zoned Conservation. The site is also iocated in the Appalachian Special Planning Area. In April 2003, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a Special Exc~ption to permit a commercial communications tower on the property. The Ordinance requires stealth t(,chnology. The application is for a stealth tower to be camouflaged as a flagpole. The tower will be painted brown, with no lights or flag on the pole. The tower is designed for two carriers. An equipment compound will be located at the base of the tower within a 17' x 26' leased area that will be fenced with a 8' high wood stockade fence, along with some vegetative screening in front of the fence. The tower will be located on the down slope side of the mountain and the height of tower will be 10' above the existing, mature trees in the area. All reviewing agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Popeye's Restaurant - Dual Highway Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a Popeye's Restaurant to be located off the Dual Highway. The property previously housed a branch of the Bulldog Federal Credit Union. The property is approximately 0.31 acres and is zoned BG. The plan proposes ten full-time and part-time employees. Hours of operation will be daily, from 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The site will be 90% impervious, which is the maximum amount permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. The total building area is approximately 21,000 square feet and 600 square feet will be used as customer space. Tweive parking spaces are required and proposed, including one handicap space. Employees will park on Tulsa Drive. The proposed number of daily trips Is 275, per day. Solid waste will be collected in an onsite dumpster and removed by a private hauler. Public water and sewer serve the site. Stormwater management is via an underground channel system. All reviewing agencies have reviewed and commented on the site plan. The City Water Pollution Control and the State Highway Administration have requested minor revisions. Staff is working with the consultant on resoiving several concerns. One of the concerns is the screening between the site and the homes located behind the proposed restaurant that are served by Tulsa Lane. The developer is proposing a 4' retaining wall that will assist with shielding headlight glare. Mr. Cvijanovich, the consultant, explained that there is not enough room to plant trees at the rear of the property and offered to add a 4' wooden fence for additional screening. Ms. Baker explained that the traffic flow concerns have been addressed and the traffic will travel on a one way loop around the site and signage will direct the traffic from Tulsa Lane around the site. There is a 10' x 45' area proposed for deliveries and deliveries will not be made during business hours. Mr. Anikis voiced his concerns with design of the site regarding traffic access and safety. The Pianning Commission members discussed additional screening options for the site. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon the addition of a 4' vinyl fence on top of the proposed concrete retaining wall and also contingent upon approval from the City Water Pollution Control and the State Highway Administration. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Moser, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, and Mr. Ardinger voted "Aye." Mr. Anikis voted "Nay."

- FOREST CONSERVATION

Cannon Ridge East - Offsite Mitigation Request Mr. Lung presented a request for offsite retention to address the forest conservation mitigation for the Cannon Ridge East subdivision. The Cannon Ridge East subdivision is located within the Town of 13

Keedysville, per a previous annexation, and proposes 28 new single-family lots. There is no forest area or sensitive areas on the site. The total development area of the subdivision is 17.33 acres and the mitigation is 2.6 acres. The offsite mitigation is done at a 2:1 standard, which increases the mitigation to 5.2 acres. The site for the offsite mitigation is located in the County, immediately adjacent to the east of the subject property. A memorandum from the consultant states that there are priority areas on the property where the retention site of existing forest is proposed. A Special Owner's statement will be added on the recorded subdivision plat and on the deeds that will notify the owner, and any subsequent owner of the retention area. A discussion followed on the request. Mr. Clopper made a motion to accept the Forest Conservation Plan for Cannon Ridge East, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Moser, Mr. Ardinger voted "Aye." Mr. Anikis and Mr. Reiber voted "Nay."

OTHER BUSINESS

WS-03-002, Keedysville Land Company LLC Mr. Lung presented a map amendment for the Water and Sewerage Plan for the Keedysville Land Company LLC. The public hearing was held on November 11, 2003. The request was to change the service priority designation for a proposed subdivision within the Town of Keedysville. Currently the plan is designated as "No Planned Service" and the request is to change the designation to "Planned Service" so the developer can move forward with obtaining the necessary approvals to extend water and sewer lines to the property. Mr. Lung stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval, as presented in the Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing, to the Board of County Commissioners for the map amendment of WS-03-002, as it is logical, appropriate, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

Westfields - Evaluation of Donated School Site Mr. Goodrich presented the proposed donated site for an elementary school within the Westfields subdivision. The County suggested the donation of a school site, at the preliminary consultation stage. . The Planning Commission's role is to review how the proposed school site fits with the entire development and the potential effects on the residents of the development. There is no defined criteria to evaluate the site. The site is approximately 12 acres in size and would be served by a dual lane entrance. The Board of Education has concurred that there will be a need for an elementary school in that area, at some point, due to the number of proposed development units. They have reviewed the proposed school site and determined it to be acceptable. The donation of the school site will not eliminate the need to meet the criteria for the APFO requirements. A discussion followed on the proposed site location and the topography of the land. Mr. Anikis made a motion that the Planning Commission advise the Board of Commissioners that the proposed site for an elementary school, within the Westfields development, appears to be centrally located and an adequate site for a school, and should the Board of Education take the matter further logical considerations should be made. Mr. Moser seconded the motion. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval asked the Staff to obtain information on the criteria that other counties use in reviewing potential school sites and information on the standards that other counties use to review amenities for large developments.

Stiles Property Mr. Kercheval stated that the rezoning request for the Stiles property to be included within the Town of Boonsboro Growth Area was scheduled for the upcoming County Commissioner's meeting, to allow for a public comment on the matter. The Planning Commission had tabled the formal rezoning request for the Stiles property, during the workshop meeting held on January 12, 2004, to obtain more information from Staff on the environmental issues and more information from the Town of Boonsboro. A letter from the Town of Boonsboro outlined their position on annexing the Stiles property and the Easterday's plans for the relocation of the hardware store to the Stiles Property. Staff's analysis of the request was to include the 80+ acres, located on the north side of Alternate US 40 and deny the approximate 5 acres, located on the east side of Maryland Route 67. Members discussed their concerns on the environmental issues. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend denial of the request to include the Stiles Property within the Town of Boonsboro's Growth Area. Seconded Mr. Clopper. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Moser, and Mr. Ardinger voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "Nay." Mr. Kercheval abstained.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

- Workshop Meeting The Planning Commission tentatively scheduled a workshop for February 16, 2004 to finalize their recommendations on the Formal Rezoning requests.

ADJOURNMENT Ii

Motion made by Mr. Anikis, seconded by Mr. Clopper, to '~;ourn at 10:45 .m. Unanimously approved. 15 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - FEBRUARY 16, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, February 16, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson; R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, George Anikis, Jim Kerchevai and Bernard Moser. Staff: Interim Director, Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planner, Tim Lung; Associate Planner, Jill Baker; GIS Analyst; Jennifer Kinzer, Eric Seifarth, Farmland Preservation Administrator and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. Terry Reiber was absent.

ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clopper made a motion to nominate Don Ardinger as the Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Moser moved to close the nominations. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. The motion to nominate Mr. Ardinger as Vice-Chairman was unanimously approved. So ordered.

Before proceeding, Mr. Kercheval reported that the Board of County Commissioners approved the Comprehensive Rezoning request for Stiles Family Ltd. on February 10, 2004.

FORMAL REQUESTS TO REVIEW ZONING

The Planning Commission continued their review of the individual Formal Requests to Review Zoning. As previously agreed upon, action will be taken on each request to accurately reflect the individual votes on each request. Mr. Kercheval will abstain from any action.

- 22) 2003 Mason Dixon LLC -(see previous request by D. Martin) Mr. Goodrich stated that some concerns were expressed by the applicant of 2003 Mason Dixon LLC request that the Planning Commission did not look at the request adequately and that the Staff encouraged the Planning Commission to bypass the request because it had already been acted on in August. Mr. Goodrich had informed the applicant that the Planning Commission would review the request again. The applicant had indicated that he was not aware of the previous decision on the first request. There are four parties involved with the request and Planning Staff advised one party who claimed to be the contact for all parties and apparently that information was not forwarded to the other parties. To address that concern, the Planning Staff asks that the Planning Commission acknowledge the information received and review the request. The Staff is not in favor of granting the request. Several factors were reviewed such as the inadequacy of the road that serves that area, the Airport Overlay, significant expansion of the Growth Area by 400 acres that would include other properties, no plans for deveioping the entire site, substantial Industrial-Flex exists on Route 63, and the creation of a donut effect, if the request was granted. The Planning Commission members reviewed and discussed the request. Mr. Ardinger stated that his comments were consistent with his previous comments that the property is close proximity of the 1-81 interchange, and is a good place for industrial and commercial activity. Mr. Anikis stated that the subject property is considered prime farmland, as depicted on a map provided by Mr. Seifarth. Mr. Kercheval requested that a smaller version of the map be forwarded to the Commissioners when they consider the requests. It was the consensus of the members that more information is needed on the proposal for the subject property and perhaps the request would be better served through the rezoning hearing process to allow for site plan review and input from adjacent property owners. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with the Staff's analysis and recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion carried with Ms. Lampton, Mr. Moser, Mr. Clopper and Mr. Anikis voted "aye" to the motion and Mr. Ardinger voted "nay." Mr. Kercheval abstained.

23) Landis Road Farm LLC The property is located along Landis and Whitehall Roads. Whitehall road is inadequate and has not been significantly improved. There are no public services. The golf course and park makes a good edge for the Growth Area and keeps with the philosophy of stepping down the intensity of uses away from the center of the Growth Area. Members discussed the inadequate conditions of Whitehall Road and the lack of proper infrastructure. Mr. Moser stated that the requests #23, #29 and #30 are bordered, to some extent, by Ag districts. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to agree with the Staffs recommendation to deny the request to include the property within the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

24) Elmer & E. Andrew Stone The property is located on the west side of Maryland 67 and King Road. The applicants have requested the inclusion of their property within the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Goodrich stated that the property is contiguous to the Growth Area and is surrounded on three sides by Ag zoning and is also in an Ag district. The property abuts permanently preserved land on the west side. Mr. Moser stated he had a conversation with the Town Manager for Boonsboro and a portion of the Boonsboro Bypass would pass through the subject property. The property is adjacent to the Town's Growth Area, but is 16

not adjacent to the incorporated boundary of the Town. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Planning Staff did not receive any comments on the request from the Town of Boonsboro. Mr. Anikis made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Mr. Clopper seconded. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

25) Terrill Lee Chalfant The property is located on the east side of Amos Reeder Road .. The applicant requested Agricultural zoning, which creates an "island" of zoning. Staff proposed this property as Preservation. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

26) J. Maurice Carlisle The subject property is located off of Stottlemyer Road and was proposed as Environmental Conservation. The applicant has requested Agricultural zoning. Staff has recommended granting the applicant's request on the west portion of the property and denies the request for the east side of the property, due to perc and floodplain issues. Ms. Baker stated that Mr. Carlisle has submitted a subdivision plat for four lots on the west side of the road and the number of lots was affected by the poor perc tests in the area. In 2001 , a preliminary consultation was held for the property located on the east side of the road. The applicant has not proceeded because Stottlemyer Road is inadequate. Mr. Anikis made a motion to accept the Staff's recommendation to approve the request for Agricultural zoning the west side and deny the request for the east side of the property. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

27) Giovanni John Orcino The property is located on the west side of Maryland 67. The applicant has requesting the property be zoned Agricultural. The Staff proposed Preservation zoning. Mr. Moser made a motion to agree with Staff's recommendation to deny the request because the property is not contiguous to Ag zoning and would create the "donut" effect. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

28) Mae & Margaret Freaver and Louise Conway The property is located off of Mt. Aetna Road. The applicants requested Agricultural zoning. Staff had proposed this property as Environmental Conservation zoning due to the Special Planning Area of the Beaver Creek Watershed. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

29) Nancy Rhoderick The property is located on White Hall Road. The applicant has requested the inclusion of the property within the Urban Growth Area. Members discussed the inadequate conditions of Whitehall Road, the lack of public services, and that the property is not contiguous to the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Moser made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

30) G. Clair Baker, Jr. for Kent Oliver The property is located on the north side of Beaver Creek Road. The applicant has requested the inclusion of the property within the Urban Growth Area. Members again discussed the lack of public service, the inadequate road situation, and the bordering Ag districts. They also discussed the proximity of the property to the commercial area of the Dual Highway and whether a condition would be placed that the property would have to be serviced by pUblic services. Several members felt that more information is needed on what is planned for the subject property and perhaps the request would be better served though the rezoning hearing process to allow for site plan review and input from adjacent property owners. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion carried with Ms. Lampton, Mr. Moser, Mr. Clopper and Mr. Anikis voted "aye" to the motion and Mr. Ardinger voted "nay." Mr. Kercheval abstained.

31) Oscar & Gerald Hall The property is located off of Dam #4 Road and is proposed as Environmental Conservation zoning. The applicants requested the previous Conservation zoning at 1:3 density. Staff recommended denying the request, because the Conservation zoning wili not be available in the new Pian. Mr. Anikis made a motion to accept the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

32) Thomas Sweeney The property is located off of the Shepherdstown Pike and is proposed as Preservation. The applicant has requested the previous Agricultural zoning at the 1:1 density. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the applicant's request because the current Agricultural zoning will not be available in the rural area. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

33) Taylor & Pat Lamkuhl The property consists of two parcels, located off of Lappans Road. The applicants requested Agricultural zoning. Staff has proposed the property as Environmental Conservation. Because the property is within the 60:40 split it received a re-evaluation by Staff. There is a larger percentage of the Environmental Conservation zone. If the property were designated as Agricultural zoning, it would 17

separate the EC area. Also, an environmentally sensitive creek borqers the prqperty on the western edge and there is no natural separation boundary on the property. Mr. Kercheval requested additional information on this particular request, before the County Commissioners review the formal rezoning requests. Mr. Anikis made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny -the request and to protect the creek. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously denied.

34) Richard P. Showe, Richard P. Showe II & James Showe The property is located off of Spickler Road in Clear Spring. The applicants have requested the previous Agricultural zoning of 1:1. Mr. Clopper made a motion to agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request based on the fact that there is no such zoning in the new Plan. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The request was unanimously denied.

35) Freedom Hills LLC The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and a letter has been sent to Mr. Albert to that effect. No action needed.

36) William Wantz for the Martin Property On October 28, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed and approved a pending rezoning request (RZ-03-001) on the Martin Property. No further action needed.

37) Tamara Callas The property is iocated off of Taylors Landing Road and is proposed for Preservation zoning. The applicant has request the prior Agricultural zoning at the 1:1 density. Mr. Moser made a motion to accept the Staff's recommendation to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kerchevai abstained. Unanimously denied.

Mr. Kercheval commented that there has been discussions on whether another public hearing is necessary to present the individual requests for public input, before the County Commissioners actually vote on the requests.

FUTURE MEETINGS

The next workshop was scheduled for March 29, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the Annex conference room to discuss water quality issues.

ADJOURMENT

The workshop meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. -P~A~ Paula A. Lampton ~ Chairperson 18

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - March 1, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, March 1, 2004 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Interim Planning Director, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill L. Baker and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS

RZ-03-006 James & Beth Tribble Ms. Baker explained that this rezoning request was tabled at the previous meeting, at the request of the applicants. The public hearing was held on November 10, 2003. The rezoning application is to rezone the property from the current RS - Residential Suburban zoning, to BT-Business Transitional. Ms. Baker expiained that BT zoning is mainly for smailer, less intense businesses that are locaily focused (I.e. banks, barbershops, florist, business/professional offices, and specialty type shops). Ms. Baker stated that she had nothing further to add to the staff report. A discussion followed on the location of the property and whether there was a change in the character of the neighborhood, which was the basis for the application. The Planning Commission members also reviewed information submitted by Mr. Tribble, ·which reiterated the items previously discussed. It was also noted that the proposed rezoning was inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request for RZ-03-006, based upon the findings in the Staff report. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Moser, Mr. Clopper, and Ms. Lampton voting "Aye" and Mr. Ardinger voting "Nay." Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Reiber abstained.

APFO Transition Policy Before proceeding with Old Business, Mr. Goodrich stated that the recent amendments to the APFO became effective on January 1, 2004 and changed the school capacity threshold from 105% to 85% for elementary schools and 100% for middle and high schools. On February 17, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an APFO Transition Policy. The Policy created an opportunity for subdivisions that were under review when the amendment was adopted to pay the APFO school fee at the building permit application stage. This Policy only applies to subdivisions that were five lots or less, submitted before January 1, 2004, that were not approved by that date. The Policy applies to a finite group of subdivisions that were tabled by the Planning Commission, during the February meeting, to obtain the County Attorney's opinion on whether the APFO amendment applied to the subdivisions already under review. A written opinion was received from the County Attorney, which stated that the amendment could be applied to those applications. Therefore, the Transition Policy applies to the subdivisions that were tabled at the February meeting of Richard & Eileen Norkunas, Lot 1; Pashen Estates, Lots 5 - 8; Milton Stamper, Lots 11 & 12; and Frank Fearnow, Lot 4. Each owner has elected to pay the mitigation fee at the building permit stage; therefore, no Planning Commission action is necessary.

Gary Slaughter Mr. Slaughter's application was disapproved at the February meeting. Since then, the Transition Policy was adopted. A new action is needed to supersede the Planning Commission's previous motion to disapprove the subdivision, because the Sharpsburg school district was over 105% of its capacity and was already inadequate before the amendment to the APFO. Staff recommends approval, because Mr. Slaughter has agreed to the pay the mitigation fee at the building permit stage. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the subdivision request for Mr. Slaughter, after a reevaluation of the matter. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

- VARIANCES:

Karl and Sallie Morrison Ms. Baker presented for review a variance request for Karl and Sailie Morrison. Mr. Morrison currently owns four contiguous properties on the south side of Cool Hoilow Road. The total tract is approximately 139 acres and the property is zoned Agricultural. Mr. Morrison has requested that the four tracts be re­ allotted, as weil as one additional lot for the remaining lands. Each of the four lots proposed would have a panhandle to Cool Hoilow Road. The four panhandles exceed 400' in length and would be stacked side by side, and would create a three-tier configuration from the road design. The requested variance is for panhandle length, stacking, and a three-tier configuration. The panhandle length for Lot 1 is 850', panhandle lengths for Lots 2 & 3 are approximately 1,450' and the panhandle for lot 4 is approximately 2,000'. A discussion foilowed on the request. The consultant, Fred Frederick, explained that Mr. 19 Morrison owns three adjoining parcels of record and his dwelling is located on parcel 2. Mr. Morrison would like to consolidate the good farm ground and reconfigure the parcels so he can create three large building lots. Mr. Morrison would like four lots, but three lots would be the reconfiguration. The APFO limits the property to only four lots because the road is not 18' wide. A local builder would like to buy the lots and live on one of the lots. The developer intends to build a paved driveway to address fire and rescue concerns and the three potential property owners would enter into a common use maintenance agreement. Mr. Clopper questioned if the statement, that no further subdivision can occur, should be placed on the consolidated remaining farmland. Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Morrison has no intentions of developing the remaining lands. Mr. Morrison was present and stated that he believes it would be unfair to add the statement on the remaining lands; however, he would agree to add the statement on the three subdivided lots. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the variance request for the three subdivided lots with the remaining lands, along with Mr. Morrison's offer to add the statement that no further subdivision would occur on the three subdivided lots and that the owners would enter Into a common use maintenance agreement for the road. Mr. Kercheval seconded the motion. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval and Ms. Lampton voting "aye" and Mr. Moser and Mr. Ardinger voted "Nay.

- SUBDIVISIONS:

South Pointe - Phase 4, Block C- Final Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the final plat for South Pointe - Phase 4, Block C. The preliminary plat was approved in May 2003. The site is located along the east side of South Pointe Drive. The developer is proposing townhouse lots on a total of 9.3 acres. All lots will be served by public water and sewer. The new streets of Hunters Woods Drive and Winding Oak will provide access for the lots in Phase 4. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The schools that serve the site are Emma K. Doub Elementary School, E. Russell Hicks Middle School, and South Hagerstown High School. The calculations indicate that eight students would be generated from Phase 4. Emma K. Doub Elementary School is currently inadequate and the developer must pay the school mitigation fee. All . agencies have approved the plan. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the final plat contingent upon the APFO agreement for schools. Seconded Mr. Clopper. The motion was unanimously approved.

-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Powers/Smithsburg Development Corporation Mr. Lung provided a brief overview of the consultation summary. The consultation was held on January 22, 2004. A previous consultation was held for this property for another developer in 2001, and was valid for one year. The owner asked the Planning Commission to waive that requirement, but the request was denied. The property consists of approximately 82 acres, located along the Greencastle Pike, north of Huyetts Crossroads. The property is zoned Agricultural and Is located within the Urban Growth Area. The developer is proposing 118 single-family lots. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet with a density of 1.44 dwelling units per acre. Public water and sewer would serve the site. An access is proposed off of an existing right-of-way onto Route 40. The State Highway Administration (SHA) is currently in negotiations with the owner of the Sheetz property, on the required access point from Route 63. The County Is planning to build a pumping station, north of the 1-70 Interchange. The proposed subdivision would have to construct a gravity line to the pumping station to serve the development. There is a considerable amount of steep slopes to the rear of the property and wetland areas on the property. Mr. Lung had suggested that the developer may want to consider clustering, to avoid disturbance of the sensitive areas and to lower their infrastructure costs. It appears there will be considerable forest clearing and that calculation has not been determined. The developer may have to mitigate at a higher rate and were advised not to assume that payment in lieu of reafforestation would be an automatic option. The consultant, Mr. Frederick, stated that the developer plans to save the forest in the steep slope area and the wetlands will remain undisturbed. Mr. Lung commented that approximately 6 lots may be lost, if the forest was not removed. Mr. Anikis and Mr. Clopper agreed that saving the forest would be preferred. An open section street design has been proposed. The Engineering Department requires a paved shoulder with open section streets and, if the lots and driveways are large enough to accommodate vehicles, shoulders may be sufficient for pedestrians in lieu of sidewalks. Staff was also concerned about safe pedestrian access from the development to the nearby Sheetz. The proposed subdivision is In the Conococheague Elementary School district, which is currently over capacity. The school test would occur at the final subdivision stage. Conococheague Elementary is slated to be combined with the new Maugansville Elementary School when it is constructed, which may impact this development. Mr. Lung stated that the property is designated in the new Comprehensive Plan as Industrial Flex and is located on the edge of the Urban Growth Area. Staff raised the possibility of Incompatibility between residential development and the nearby landfill, particularly with the prevailing winds from the west. The forest cover may provide some filtering, but based on the new Comprehensive Plan, the property is slated for Industrial Flex. During the upcoming Comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Area, the developer will have to request a change In the designation. Mr. Anikis questioned if there would be any buffering on the lots that back Maryland Route 63. Mr. Frederick stated that there would be buffering and, if more forestation Is needed, it would be placed in this area for screening. No open space areas are planned and there will be no homeowners association. Provisions will be made for school bus waiting areas. A discussion followed on the cluster provision. Mr. Lung stated that the clustering would keep the lots out of the forest area and sensitive areas and would reduce the infrastructure costs. Mr. Clopper expressed his concerns with the prevailing winds and the nearby landfill and questioned if a note should be placed on the plat. No formal action was required. 20

-FOREST CONSERVATION:

Forest Conservation Candidate Site - Robert & Anna Hoffman and Janet Fisher Mr. Goodrich explained that the payment in lieu funding is used in a program to purchase easements on private property to preserve existing forest cover or to plant new forest cover. Elmer Weibley, District Manager of the Washington County Soil Conservation District, was present and explained the proposed forest easement site. The property is located along Interstate 68, on the north side of the Woodmont Road Exit. The proposed site is a good timber area with steep slopes. Mr. Weibiey explained that 77 acres of existing forest would be placed under easement and 9 acres of new forest is proposed to be planted. The owners of the property would receive a one-time easement payment from the County, and, in this case, it will be $500.00 per acre. The owners are not interested in harvesting the timber. The property has been under a conservation plan with the forest service for a number of years. A decision by the Soii Conservation District on whether to plant the 9 acres of forest is pending an analysis from a forester to determine whether to plant the 9 acres, or if natural generation would occur. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the forest conservation candidate site, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

APFO Transition Policy Mr. Goodrich previously discussed the APFO Transition Policy and how it related to the subdivisions on the agenda. Mr. Goodrich explained that Staff would have to identify all of the applications that the Transition Policy applies to. The owner will have the option to pay the APFO contribution prior to the subdivision approval, or a note will be placed on the plat that will require the fee to be paid at the building permit stage. Mr. Moser questioned if there was any discussions regarding the APFO fee and the existing lots of record. Mr. Kercheval stated that there were discussions about other developments that were in the pipeline and there will be more discussions in the future. No action needed.

Capital Improvement Program Mr. Goodrich distributed the proposed draft of the Capital Improvement Program for the Planning Commission's review. The Planning Commission's responsibility is to review and determine that the document is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed on the increased funding to the Board of Education, the proposed school projects, and the increased funding to Hagerstown Community College. It is expected that Commission members will review the document and make formal recommendations during the April meeting. No action was required, at this time.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The joint rezoning hearing is scheduled for March 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House. A Planning Commission workshop was scheduled for March 31, 2004, to discuss water quality issues.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made by Mr. Clopper, seconded by Mr. Moser, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Unanimousiyapproved. r~;I-~~ Pau'la A. Lampton U Chairperson 21 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - MARCH 29, 2004

The Washington County Pianning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, March 29, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson; R Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Terry Reiber, George Anikis, Jim Kercheval and Bernard Moser. Staff members: Interim Director, Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Pianner, Tim Lung; Associate Planner, Jill Baker; Bud Gudmundson, GIS Coordinator; William Stachoviak, Park & Environmental Planner, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. Also present were Laurie Bucher and Ed Fogtman, of the Washington County Health Department.

PRESENTATION - WATER QUALITY ISSUES FACING WASHINGTON COUNTY

Laurie Bucher, Director of Environmental Health, Washington County Health Department, presented a PowerPoint presentation, on the Water Quality Issues Facing Washington County (see attached copy). The key topics of discussion were karst features, ground water quality, the potential for waterborne illnesses, impacts from development, and supporting documentation. The karst topographic is a result of constant water flowing over the limestone, which gives raise to the karst features. A iarge part of the County does have karst features and karst geology, more so than any other County in Maryland. Ms. Bucher also discussed ways to address some of the issues that karst geology presents, and ways the Health Department is addressing these issues now. Ms. Bucher stated that according to a study performed by RE. Wright & Associates in 1981, approximately 30% of all the wells (a combination of new and old wells) in the County at any given lime are coliform contaminated.

That study included recommendations for improved well construction and septic system standards. A follow-up study by RE. Wright, after improved construction standards were implemented, showed the same 30% contamination level.

Water quality is very unpredictable in karst geology. Ms. Bucher said that wells that test positive for contamination one day can be clear the next. The unpredictability can be affected by testing during a dry or wet season, a rain event, the source of contamination, the speed of underground water flow, and other factors. Ms. Bucher stated that there is more technology to test wells in the karst areas that are "under the influence" of surface water. In the future, where test wells are required for proposed subdivisions, they may also require testing under the influence of surface water.

A discussion followed on the potential for waterborne illnesses that resemble flu-like symptoms. In many cases illnesses may go undetected and are not reported. The available water treatment systems and proposed more stringent procedures were discussed. Ms. Bucher also discussed the County's Water/Sewer Advisory Board and House Bill 1211, which would establish a Water and Sewer Infrastructure Commission. If the House Bill is passed, a member of the Planning Commission would serve on the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Commission. Mr. Fogtman, of the Washington County Health Department, explained that a hydrologic study and test wells may be reqUired for subdivisions located in sensitive areas. He also explained the new mandatory methods implemented for septic systems. A question and answer session followed the presentation.

ADJOURMENT

The workshop meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. l~c If j;~Y1~_ Paula A. Lampton --c;-­ Chairperson 23 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - April 5, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, Aprii 5, 2004 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Interim Planning Director, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Pianners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding, Mr. Goodrich stated that the site plan for Brookmeade Apartments would be omitted from the agenda, due to issues regarding the cleared forest. Mr. Anikis stated that, for the record, the forest on the Brookmeade property was clear cut prior to the review and approval by the Planning Commission. He requested that an explanation in writing be acquired from the developer.

MINUTES

A motion made by Mr. Moser to approve the workshop minutes of August 11, 2003, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Reiber abstained. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes of December 1,2003, as presented. Seconded by ·Mr. Anikis. Mr. Reiber abstained. Unanimously approved.

A motion made by Mr. Anikis to approve the minutes of January 5, 2004, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Reiber abstained. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Capital Improvement Program The proposed Capital Improvement Program had been distributed to the members at the regular meeting held in March 2003. Mr. Goodrich explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is updated every year, based upon the County's bUdget limitations. The action of the Planning Commission is to determine the consistency of the CIP with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moser questioned the notation made under Solid Waste in the proposed CIP, regarding the Black Rock Creek restoration and the 40 West Landfill. Mr. Kercheval explained that the notation was in response to required mitigation of some disturbance that occurred around the Black Rock Creek and the landfill area. Mr. Ardinger made a motion that the proposed Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moser seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

St. James Village North - Status Report Mr. Goodrich explained that this item was on the agenda because the property owners of St. James Village North voiced concerns about the amenities previously discussed and proposed by the developer. As of January 1, 2003, the Homeowner's Association was transferred from the developer to the community. The homeowners have expressed concerns about the amenities not being installed on the previously committed schedule. The Planning Commission has an agreement with the developer, according to the development plan, and by addressing the Planning Commission's concerns about the proposed amenities, many of the homeowner's concerns will also be addressed.

Ms. Pietro stated that she has spoken with the developer, Mr. Lyles, as to the status of the amenity package. Mr. Lyles attributed the missed deadline to the inclement weather conditions and he did not provide a specific time for completion of the proposed amenities. Ms. Pietro also reported that the white pines proposed along the Sharpsburg Pike have been planted in place of the playground equipment previously proposed. The playground equipment has been received and will be added to the existing play equipment in the recreation area. The tennis court and basketball court have been installed but not stripped due to the weather conditions. The posts were installed for the fencing around the tennis court and grading around the courts will be finished this week. The walkways proposed around the side of the courts that connect to the existing walkway have been added and though it serves the same purpose, it is not in the iocation proposed. The members agreed that they would like to see the sidewalk that was proposed be added, in addition to the installed sidewalk. The proposed bus waiting areas have not been installed and Ms. Pietro will contact the Board of Education on the status of the proposed bus waiting areas. Ms. Pietro stated that Mr. Lyles has indicated that, due to the large stormwater management area and his concerns about overflow, he would like to place the proposed walking nature trail with rest area in another location, or place additional items such as a gazebo with picnic tables. She suggested that Mr. Lyles should contact the Homeowner's Association and discuss his proposal and report back to the Planning Department. If the proposal was accepted, a revised plan would be needed for the record. Mr. 24 Lyles is currently planning to arrange a meeting with the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Anikis suggested that in future sections of the subdivision that walking trails be added for children to access the amenities. The outstanding amenities are the walking trail, the proposed sidewalk installed in the wrong location, and the bus stop waiting area. Mr. Ardinger requested a written status report from the Homeowner's Association as to the matters pending. A discussion followed on the need to have a policy where timeframes are estabiished to address proposed amenities. Mr. Kercheval added that there are a variety of issues pertaining to drainage problems and road issues that the developer and homebuilder will have to address, before any building permits will be issued. No action was required.

NEW BUSINESS

. VARIANCES:

Robert and Anne Edelan Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance that there be no more than two panhandles side by side. The applicants own 12.65 acres of land, located along the east side of Harpers Ferry Road. The property is zoned AgricUltural. There is an existing dwelling on the property. The Edelans would like to subdivide the property into two new building lots. Lot 1 would have approximately 150' of road frontage on Harpers Ferry Road,and Lot 2 would have a panhandle above Lot 1. The Edelan property was once a part of a larger tract of land, which has been subdivided by others into numerous lots since the inception of the panhandle standards in 1989. Even though the Edelans did not create the previous two panhandles, the regulations would apply to them. If the Edelans create their lots there would be three panhandles side by side. The applicant's argue that the only suitable location for access to the lots is in the area proposed and even though this would be the third consecutive panhandle, it would only be the second access, since the existing lots to the north use a shared access, known as Crampton Lane. Lots 1 and 2 would share an entrance and would have to meet the County's sight distance requirements for residential driveways. There is 377' of separation distance between Crampton .Lane and Edelan's driveway. In addition to the third panhandle, the applicants are requesting a waiver from a preliminary consultation, which is required after the fifth lot is subdivided. Staff has no objection to the waiver request. A discussion followed on the variance request. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the variance request, as submitted, based upon the fact that the two existing panhandles are currently sharing an access onto the public road and that the access is over 300 feet from the proposed third panhandle, and approved the request to waive the preliminary consultation. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Anikis, Ms. Lampton, and Mr. Kercheval voting "Aye" and Mr. Ardinger, Mr. Moser and Mr. Reiber voting "Nay."

Ricky Nokes Ms. Pietro presented a variance request for Ricky Nokes from Section 405.11.G.5, which does not permit panhandle lengths in excess of 400'. The subject site is located along the east side of Kaetzel Road, near its intersection with Yarrowsburg Road. The property is zoned Conservation. The owner is proposing to create two single-family lots. Ricky Nokes will own Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be conveyed to his brother, James Nokes. The proposed panhandle for Lot 2 is 1,030 feet in length. Mr. Nokes previously proposed the panhandle to be situated along the southern property boundary; however, he decided against this layout because he did not want a 25' strip separating Lot 1 from the property he also owns to the south. Staff is not in favor of the proposed request, given the configuration of the proposed panhandie. A discussion followed on the Planning Commission's concerns regarding fire equipment access and safety issues, given the odd configuration of the proposed panhandle. Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the variance request. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. The variance request was unanimously denied. A discussion followed. The Planning Commission members suggested that Mr. Nokes could consult with an attorney to deed a 25' foot strip to Lot 2, and reserve a right-of-way to the other parcel to resolve his concerns.

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Westfields, Section 1 & 2 Final Plat Ms. Pietro presented for final plat approval Sections 1 and 2 of the Westfieids subdivision. The subject site is located along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike. Zoning is Agricultural. The developers are proposing 76 lots on 42 acres in Section 1 with a mixture of single-family and semi-detached dwellings. Public water and sewer and new public streets will serve all lots. The final plat for Section 2 proposes 36 single-family lots on 23.2 acres. No changes have been made since the preliminary plats for Section 1 and 2 were approved. Eleven acres of open space will be present in Section 1 and 7.6 acres of open space will be included in Section 2. A monumental entrance will be installed along with landscaping along the Sharpsburg Pike. Forest conservation requirements will be met by retaining 7.5 acres for Section 1 and 3.57 acres in Section 2, located to the rear of the property. The historic cemetery will have an access easement and will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association documents are currentiy being reviewed. The elementary school serving the development is Fountain Rock Elementary School, which is currently over capacity by approximateiy 50 students. The preliminary Adequate Public Facilities school fees for Sections 1 and 2 is based on 112 dwellings and will be approximately $823,760. Mr. MacGillivray, Ausherman Development Corporation, reported that they are currently in negotiations with the Board of County Commissioners about the potential schooi site and in order to move forward with the development, they have agreed to pay the school fee for the lots in 25 Section 1 and 2. All agency approvals have been received except for the State Highway Administration and their approval is pending the entrance permit documents. Mr. MacGillivray stated that an amenities scheduled was presented at the February meeting and it was their understanding that more discussion of the proposed amenities would occur with the submission of the preliminary plat for Section 3. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to grant final plat approval for Sections 1 and 2, and approval of the final Forest Conservation Plan contingent upon finalization of the APFO schooi fee requirement. Seconded Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Maple Valley Estates, Section C, D & E- Final Plat Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the final plat for Sections C, D & E for Maple Valley Estates. The subject site is located along the north side of Longmeadow Road, along Corello Drive and the north side of Paradise Church Road. The property is zoned RS. The developer is proposing to create 36 single-family homes on 24 acres in Section C, 34 single-family lots on 12.2 acres in Section D, and 32 single-family lots on 11.86 acres for Section E for a total of 102 single-family lots. There are no remaining lands. Public water and sewer and new public roads will serve all lots. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by planting 7.01 acres of forest onsite. The Adequate Public Facility Ordinance fees are $750,210 for schools and $666,000 for roads. The Paramount Elementary School is over capacity by 40 students. This development is located in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor area and is subject to the APFO road fee. All approvals have been received, except from the Engineering Department, Health Department and Soil Conservation District. The Health Department is awaiting a letter from public facilities, and Soli Conservation's approval is tied to Engineering's approval, that is awaiting finalization of the APFO road fee. During the review of the preliminary plat, there was discussion on the proposed new street names using the mutual word of "Maple" in the address and whether the proposed street names may create confusion and safety concerns. The developer, Mr. Oder, stated that they did go back to Fire and Rescue and inquire on the proposed road names and approval was granted to use the proposed names. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant final plat approval subject to receipt of all outstanding agency approvals and contingent upon finalization of the school and road APFO fees. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

George King, Lots 1·5 - Preliminary/Final Plat Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary/final plat and final Forest Conservation Plan for George King, Lots 1 through 5. He explained that the Planning Commission would normally approve this subdivision at the Staff level; however, since there is a new County street proposed, review by the Planning Commission is necessary. The site is located along the north side of Millbrook Road, west of Rohrersville, and east of Trego Road. The property is zoned Conservation. The developer is proposing to create five new building lots ranging in size from 3 to 4 acres. All lots will front and have access to a new street to be built by the developer and turned over to the County. There are 97 acres of remaining iands. The existing farm and outbuildings are identified on the Historic Site Survey. Each lot will have its own well and septic system and has been approved by the Health Department. The Engineering Department has approved the street design and stormwater management. Millbrook Road meets the County's road adequacy standards for the proposed development. Forest conservation requirements will be met by reta·lning 4.06 acres of existing forest located along a stream on the remaining lands. All agency approvals have been received. The property is directly adjacent to the Mt. Briar Wetlands Park and there will be no negative impacts by the proposed development on the wetlands. There are water quality control devices along the swails, which would correct any water quality issues from runoff, and the majority of the runoff is in the opposite direction from the Mt. Briar Wetlands. Since the plat was submitted prior to January 1, 2004, it is eiigible for the APFO transition policy for school adequacy. The property is located within the Pleasant Valley Elementary School district, which is over capacity and the developer has the option to pay the school fee at the bUilding permit stage. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminarylfinal plat and Forest Conservation Plan contingent upon finalization of the APFO school fee. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

Twin Ridge - Final Plat Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the final plat for Twin Ridge. This proposal is for 90 lots with semi-detached dwellings situated on 16 acres, located north of Maugansville, along the south side of Reiff Church Road. The property is zoned Residential, Multi-Family and is located in the Urban Growth Area. A new street will be built by the developer and dedicated to the County to provide access to the development, with two access points onto Reiff Church Road .. The developer will make upgrades to Reiff Church Road. In 2002, the Planning Commission approved the method of payment in lieu of to address the forest conservation requirements of 2.25 acres of mitigation, which is approximately $9,801. No changes have been made from the Preliminary Plat approved in December 2003. All agency approvals have been received, except from the Heaith Department. The Health Department has adopted a new requirement that they will not issue their final approval until they receive approval letters from the water and sewer authorities indicating that public water and sewer service is available. The site is located in the Maugansville Elementary School district and based upon the current calculations there is capacity for 6.2 additional students. Eighteen student spaces are needed for the entire development; therefore, the school is over capacity by 11.8 students. The Adequate Public School fee for 59 units is approximately $433,945. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the final plat for Twin Ridge subject to an agreement for the APFO school fee requirements and final approval from the Health Department. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Vote was unanimously approved.

Emerald Point PUD - Final Plat Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a final development plan for Emeraid Pointe PUD. The site is located at the intersection of Leitersburg Pike and Marsh Pike. The zoning is A-PUD. The developer is 26 proposing 90. townhouses, 91 semi-detached units, 87 single-family lots, and 1.29 acres for commercial use, and a retirement living center on 8.32 acres. There are 6.71 acres of floodplain and 4.21 acres for stormwater management. The forest conservation requirement will be met by planting 13.5 acres of forest onsite. During the review of the preliminary plat in January 2003, the Planning Commission discussed their concerns on the setbacks of the commercial area. The developer agreed to reevaluate the layout of the area. Two iots were eliminated to the rear of the commercial area, to meet the 50' setback and landscaping is proposed as a buffer around the pool area, as shown on the landscaping plan. All agency approvals have been received except from the Health Department. The phasing plan for the amenities has been outlined on the plan. Mr. Goodrich stated that the proposed PUD would be subject to the APFO school requirements. The developer, Mr. Crampton stated that the decision to target an age group and restrict the deeds or to pay the APFO school fee would be made before final plat approval. The Hcfmeowners Association documents are currently under review by the County Attorney's Office and the Engineering Department. Mr. Kercheval again stated that one of his concerns was if Marsh Pike was expanded to a four-lane road in the future, whether there would be adequate spacing. He has discussed this concern with the County Engineer and there is spacing for four lanes, but there is not enough spacing for accelldecel lanes on each side of the roadway. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the final development plan for Emerald Pointe PUD. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Tri-State Fencing & Lawn Service Ms. Wagner presented for approval a site plan for Tri-State Fencing and Lawn Service. The subject site is located on the east side of Oak Ridge Place, south of east Oak Ridge Drive. The property is zoned Industrial Transitional. The parcel area is 2.99 acres. The owner is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot building for an office and storage building. There will be a freestanding interchangeable sign. The business hours will be Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by appointment. The required and provided parking is 10 spaces. There will be two employees. There wili .be one tractor-trailer delivery per week. Landscaping will be provided around the front of the building and around the sign. Building mounted lights will provide the lighting. Recyclables and solid waste will be collected inside the building and removed by a private hauler. Private water and sewer wili serve the site. The proposal qualifies for the express procedure and the developer has elected to utilize this option to meet the forest conservation requirements. All agencies have approved the plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved

Flohr Pools Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Flohr Pools. The subject site is located along the south side of Oak Ridge Drive. The parcel area is 2 acres and is zoned IT. The owner is proposing to construct a 7,200 square foot warehouse addition to the rear of the existing building. The total floor space wili be 13,200 square feet. There are three employees and no new employees wili be added as a result of the expansion. Customers projected per day will be 25 and there wili be two deliveries per week. Parking required and provided will be 15 spaces. Private water and sewer will serve the site. Solid waste will be disposed of in an existing dumpster. Lighting will be building mounted on the new addition. No new signs are proposed. Landscaping will consist of nine Leyland cypress trees placed along the rear of the addition. The forest conservation requirement will be .30 acres and the owner has requested to pay the fee in lieu of $1,306.80 for the forest mitigation. The owner, Mr. Flohr, was present and stated that, due to the septic and the stormwater management areas there is no room for onsite planting. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the site pian and payment in lieu of request. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Trailer Enterprises Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Trailer Enterprises. The subject site is located along the east side of Maugansville Road. Zoning is Agricultural. The property owner is proposing to construct a 4,000 square foot addition for trailer maintenance. The existing building is for the purpose of selling agriculturai and horse trailers. The total site area is 3 acres and is served by an individual well and septic system. The existing sign is building mounted and no new sign is proposed. A screened dumpster is proposed. There are two employees. Six parking spaces are required and provided. The hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The site is exempt from forest conservation requirements because the disturbance is iess than 40,000 square feet. All approvals have been received. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimousiyapproved.

Kegerreis Outdoor Advertising - Sharpsburg Pike Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed biliboard sign for Kegerreis Outdoor Advertising. The proposed location for the sign is on the lands of Jeffrey Crampton located on the east side of the Sharpsburg Pike, north of the State Prison Complex. The property is zoned IG and outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use. Ms. Baker proVided a brief history of the proposal. In November 2002, an appeal was filed for variances from the required setbacks. It was denied in December 2002. In June 2003, the plan was revised and reevaluated by the Permits & Inspection Department. The new proposal showed the proper setbacks, as determined by Staff and confirmed by the County Attorney. The current proposal reflects the revision and proposes four separate signs, with two signs on each side. Each sign will measure 24.5' long by apprOXimately 12' in height and each sign will be approximateiy 295 square feet. The total height of the entire structure will be approximateiy 41' high. The sign wili be located 100' from the centerline of the Sharpsburg Pike. The dedicated right-of-way is 50' and the 27 setbacks are measured Irom the right-ol-way line lor another 50'. All lighting lor the sign will be shielded to prevent glare onto the adjacent properties and the roadway. All agencies have approved the plan, which includes the State Highway Administration with the caveat that a standard application be submitted when the zoning certification is applied for with the Permits and Inspection Department. Mr. Moser questioned the status of the adjacent stone house. Mr. Goodrich stated that the stone house is in the County's History Inventory and that there is no required buffer planting in the IG zone. A motion was made by Mr. Clopper to deny the request, due to the fact that the proposal is a major tourist corridor to the Antietam Battlefield and the efforts made by the Planning Commission to include historical references in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, and that request is not logical and appropriate by the standards of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. A discussion followed. Mr. Ardinger questioned if the Planning Commission denies the request, could the applicant appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Goodrich confirmed that would be a course of action and stated that he would not encourage the Planning Commission to do so. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission has the legal authority to approve or deny site plans, but in taking that action, the Planning Commission needs to use the standards in the Ordinance to make that decision. Motion carried with, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, Mr. Moser and Ms. Lampton voting "aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "nay." Mr. Anikis stated that he would have to abstain from the vote, because he had testified against the proposal at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing last year, as a private citizen. The request was unanimously denied.

Billboard Moratorium Members discussed the need to address billboard signage and amend the current text 01 the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moser made a motion to ask the County Commissioners to enact a moratorium Countywide on "free standing" billboard signage, until Staff has had an opportunity to draft a revision to the Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Lampton asked Commissioner Kercheval to take the Planning Commission's request to the Board of County Commissioners.

Digging & Rigging, Inc, Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed crane and truck hauling business. The property is located off of Stotler Road, along the south side of Halfway Boulevard. The property is zoned HI-1. The business will be located in an existing building that is 17,000 square feet. The site is 5.67 acres in size. There are 16 existing parking spaces for employees and ten existing spaces for trucks and equipment. The site is serviced by an existing onsite well and septic. The site plan is exempt from stormwater management. Landscaping will consist of a row of white pines, along both side yards to meet the vegetative buffering requirements, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The only disturbance will be the paving of a handicap parking space. There will be two full-time employees onsite and ten employees for field work. No patronage is expected at the site. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the site plan, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

Smithsburg Valley Baptist Church - Addition Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for an addition to the Smithsburg Valley Baptist Church. The property is located on the corner of Maryland 64 and Bikle Road. The parcel is approximately five acres in size and is zoned Agricultural. The site plan proposes a 4,500 square foot addition for an office, Sunday school area, and a 1,200 square foot multi-purpose room for church functions. A parking area will be added and included as a part of this phase. There are two part-time employees. The hours of operation will be on Sundays with occasional meetings throughout the week. Nineteen parking spaces are required and a total of 45 spaces are provided. The site is served by an onsite well and septic system. The existing stormwater management pond has already been designed and approved to handle all phases of the church. All agencies have approved the plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Bingo Island Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Bingo Island. The site is located along the northwest side of Oak Ridge Drive, east of Downsville Pike. The property is zoned Business Local. The applicant is proposing to construct a 160'x1 00' single-story building on 2.5 acres to house a bingo parlor. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted an approval of a Special Exception in February 2004 for the proposed use and there were no special conditions. The site will operate Wednesday through Monday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Five employees are proposed. The parking requirement is 122 spaces including handicap spaces and 124 spaces are provided. There will be a single access onto Oak Ridge Drive. The site does not abut any residentially zoned property; therefore, no additional buffers or setbacks are required. Landscaping is provided around the front of the building and in the parking lot islands. Stormwater management will be handled by a pond located on the east side of the property and has been approved by the Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District. Public water is available to the site by the City of Hagerstown and service is contingent upon review by the Annexation Committee. The County will provide public sewer. There is ample sewer capacity and the design is being reviewed as to where the connection will best serve the adjoining properties that may need service in the future. Lighting will be provided by a combination of pole mounted and building mounted lights. Staff requested that the proposed wall pack design for building mounted lights be changed and that the lighting in the parking area be parallel to the ground to prevent glare and the consultant has agreed to do so. Forest conservation requirements will be addressed by the expressed procedures, which allows automatic use of payment in lieu of when afforestation requirements 28 are less than two acres. There is no existing forest on the site. The forest mitigation is for .38 acres and the payment in lieu fee is $1,655.28. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon final approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and from Washington County Water Quality Department Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Frank Kipe/Micro Dairy Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed micro dairy to be located on the corner of Rowe Road and Maryland 64. The property is 10.3 acres and is zoned Agricultural. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a Special Exception for the proposed use. A micro dairy is not listed as a definition or as a use in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it was found functionally similar to a food processing plant The BZA also granted variances from setbacks for the front yard from 400' to 240', side yard from 400' to 100', and the rear yard setback from 400' to 200'. The owner is proposing a pre­ fabricated 12' x 50' trailer to process and sell dairy products on site. The owner will be the sale employee. Hours of operation will be daily from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The business will consist of 2 to 10 cows onsile for the operation. Two parking spaces are provided. An onsite spring and septic reserve area serve the site. The site is exempt from stormwater management and forest conservation requirements. All agencies have approved or commented on the plan. The Health Department is working with the milk board to finalize the details of the operation. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the Health Department Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved .

• FOREST CONSERVATION

Fletchers Grove - Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan & Mitigation Reguest Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan and mitigation request for Fletchers Grove. The Forest Conservation Plan is for a mixed-use development to be located in the Town of Boonsboro. The Town has delegated the authority to review and approve the Forest Conservation to the County. The total area of the site is 65.65 acres. According to the Forest Stand Delineation, there is 6,4 acres of existing forest on the site. According to the Development Plan and the Forest Conservation Plan, 6.61 acres of forest will be removed and .85 acres of forest will be retained. An additional 1.60 acres of onsite planting is to occur around the retention area. The developer is proposing 8.35 acres of off-site planting on parkland owned by and located in the Town of Boonsboro in Shafer Park. The applicant is requesting to use the payment in lieu of method in the amount of $20,298.96 to address the remaining reqUirement of 4.66 acres. The developer's justification for using the mitigation sequence is outlined in a letter, which states that there are no priority areas on the site, existing forest will be retained in the steep slope area with additional afforestation, and the letter also maintains that off-site forest conservation in Shafer Park would be more appropriate because it contains higher priority areas. Staff commented on the Forest Conservation Plan and suggested that the developer may be able to add some additional planting along the back of the property to serve as a buffer to the adjacent agricultural use and also along the front portion where a commercial area is proposed. The developer's response was that the adjacent agricultural use is located in the Boonsboro Growth Area and in all probability will be developed in the future. The commercial area has not been planned out and will probably be required to do buffering, per the Town of Boonsboro's requirements. Mr. Lung referred to a letter from the Town of Boonsboro, which indicates that they support the request and their willingness to accept the concept of planting in the park. Their letter also requested that the payment in lieu of fee be earmarked for other Town projects. Mr. Lung explained that the Planning Commission does not have the ability to earmark payment in lieu fees to a specific location. Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the preliminary Forest Conservation Plan and the mitigation request Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

South Pointe PUD - Revision to Development Plan Ms. Pietro presented a revision for South Pointe PUD. The property is located off of Oak Ridge Drive. The owner, Mr. Crampton, is proposing to revise the site plan for the existing commercial area of the South Pointe PUD. The revision would connect the parking area located behind the storage building on the commercial parcel to the RV lot located at the end of Sunflower Drive. Mr. Crampton's empioyees would utilize this access to the new parking area where their equipment will be stored without using Sunfiower Drive and disturbing the residents in the area. The revision is being brought before the Planning Commission because this area is located in the 50' buffer. When the PUD is completed the parking lot will serve for future parking of snow removal equipment and other equipment to serve the site and the Homeowners Association will also gain a larger area in the RV storage lot The Homeowners Association has submitted a letter indicating they had no objection to the proposed change. If the revision is approved, a revised site plan will be submitted for approval. Mr. Crampton stated that screen plantings and fencing would also be extended for the new lot Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the revision to the South Pointe PUD, as discussed. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. 29

FUTURE MEETINGS Members discussed scheduling a future workshop to discuss Homeowners Association issues and proposed amenities. A workshop was scheduled for April 26, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. to .discuss billboard signage. Planning Staff will review and obtain information on sign ordinances in other counties to review at the workshop.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Anikis, seconded by Mr. Reiber, to adjourn at 10:24 p.m. Unanimously approved. ~vJ~ A- Jkrr~/Vj Paula A. Lampton Chairperson 30

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - May 3, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission heid its regular meeting on Monday, May 3, 2004 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Interim Planning Director, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. . . I

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding, Mr. Goodrich stated that the revIsion request under Other Business for College Heights PUD would be omitted from the agenda, at the request of the owner who was unable to attend the meeting.

MINUTES

Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the minutes of October 20, 2003, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Reiber abstained. Unanimously approved.

Motion made by Mr. Anikis to approve the minutes of November 17, 2003, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Sf. James Village North - Status Report Ms. Pietro provided an update on the proposed amenities for St. James Village North. As discussed at the previous meeting, the three principal outstanding items were the bus waiting areas, the incorrect pathway around the existing tennis court, and the walking trail in the vicinity of the stormwater management area. Chris Carter with the Transportation Department of the Board of Education, faxed to Ms. Pietro a copy of the current bus waiting locations. Mr. Carter explained that the bus waiting locations could change, based on the number of students. Currently, the bus waiting areas for the elementary school students are located at Stephanie Lane, Mildred Drive, Lyles Drive, Olive Wood Drive, Zima Lane, and Samuel's Circle. Mr. Carter stated that, if parents have problems with the current bus waiting locations, they should contact him. He also stated that he is not in favor of concrete pads being used at bus waiting areas because the locations may not be needed in the future. Mr. Wirf, President of the Homeowners Association, stated that they have put in a request to the Board of Education to reevaluate the bus waiting areas. Ms. Pietro also reported that she had met with Mr. Lyles at the site and discussed the incorrect installation of the walkway at the tennis court, and though it serves the same purpose, it was not installed in the proposed location. Due to the drainage and swail area there was no way to install it in the originally proposed area and the practical location is where it was installed. Mr. Lyles is to meet with the Homeowner's Association in the near future to discuss an alternative to the proposed walking trail. When a resolution is reached, a revised plan will be required for the record. No action was required.

NEW BUSINESS

- VARIANCES:

Rodney and Toni Metzger, Parcels 1 & 2 - Panhandle Length Ms. Wagner presented for review and approval a variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance, regarding panhandle length and width. The property is located on Chestnut Grove Road and is zoned Conservation. All necessary approvals have been received. Parcel 1 does not access to Chestnut Grove Road. The applicants are proposing to use 0.35 acres of Parcel 2 to create a panhandle for Parcel 1. The panhandle will be 684' in length, and the width is reduced to approximately 9' in some places. An existing road runs from Chestnut Grove Road to the existing residence on Parcei 2. The applicants want to hold the centerline of the existing lane as the new property line, with each parcel using the existing lane for access. The consultant, Mr. Frederick of Frederick Seibert and Associates stated that the owner wanted to keep a right of way over half of the lane and vice-versus for the other property owner; however, the applicant would agree to widen the lane to 25' to address the width issue. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to grant the variance request for the panhandle length, but denied the variance request to reduce the width and required that the right-of-way be widened to 25'. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. 31 • SUBDIVISIONS:

Riverwood, Lots 12·21 - Final Plat & Final Forest Conservation Plan Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the final plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Lots 12-21 of the Riverwood subdivision. No changes were made to the preliminary plat that was approved in October 2003. The property is located along the east side of Gift Road, south of Clear Spring. The property is zoned Agricultural. The developer is proposing to create ten single-family lots on 17 acres. The lot sizes range from 1 to 3.7 acres. Individual welis and septic systems wili serve the lots. A new street wili be constructed to serve all lots. Forest conservation requirements wili be met by retaining 6.7 acres of existing forest on the remaining lands. The site is located in the Clear Spring school district, which is currently inadequate. The developer must enter into an agreement with the County to pay the school mitigation fee. Ali agency approvals have been received. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the final plat and Forest Conservation Plan, contingent upon an agreement to address the APFO school fee requirement. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved.

Lulu A. Swain - Simplified Plat Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a simplified plat for Lulu A. Swain. Ms. Pietro stated that the Subdivision Ordinance was amended several years ago to eliminate the creation of stand-alone lots, or lots created not for development. The simplified procedure is used to adjoin properties to existing lots and the common boundary is vacated. The property is a large tract of land located on Roberts Road, west of Sidling Hill. The owner is proposing to create a stand-alone lot of 20 acres. No development is proposed on the lot. There would be 62 acres of remaining lands. The owner, Ms. Swain intends to seli the lot to a buyer (Mr. Vickers) who wishes to use the property for camping and hunting purposes. Mr. Vickers was present and stated that the lot is not for the intent of building, but it would be used for his personal use. Ms. Pietro stated that the request does not comply with the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. Also, Roberts Road is inadequate, particularly the width of the road. The Engineering Department has approved the plat, as a simplified plat, but they would deny the plat if development would occur, because it does not meet the requirements of the APFO. Ms. Pietro also stated that some of the neighbors have expressed their concerns with the proposal, given the inadequacy of Roberts Road and . their fear is that the lot would eventualiy be developed. Ms. Quick, an adjacent property owner, presented photos of Roberts Road for the Planning Commission's review. Ms. Pietro stated that the intent of the Ordinance would be met only if a preliminary/final was submitted for the property and it met ali the requirements, including making the road adequate. Ms. Pietro explained that the Ordinance was amended because future property owners of simplified transfers believed they had a lot of record, until they applied for a building permit and discovered that the lot was not for development. Mr. Goodrich explained that there is a clause in the Ordinance that states "other purposes not specified above may be considered individualiy by the Planning Commission," which is the basis of presenting the plat to the Planning Commission. Ms. Pietro stated that the standard note is placed on the deed that the plat is "not for development" and the note will also be added on the new plat. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the simplified plat and the request to subdivide the property, as stated. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Motion carried with, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, and Mr. Reiber voting "aye." Mr. Moser and Ms. Lampton voting "nay." So ordered.

. SITE PLANS:

Peaceable Pathways Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Peaceable Pathways. The subject site is located on the north side of Spielman Road, near its intersection with Fairplay Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. The property owner is proposing to instali a horse boarding facility and a dog training school on a 80 acre parcel. The existing structures consist of a barn, frame buildings, house, metal barn, and horse paddock area. The owner is proposing a dog obedience field training area, and a boarding facility for 20 horses, which will be enclosed in the existing metal barn. The horse boarding facility is 1,100 square feet. There wili be one fuli-time employee. Hours of operation are Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The dog training school will be 1,394 square feet. There will be one part-time employee. Hours of operation are 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for one hour classes with eight participants per class. Four one week day camps will be conducted in the summer for 20 participants. Total parking provided is 14 spaces for both facilities. Freight and delivery wlli be one to two times per week. Solid waste will be stored inside and removed by commercial pickUp. The floodplain and wetland areas on the property will not be affected by the operation. Ali setback requirements have been met. The existing building mounted lights will be used. A 3' x 3' sign is proposed at the entrance. All agency approvals have been received. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since there is no change in use. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved

Crosspoint Shopping Center. Section 2 Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a Preliminary Subdivision Plat and a Site Plan for Section 2 of the Crosspoint Shopping Center. The subject site is located along the south side of Cole Road, west of the Target store. A Preliminary Site Plan was reviewed and approved in 1998 for the entire shopping center. In 1999, a site plan and subdivision plat was approved for Section 1, which includes the Target store, Michael's Craft store, several smalier retail stores, and an out parcel for retail shops. Section 1 also addressed stormwater management and forest conservation requirements for the entire development. Section 2 will consist of a Kohl's department store, five smalier retail spaces, two other retail spaces on an out parcel, and an out parcel for a proposed restaurant. The Kohl's store wili be located on 9.83 acres and the other proposed development wili be located on the remaining lands of 61.5 32 acres. There is a mixture of HI-1, Planned Business, and Business General zoning on the property. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for a zero setback line so the property line between the Kohl's and the other stores will be through the building. The developer was also granted a variance for a reduction in the required parking spaces from 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 5 spaces. The same variance request was previously granted for the Target store. The parking field for Kohl's and the other stores will tie In with the existing parking lot in Section 1. There will be three new access points onto Cole Road. There are dumpster locations and loading docks located to the rear of the proposed stores. Based upon the variances granted, 542 parking spaces are required for the Kohl's site and 556 spaces are provided along with the handicap spaces. The additional commercial retail stores and the restaurant require 652 spaces and 683 spaces are provided. There is approximately 10% green space provided In the parking field. Landscaping will be provided throughout the site, along with buffering along Cole Road to screen any headlight glare to the adjacent residential development. A buffer of staggered, double row Leyland cypress trees will be added behind the building, adjacent to the Hickory Elementary School. There will be a building mounted sign on the Kohl's building, which faces Interstate 81. The existing freestanding sign will be expanded to accommodate the signs for the additional development and it will be In compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Hagerstown will provide public water to the site. Public sewer will be provided by the County. All reviewing agencies have reviewed the plan and revisions have been made to address those comments. Final approvals have not been received and there does not appear to be any outstanding comments that have not been addressed. Mr. Lung stated that the State Highway Administration Is studying the need for an additional right-of-way with the 1-81 widening project and it appears that an additional right-of-way may be needed in this area along 1-81. Mr. Moser questioned If buffering would be required along 1-81 to shield headlight glare. The consultant, Gordon Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, stated that the building pads are much higher than 1-81 and there are existing trees along the right of way fence. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approval for Section 2 contingent upon receipt of all agency approvals and giving the Staff authority to approve any minor modifications of the building footprints on the out parcels. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Hoffman Quality Meats/Mini Warehouses .Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Hoffman Quality Meats for additional mini warehouses. The subject site Is located along the north side of the Cearfoss Pike. Zoning is Agricultural. Total parcel area is 9.36 acres. The property owner Is proposing to construct two additional storage buildings on the existing mini warehouse site. The front portion of the parcel is the existing Hoffman's Quality Meat facility and to the rear is the existing storage warehouses. The additional storage buildings are 240' x 20' divided into three sections. The new warehouses will have building mounted lights and will be shielded downward. The existing dumpster will be used. No water and sewer facilities are needed and no employees are proposed. Hours of operation are 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The existing gravel lane will be extended around each of the buildings and there will be no access to the rear of the warehouses. The owner has requested to pay the fee in lieu of in the amount of $842.50, to meet the forest conservation requirements. The property owner was granted a Special Exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals in February 2004, to establish the additional mini warehouses on site. All agency approvals have been received. Ms. Pietro explained that the site plan was presented before the Pianning Commission because the Staff has recommended the use of screening on the site. Currently, there is no screening on the site and the owner is not in favor of adding the requested screening. The owner, Mr. Hoffman was present and explained that the primary reason he does not want to plant trees is for security reasons, because the facility is open 24 hours a day. Private security is utilized onsite. He also explained that he had purchased the land adjacent to the rear of the site so that he would not have any encroachment. The lighting used on the existing buildings is low sodium wall packs and the same style is proposed for the new buildings. The lights will be placed on the corners and not on the rear of the buildings. The consultant, Merle Seville of Antietam Design, stated that this is the final phase of the site and that the screening issue has not been discussed before. He further stated that the site Is approximately one-half mile away from the residential area and that the screening would not make a difference. Due to the slope behind the proposed warehouses, any trees that would be planted would be much lower than the warehouses and it would take many years, if ever, for the trees to camouflage the buildings. Mr. Goodrich stated that a standard note can be added on the plan that the lights will not spill over onto the adjacent property, and if it occurs, there is a mechanism to address the spillage. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to grant site plan approval, as presented, excluding the need for buffering along the back of the property and approval of the payment in lieu of request to meet the forest conservation requirements, and that the site be in compliance with the lighting requirements to prevent spillage and if so, that adjustments would be made to address the issue. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Motion carried with, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, Ms. Lampton, Mr. Moser, and Mr. Reiber voting "aye." Mr. Anikis voting "nay."

Crossroads Business Park. Lot 2 Mr. Goodrich presented for review and approval a preliminary plat and site plan for Lot 2 of Crossroads Business Park. Lot 2 is the parcel proposed for the Tractor Supply Corporation to build a new distribution center. The site Is located on the east side of Hopewell Road. This is a fast track project to encourage economic development and Staff is requesting authority to grant approvals upon completion of all agency reviews to accelerate the approval process. Lot 2 is approximately 53 acres and 47 acres will remain to the north of the site. The property is zoned Industrial General. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480,000 square foot distribution facility for their retail outlets in the Mid-Atlantic region. The facility will be 35' in height. There will be one access point onto Hopewell Road. Parking will be prOVided for 318 trailers and 210 cars. The hours of operation are yet to be determined. There will be approximately 180 empioyees. Public water and sewer will serve the site. A sewer line will be constructed along the northern portion of the property. The stormwater management will be located on the front of the property 33 between the road and parking area. A landscaping plan proposes a variety of plantings around the perimeter of the site. There is approximately a 12' to 15' difference in grade, with the interstate being higher than the final elevation of the parking area of the site, which will help screen part of the site. The forest conservation requirements will be met by planting 6.25 acres of new forest on the site, focusing on the existing priority areas of floodplain and wetlands. The total forest conservation obligation is 7.45 acres. The developer wishes to pay the fee in lieu of for the remaining mitigation of 1.21 acres in the amount of approximately $5,200. Mr. Goodrich said the State Highway Administration commented that the study of additional right of way for the 1-81 widening project may effect the grading of this project. Mr. Clopper stated that he would prefer that the existing trees along 1-81 be retained. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the Planning Staff authority to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat, final site plan, the forest conservation plan, and the payment in lieu of request and that the Staff would provide a brief report to the Planning Commission when the project has been approved. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Unanimously approved.

- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS

Misty Valley Ms. Pietro presented for review a preliminary consultation for Misty Valley. The consultation was held on April 14, 2004. The subject site is located along the east side of Little Antietam Road, south of Leitersburg. The developer is proposing to create 12 single-family lots with lot sizes ranging from 1 to 15 acres. The total site acreage is 71 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural. Ms. Pietro stated she had nothing further to add to the summary provided. She proceeded to provide an overview of the agency comments. The Health Department commented that all testing onsile would follow the Onsite Sewage Disposal Ordinance. There are restricted soils on the site that will have to be tested during the restricted soil season. The Engineering Department commented that stormwater management will be required and that all lots must access the proposed streets. The State Highway Administration commented on the access spacing and will require an accel/decel lane and a hydraulic review. Staff commented that the proposed subdivision meets the new Agricultural zoning density requirements. Future subdivision of the . property will not be an issue, with the new density requirements. The proposed subdivision is located in the Old Forge Elementary school district. According to the current student enrollment figures, the elementary SChool is over capacity by 43 students. The development will have to comply with the new APFO school requirements. The developer stated that he plans to retain the forest onsite to meet the forest conservation requirements. The consultant will renumber the lots to resolve the numbering issue and that action will not effect the proposal. No action was required.

Monroe Manor Estates Ms. Baker presented for review a preliminary consultation for Monroe Manor Estates. The developer is proposing 18 lots on property located on the west side of Mill Point Road, north of Manor Church Road and Monroe Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. Private well and septic will service all lots. The Health Department has required two test wells on the property, with both wells being tested within one day after a rainfall event of .25 inch or more. The subdivision is located in the Boonsboro school district. The Boonsboro Elementary School currently exceeds the 85% threshold and is inadequate, per the Adequate Facilities Ordinance. The developer was made aware of the school inadequacy during the consultation and he understands the implications and that mitigation may be needed in the future. The developer will also be notified of the school status again at preliminary plat stage and at final plat. The developer plans to address the forest conservation requirements by retaining existing forest. Additional plantings will be added, if needed. The responding agencies have submitted general comments on the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is located within the rural area of the County and is subject to the moratorium established by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Baker referred to a letter received from the consultant that, even though the subdivision exceeds the maximum five-lot allowance under the moratorium, it does meet the new proposed density per the Comprehensive Plan. As stipulated in the Moratorium Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners may consider an application for exemption from the effect of this Ordinance for any subdivision that, in the opinion of the Planning Director, is consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan following review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Kercheval voiced his concerns on the steep driveways and questioned whether emergency vehicles would have difficulty, given the steep slopes. Ms. Baker stated that she forwarded a copy of the concept to Fire and Rescue for forwarding to the responding fire company and no comments were made on the concept plan. The preliminary plat will also be forwarded in the future to the Fire and Rescue for comment. Mr. Goodrich suggested that a way to address the issue of steep driveways in the future would be to have an adopted standard for a percent or grade that a developer could not exceed, as a design guideline that would be adopted within the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Baker stated that the developer has addressed the concern on the steep driveway and plans to have the driveways completed before the houses are built. Each driveway will have a detailed grading plan and will be paved. Mr. Moser questioned the stormwater management area and the ability for future subdivision. Ms. Baker stated that the proposed stormwater management area will service the majority of the development and a few lots will be managed onsite. The remaining lands will not be subdivided and a note will be added to the plat to encumber the rest of the property. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed subdivision can more forward under the current moratorium. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved. 34 OTHER BUSINESS

Proposed APFO Amendments Mr. Goodrich stated the Board of County Commissioners conducted a hearing on April 27, 2004, on the proposed amendments to Section V of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) regarding schools. He proceeded to review the proposed amendments. The formula has been adjusted and the contribution is now based on the number of students that are over the school's capacity. Before the formula worked to calculate a cost per unit. This change results in a different contribution, which is less than originally predicted. The standard pupil yield is .41 students per unit and within that calculation Is the breakdown of 0.2 for elementary students, 0.1 for middle school students, and .11 for high school students. The school mitigation fee will be utilized to address the schools in the County that are over capacity. Mr. Kercheval stated that also included in the amendment to the APFO is that the County Commissioners will require bonding or surety to cover the mitigation providing deferred payment of fees. No action was required.

FUTURE MEETINGS

Planning Commission members discussed and agreed to hold a workshop meeting on May 17, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. to discuss billboard signage. The Board of County Commissioners will consider whether to enact a moratorium on billboards.

Ms. Lampton reported that her term as a Planning Commission member would expire at the end of June. The Election of Officers will be held during the regular June meeting.

Mr. Anikis and the Planning Commission members acknowledged Steve Goodrich for his service as the Interim Planning Director. Steve Goodrich thanked the Planning Staff for their assistance during his tenure as Interim Director.

Mr. Kercheval introduced Michael Thompson, who was recently appointed as the new Planning Director. Mr. Anikis suggested a meeting with the new director to discuss a variety of issues.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Reiber, to adjourn at 9:53 p.m. Unanimously approved.

? 0IN'd1- A rl!?vrf!uvl Paula A. Lampton V Chairperson 35 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 17, 2004

The Washington County Pianning Commission and Planning Staff heid a workshop meeting on Monday, May 17, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson; R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Terry Reiber, George Anikis, Jim Kercheval and Bernard Moser. Staff: Interim Director, Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planner, Tim Lung; Associate Planners, Jill Baker and Misty Wagner; Jennifer Kinzer, GIS Analyst; Eric Seifarth, Ag Land Preservation Administrator, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

DISCUSSION

Billboard Information It Ms. Baker stated that, based upon the Planning Commission members concerns and the direction in which the Staff wishes to pursue changes to the Zoning Ordinance, particularly with billboard signage, Staff has researched and compiled information on billboard signage. Staff is seeking input from the Pianning Commission and the County Commissioners to formulate a proposed text amendment to present at a special pUbiic hearing. Ms. Baker provided brief overview of the information she collected on billboard signage regulations throughout Maryland and the Washington Township in Pennsylvania (see attached). She explained that some counties prohibit billboards, while other counties limit the size, height, and content (i.e. cigarette, alcohol ads) of billboard signage. She also discussed that, one of the issues of implementing stricter regulations, particularly with regulating content, would be the manpower to enforce the regulations. Another issue associated with billboard signage placement that also should be considered, is the Highway Beautification Act, which limits billboard slgnage within 660' from a State highway right-of-way and the visibiiity of signage. The County could lose 10% of its Federal highway funding for noncompiiance. Ms. Baker stated that this issue should be considered from a County and State standpoint, because the State of Maryland has also taken a stance on signage.

The Planning Commission discussed their concerns and ideas for provisions on billboard signage. They . discussed the creation of a review board, similar to the review board created In Montgomery County. Members also discussed the recent approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the appeal filed by Kegerreis Outdoor Advertising on the Planning Commission's denial of the billboard proposed for the Sharpsburg Pike and whether an amortization period could occur on existing billboards. Ms. Lampton requested information on the legal status of amortization. Mr. Kercheval suggested that existing, undesirable signage could be provided an option to relocate the sign in a more appropriate location. Mr. Kercheval also questioned Staff on the setback issue discussed during the review of the billboard proposed on the Sharpsburg Pike. Ms. Baker stated that there is a clause in the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the front yard setback for billboards that is unclear and would be addressed. Mr. Goodrich commented that the gUidelines for billboard signage should be written specifically and clearly enough, to know when a violation occurs.

It was the general consensus of the Members that amendments should be prepared that would allow no new billboards. There also needs to be guideiines to address existing billboards or the relocation of existing billboards. Standards discussed included limiting billboards to 300' in size, 35' in height, 2-sided with 1 sign per each side, and would require landscaping, maintenance, and criteria for iighting. The criteria would also include the setbacks from major intersections and from existing billboards (number per parcel), and would restrict the location of billboards from certain roadways utilizing the National Scenic Highway and the Civil War Heritage Routes, as noted on the Speciai Programs Area Map in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Board of County Commissioners will hold a pubiic hearing on May 25, 2004, on a proposed moratorium on billboard signage.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON COMPREHENSIVE REZONING

Updated Table - Formal Requests to Review Zoning

The updated table will be attached to the final report. A public hearing may be scheduled in the future to obtain additional pubiic input on the individual rezoning requests.

Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing

Mr. Goodrich presented a draft of the Staff Report for the Commission's information. He stated it was a very preliminary work in progress and asked that the draft document not be copied or distributed. Most of the report outlines the routine information about the hearing process and is not subject to discussion. Mr. Goodrich explained that the Staff's point of view is, that they have spent a considerable amount of time developing the Comprehensive Plan and on the Comprehensive rezoning to implement the Plan. Staff beiieves that the Comprehensive rezoning is the appropriate method to implement the Plan and stands behind it as presented with a few modifications. Mr. Goodrich asked the Planning Commission to focus on the Staff's recommendation for changes to the Comprehensive Rezoning proposal, at the end of the report. The changes were based on concerns that were discussed during the pubiic hearings, and from the written testimony. Staff recommends the following:

1) Density - Rural Area Mr. Goodrich stated that, aside from the concern and objection to the new density proposals, the biggest issue raised was that many small property owners beiieved that they will lose any opportunity 36 to subdivide their land to raise capital, provide lots for family members, retirement, etc., because of the new density requirements.

Recommendation: Staff recommends a method to address this concern by permitting lot exemptions that are not subject to the new density requirements. Staff expressed concerns about recommending a specific number of lots, acknowledging that one would not be sufficient. After much discussion, Staff concluded it could recommend two lots that may allow property owners to recoup funds they were expecting from subdividing lots and would also allow them to redirect their investments and not rely solely on land values. Mr. Goodrich stressed that no matter what number is determined as the number of lot exempted, it will not please everyone.

Mr. Goodrich commented that the task force is also pursuing a lot allowance option and their recommendation is to permit up to 5-lots per parcel at the existing zoning density. Ms. Lampton stated that a member of the task force, Debi Turpin, had questioned her about the outcome of the bonus densities previously discussed and proposed by the Planning Commission, before the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. At that time, the County Commissioners thought the bonuses were too unwieldy and difficult. Mr. Goodrich added that the bonus densities were proposed when the Ag density was proposed at the 1:10 density.

2) Proposed Setbacks Mr. Goodrich stated that while 50' side and rear yard setbacks were not understood on a lot that is only 100' wide, Staff understood that the proposed setbacks were the minimums. One way to address this concern is to go back to the previous setbacks in the Ag zone, but that would not address the original intent for the greater setbacks to create a buffer between Ag operations and residential development.

Recommendation: Staff recommends a method to require the greater setbacks of 50" when residential development is next to Ag preservation districts or by utilizing a sliding scale where the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and the minimum width of 100' would use the lowest setback. As the lot size increases, the setbacks would also increase.

3) Rural Business - New The rezoning procedure to obtain the Rural Business (New) designation triggered a lot of concern about the burden of going through the rezoning process to establish a new business. Certain citizens anticipating starting a new business in the rural area independently brought this concern before the County Commissioners several weeks ago. The concerns are basically the fear of the unknown.

Recommendation: Staff recommends a more specified process with very clear, specific guidelines and with shorter time period to make the process less burdensome than a normal rezoning.

4) Definitions of Truck Stops... The Planning Department received mUltiple comments that the "definitions of truck stop and truck or motor freight terminal" had been previously revised and that the revisions were not included in the proposed definitions. Staff admits the omission of the new definition was an oversight.

Recommendation: The new definition will be included within the text.

5) Table of Land Use Regulations Mr. Goodrich stated that the Staff has spent considerable time reviewing the uses that should be in the rural area, omitting uses that should not be in the rural area, revising definitions to make them more modern, and took out the obsolete uses. However, the chart is not perfect and there are still uses that could be appropriate in the rural area that have not been listed on the chart. Previously, such uses were addressed in the current Ordinance by a "functionally similar" category. Staff had omitted that phase because it was the source of a lot of abuse.

Recommendation: The phrase" functionally similar" should be added back to the text, to cover those uses not thought of, but may be appropriate in the rural area.

6) Rural Business Zone Mr. Goodrich explained that the Rural Business zone was criticized as being too permissive, too strict, too vague, or too specific.

Recommendation: Staff acknowledges there are differences in opinion on the uses in the Rural Business zone, but in light of Staff's efforts on the entire rezoning package, and the fact that, in general, the Staff is comfortable with their proposal and does not offer any changes to the Rural Business zone.

Mr. Reiber made a motion to accept the Staff's recommendation on Issue 1 to allow a 2-lot exemption, plus the remaining land. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis made a motion to accept the Staffs findings for Issues 2 through 6, as proposed. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved. 37 Staff will present the final report for formal action by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting scheduled for June 7, 2004. Staff has begun to address the proposed changes to the Urban Growth Area to amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Comprehensive Plan.

OTHER BUSINESS

June 8, 2004 is the tentative date for the recommendation by the task force to the County Commissioners. The meeting will tentatively be held in the evening at the Kepler Theater.

ADJOURMENT

Motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Clopper, to adjourn at 3:50 p.m. Unanimously approved. IM£~L Paula A. Lampton (j Chairperson 39

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIO~ REGULAR MEETING - June 7, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held Its regular meeting on Monday, June 7, 2004 In the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Vice-Chairman, Don Ardinger; and Members: R. Ben Clopper, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. The Chairperson, Paula Lampton was absent.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding, Mr. Ardinger welcomed Mike Thompson as the new Planning Director, and reiterated the Planning Commission's recognition of Steve Goodrich for his diligent work as Interim Director.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Mr. Thompson conducted the Election by a slate basis. Mr. Anikis nominated Don Ardinger as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Ardinger nominated Mr. Clopper as Vice­ Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. The nominations were unanimously approved. The newly elected officers will take office at the July meeting .

. MINUTES

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of January 12, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of February 16, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Clopper made a motion to table the workshop minutes of March 29, 2004 for clarification on information presented by the Health Department. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. The motion was unanimously approved.

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of May 17, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Richard & Eileen Norkunas, Lot 1 Ms. Pietro stated she had nothing further to add to her memorandum, which outlined the request by Mr. and Mrs. Norkunas to proceed to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a waiver of the APFO school mitigation. Ms. Pietro explained that an official denial from the Planning Commission was necessary for the applicant to proceed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mrs. Norkunas was present and confirmed the request. Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the waiver from the APFO school fee. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. The motion was unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

• VARIANCES:

Ringgold Church of Christ - Panhandle Length Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a variance request for Ringgold Church of Christ. The subject site is located along the west side of Barkdoll Road, in the Town of Ringgold. The property is zoned Agricultural. The total tract Is 2.2 acres. The request is to create a panhandle in excess of 400'. The Board Chairman of the church, Mr. Edward Knepper, had ind"lcated that the church has purchased approximately 2.5 to 3.0 acres from Mr. Schell. Currently, a panhandle separates the newly acquired church property and the remaining land of the church, which lies to the immediate north. Mr. Conley, the owner of the existing panhandie and the church, are requesting a variance, in order to relocate Mr. Conley's driveway to the southern property line and provide access to Barkdoll Road. The current panhandle length is 600' and the proposed panhandle will be 800' in length. Section 405.11 G5 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all panhandle lengths be 400' or less. A motion was made by Mr. Clopper to grant the variance request for the relocation and extension of the panhandle. Seconded by Mr. Anlkls. Unanimously approved. 40

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Mt. Aetna Subdivision, Lots 26 - 30 - Preliminarv Plat Mr. Lung presented for approval the preliminary plat for lots 26 through 30 of the Mt. Aetna subdivision. The property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road, east of Maryland Route 66. The proposed lots are situated on 79 acres and zoned Agricultural. The property is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area. Previously, the owner subdivided 24 lots and currently, a one-lot subdivision (Lot 25), for Troy Henson is being reviewed. The Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan for the proposed additional lots in November 2003. Previous subdivision plats included a note that stated there should be no further subdivision of the property without the Planning Commission's approval and the basis of that note was due to the combination of unique features on the property. The Planning Commission did not endorse the concept plan and no formal action was taken. Mr. Lung stated that, after the Planning Commission's review in November 2003, he had summarized their concerns in a memo to Mr. Easterday. He proceeded to briefly review the concerns previously raised and whether the issues have been addressed. The plat submitted is for five iots and a parcel of remaining lands, which is consistent with the conditions of the moratorium and is also consistent with the density recommendations of the new Environmental Conservation zoning district. The panhandle length has been reduced to 400' and meets the reqUirements of the Ordinance. The proposed design would result in the lengthening of the existing cul-de-sac street an additional 500' for a total of 2,400'. It was the Planning Commission's opinion that this length is excessive, consistent with the comments made by the Engineering Department. This issue has not been addressed and the Engineering Department is still opposed to the length of the cul-de-sac; however, they do not have standards to preclude it. Section 405.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that, "cul-de-sacs shall be designed so as to permit safe ingress and egress. The Planning Commission shall determine the maximum length of a cul-de-sac, based on a provision for emergency access and on the overall subdivision design." Mr. Lung referred to a memo received from Joe Kroboth, Director of Fire and Emergency Serv'lce, which stated that he is also in opposition to the additional length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kroboth has offered to discuss other options that may be feasible with the applicant to address fire safety concerns. The total length of the cul-de-sac, from Mt. Aetna Road, is approximately 2,700'. The applicant will have to comply with the necessary upgrades needed on 'Mt. Aetna Road. PreViously, there were concerns regarding the impact of additional lots within the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area, without additional hydro-geologic studies or well testing. The Health Department has reviewed the subdivision plat and has issued an approval, with comments that they have reviewed the hydro-geologic study submitted for the previous lots and they do not believe additional studies are needed for the additional lots. A double tank septic system would be required, and each tank must be of a larger capacity. A double bio-filter will also be required and, in their opinion, it would provide an additional level of protection from any possible ground water contamination from the septic systems. The Health Department also stated that, due to the large size of most of the lots, the additional septic systems should not pose a concern with ground water in the area. Mr. Easterday had a hydro-geologic study performed when the original subdivision was reviewed and that study piggybacked on a study that was done by the H.B. Mellott Quarry, during their quarry expansion application, which indicated that the geology of this area did not impact the Beaver Creek Spring. Mr. Easterday's geologist took that study and, based on the geology of this property, came to the same conclusion. The Health Department concurred with those findings. The Washington County Soil Conservation District comments included a statement that the developer's consultant has satisfied their concerns regarding potential stream buffer reqUirements. To address the water quantity concern by the Soil Conservation District, some additional testing has been requested to insure that there is an adequate water supply during dry periods. In response to the concerns regarding the additional lots in relation to the Zone of De-watering Influence, established by the Maryland Department of the Environment for the H.B. Mellott Quarry, the Soil Conservation District's comments addressed the need for additional testing to determine the adequacy of the adequate water supply to these lots. The lots have been redesigned so that the lots are not entirely in the Zone of De-watering Influence. The Soil Conservation District has reviewed the proposed subdivision and they have issued their approval, with conditions regarding the need for an additional study to determine the availability of adequate water supply. A discussion followed on the Planning Commission's concerns. Members questioned the applicant's plans for the remaining lands. The applicant indicated that he would like to build his home on the remaining lands and agreed with the Planning Commission's suggestion that a note be added to the plat that the remaining lands would not be developed for more than one residential dwelling. Mr. Lung commented that there would always be the possibility that the lands would be subdivided, and there would be nothing to prohibit the property owner to ask for relief from that condition in the future. Mr. Anikis made a motion to tabie the preliminary plat for thirty days to allow the applicant to meet with the Director of Fire and Emergency Services to discuss a solution that satisfies the requirements for fire safety. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. The motion to table this matter was unanimously approved.

Woodberry Commons, Section A (formerly Nursery Mews) - Preliminary Plat Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a preliminary development plat for Woodberry Commons, Section A. The site is located northwest of the intersection of Nursery Road and Evergreen Drive. The property is zoned Residential Urban. A preliminary consultation was held in June 2003. The overall development proposed 29 duplex lots for 58 units on 12.07 acres. Section A consists of 12 semi­ detached units on 12 lots, averaging 6,000 square feet per lot. Each unit will share an entrance to the respective roadways. Each duplex will have one access with four parking spaces in front. Public water and sewer will serve units. A stormwater management pond will serve the entire site. The Engineering Department has recommended that the units on this property do not contain basements and a note has been added on the plat. In October 2003, the Planning Commission approved the payment in lieu of method, to address the forest conservation requirements. The subdivision is located in the Hickory Elementary, Springfield Middle School, and Williamsport High School districts. The developer has been 41 notified that Hickory Elementary is currently inadequate and mitigation may be necessary, should that school exceed capacity at final plat stage. One outstanding issue remains that requires clarification from the Pianning Commission. During the review of the preliminary consultation, the Planning Commission had requested fencing along the boundary of the railroad tracks to serve as a buffer. During the design process, the stormwater management pond for Section A was located along the western boundary of the property, adjacent to the railroad tracks. The developer is proposing fencing to start at the northernmost point of the stormwater management pond and continue north along the boundary line. This would allow a gap along the adjacent property boundary, located along the railroad tracks. Staff is requesting clarification of the Planning Commissioner's intentions regarding fencing. Agency approvals are pending from the Washington County Water Quality Department, City Water Department, and the Soil Conservation District. Mr. Anikis suggested that the stormwater management pond be fenced for safety reasons, and aiso to prevent crossing to the railroad tracks during a dry season. The consultant, Mr. Cump of Cump & Associates agreed to add the fencing around the pond. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary development plat contingent upon receiving all final approvals and fencing of the stormwater management pond. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimousiyapproved.

Appletown Estates, Lots 1-9 - Final Plat Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a final plat and final Forest Conservation Plan for Appletown Estates, Lots 1-9. The site is located on the west side of Appletown Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. This subdivision was one of the eight exempted from the moratorium status. The developer is proposing nine single-family lots on 17.81 acres. A new cul-de-sac street will service the proposed subdivision. A stormwater management pond will be located onsite. Forest conservation requirements wiil be met by a combination of onsite retention and onsite planting. The subdivision is located in the Boonsboro schooi district. Boonsboro Elementary is currently over capacity, per the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The developer has been notified and he acknowiedges the required school mitigation, and has begun the proceedings to enter into an agreement with the County. All agencies have approved the pian. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the final plat and final Forest Conservation Plan, subject to the school mitigation fee. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

. SITE PLANS:

Cedar Ridge Children's Home - Radio Station Ms. Wagner presented for review and approval a site plan for Cedar Ridge Children's Home radio station. The subject property is located on the east side of Cedar Ridge Road, south of 1-70. The property Is zoned Agricultural. The total site area is 122.12 acres. The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted a Special Exception to ailow the use of a radio station. The site plan proposes a 5,184 square foot building to house the administration, production and broadcasting offices for the existing Cedar Ridge Ministries radio station, aiso known as WCRH. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. There are eight full-time employees and no new employees are proposed. The radio station receives approximately one visitor per day for interviewing purposes. ApproXimately one to two deliveries are proposed daily. Sixteen parking spaces are required and 24 spaces with one handicap space are proposed. A building mounted sign and building mounted lights are proposed. The site Is served by a private onsile sewage collection and treatment facility and a private well. Trash will be disposed of in an existing dumpster and removed by a private hauler. The stormwater requirements will be met by the installation of a bio-retention area. The forest conservation requirements will be met by onsite retention. Landscaping will be provided around the front of the bUilding and in the parking area. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site plan approval and approval of the proposed onsite forest retention. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Brookmeade Drive Apartments Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan and Forest Conservation Plan for Brookmeade Drive Apartments. He began the presentation by explaining that the site plan was previously scheduled for Planning Commission action at the April meeting. The plan was withdrawn to allow time for the developer to address the forest conservation issues due to forest clearing occurring on the site prior to approval of a Forest Conservation Plan. The application is for a 120-unit apartment development, located in the northeast quadrant of the 1-81 at the US 11 interchange, just east of Wiliiamsport. The site contains 8.97 acres and is zoned HI-2. Access to the site is off of Brookmeade Drive, which is a dead end County road, which accesses US 11, next to the AC&T convenience store. The applicant is proposing ten, three­ story apartment buildings, each containing 12 units for a total of 120 units. The buildings will be located around a private access road that loops through the development with two access points onto Brookmeade Drive. Parking will be provided around the access road at a ratio of two spaces per unit for a total of 240 spaces, plus the handicap spaces and designated recreation vehicle parking, per the Zoning Ordinance. There will be three play lots in the development that will be connected with a path and sidewalk system. Lights will be provided throughout the parking lots and around the access road via traditionai lamppost styie lamps on 14' poles with 150-watt high-pressure sodium lamps. There will be no building mounted lights. There will be a 7' wide, 5' high residential identification sign located at the front entrance. Landscaping will be provided throughout the site with a variety of trees and shrubs. The stormwater management, bio-retention facility will be located to the rear of the property. The site will be served with public water from the City of Hagerstown and the County will provide sewer service. The proposed development is located in the Williamsport Elementary school district, which Is currently under capacity. The additional students that would be generated by this development would not exceed the capacity, based on the 85% rating. Therefore, no APFO mitigation fee will be required at this time. The developer has provided a school bus waiting pad at the first entrance with a connection to the sidewalks, per the Ordinance; however, the Board of Education has Indicated that, at this time, the bus will not 42 access the development and the students would be picked up at the intersection of Brookmeade Drive and Route 11. Emergency Services recommended that a cul-de-sac be placed at the end of the existing Brookmeade Drive, which is currently a dead-end road. However, due to the location of a pumping station, a cul-de-sac can not be achieved and a resolution was agreed upon, that the developer would add a "T" turnaround. All agencies have approved the plan, except the Hagerstown City Water Department approval is pending payment of the required fees and the Health Department is awaiting the City's approval. A discussion followed on the Planning Commission's concerns about the traffic on US 11 at this intersection, especially during peak hours and their concerns with a school bus waiting area on US 11, given the commercial traffic at the AC&T. Mr. Lung stated that he had doubled checked with both the State Highway Administration and the Engineering Department and both indicated that a traffic study had been performed on the intersection and that no improvements were required to handle the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. Mr. Lung stated that he had spoken with the Board of Education's Transportation Department and he was advised that they do not loop through private developments due to possible weather conditions. Mr. Anikis requested a copy of the traffic study for his review and written comments specific to traffic study from the Engineering Department and the State Highway Administration. The Forest Stand Delineation that was submitted with the site plan indicated that the entire parcel qualified as forest, except for an area that is under the Potomac Edison right of way, along the 1-81 ramp. There were some sensitive areas identified on the rear portion of the property. Upon inspection of the site, prior to the April Planning Commission meeting, it was discovered that a considerable amount of clearing had occurred on the site. The developer's consultant was notified and advised to stop any further work. Apparently, the developer had received some faise information from someone outside of County government that forest clearing was allowed without any approvals if stumps were not removed. The developer also indicated that his contractor for clearing the area was not from this area and was not familiar with the County's regulations. It was also discovered that a grading permit was issued by the Department of Permits & Inspections, based upon the fact that the developer did have the County Engineer and Soil Conservation District signature on the plans. It has been the policy of the County to try and resolve violation issues, correct them, and move on instead of immediately seeking penaities and fines. After the clearing was discovered, the consultant was notified to stake out the area that was originally proposed to be cleared to determine how much actual clearing occurred. A meeting 'was held in the field with the developer and it was determined that clearing had occurred outside of the area originally proposed for clearing. No clearing had occurred in the sensitive areas. Staff instructed the consultant to re-calculate the forest conservation worksheet. The total tract area is 8.97 acres with 8.57 acres of forest being onsite prior to any clearing, and 8.30 acres of forest were cleared and 0.27 acre of forest remains. Based upon the worksheet, 5.01 acres of reforestation is required. In addition to retaining the 0.27 acres, as forest that was not disturbed, the developer is proposing to plan 0.81 acres onsite, which will inciude 28 white pine trees that will also provide a buffer of 1-81. The remaining requirement for forest conservation will be 4.20 acres of planting, located offsite at an area along the Little Beaver Creek, along Bennevola Church Road behind San Mar Children's Home. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend denial of the site plan, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion died with Mr. Anikis and Mr. Moser voting "aye" and Mr. Clopper, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval voting "nay." Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approvals from the Hagerstown Water Department and the Health Department and a re-evaluation of the US 11 and Brookmeade intersection by the State Highway Administration, with a formal clarification, based upon their report. Also, a re­ evaluation by the School Board to address the Planning Commission's concerns in writing on the school bus waiting area. If more space is needed for a bus turnaround, located in the development that it could be arranged. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Motion carried with, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval, and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye." Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis voting "nay." So ordered. A discussion followed on the proposed Forest Conservation Plan. Mr. Kercheval suggested that the offsite reforestation be at a 2:1 ratio for a total of 8.4 acres. Mr. Shaool stated that there is no additional land available at the San Mar location, but he would be happy to do reforestation on land he owns in Hancock. Mr. Lung stated that the Hancock site would have to be reviewed. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to accept the Forest Conservation Plan, as presented, with the addition of 4.2 acres of additional forest to be planted at a location acceptable by Staff and if the additional forest is not feasible, payment in lieu of, for the additional acreage will be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Motion carried with, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval, and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye." Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis voting "nay." So ordered.

PWI Incorporated Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a revised site plan for an existing convenience store, formally known as Nibbie Quik. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of Lappans Road and Sharpsburg Pike. The total tract is 3.7 acres and is zoned Agricultural. The revised site plan includes the relocation of the existing gas pumps on the site and the addition of a new canopy over the three gas pumps. The canopy was actually approved in 1993 by the Board of Zoning Appeais, to be located closer to the road than proposed. The new canopy is approximately 2,500 square feet and approximately 14' high. The hours of operation are seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Nineteen parking spaces are required and 24 spaces are provided. The site is served by private well and septic. The site is exempt from stormwater management and forest conservation requirements. Solid waste will be collected in a dumpster located to the rear of the property. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

The Bowman Group Building Expansion (Pepsi Expansion & New Warehouse) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for The Bowman Group for the Pepsi expansion and a new warehouse. Mr. Thompson stated that this is a fast track project to encourage economic development and Staff is requesting authority to grant approvals upon completion of all agency reviews to accelerate the approval process. The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Ferguson Lane and Industrial Lane Boulevard. The property is zoned Planned Industrial. The developer is proposing to 43 construct two building expansions at the existing facility that houses the Pepsi facility and Transwheel repair shop. The total parcel area is 22 acres. The proposed Pepsi expansion will be 30,000 square feet and the second future warehouse addition is proposed at approximately 42,000 square feet. The total square footage of the building site when completed will be 177,250 square feet. The building height will be 27' high. Upon completion of the expansions, there will be 145 employees. The estimated hours of operation for both facilities will be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The total number of parking spaces provided for the site are 186 spaces and 153 spaces are required. Projected daily use is 316 persons per day. Freight and delivery is projected at 8 per week. An enclosed existing dumpster and additional dumpsters will be used for disposal of solid waste. Public water and sewer is on site and will be used for the additions. There will be two access points onto Ferguson Lane. There is an existing access onto Industrial Lane, located behind the facility. Landscaping will be provided along the northern property line and in the parking area. Staff has requested a landscaping plan to show the existing landscaping that will remain. There is existing signage and it is unknown, at this time, whether new signs will be completed. Building mounted lights will be added on the additions. To meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements, the developer is requesting permission to retain approximately 3.5 acres of existing forest on lands located off of Dam #4 Road, owned by Todd Bowman, a member of the Bowman Group LLC. The Water Quality Department and Soil Conservation District have approved the site plan. The Engineering Department, City Water Department, and Health Department approvals are pending. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site approval, as presented, giving Planning Staff authority to approve the final site plan, upon receipt of the outstanding agency approvals, and the Forest Conservation Plan with offsite retention. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Hub Business Center Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Hub Business Center. The total tract is 8.6 acres. The property is zoned HI-1. The site plan is for a proposed office bUilding. This is a "fast track" project to encourage economic development. Staff is requesting authority to grant approval upon completion of all agency reviews to accelerate the approval process. The site plan proposes a 235' x 150' two-story office building. The subject site is located off of Shawley Drive, west of 1-81. It is anticipated that the office would employ 190 employees. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from . 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Based on the requirements, 235 parking spaces are required and 304 spaces are provided, including handicap spaces. A screened dumpster will be located in the corner of the parking lot. Landscaping will be provided around the building, and in the parking lot. Staff has requested that a lighting detail be included on the site plan. Stormwater management will be handled by a new onsite regional facility. The extension and upgrade of an existing private road, along the Hub Labels building, will provide access. The access will be upgraded to County standards and named Label Lane. There will be three access points off of Label Lane into the parking lot that will serve the office building. The City of Hagerstown will provide public water to the site. Washington County will provide sewer. The site is located in the City/County Joint Service Area. According to the Water Department, upgrades to the existing waterline in the area will be required. The consultant is aware of this requirement and is working with the Water Department on this matter. The City's Annexation Review Committee will also be reviewing the plan. Washington County Water Quality Department has approved the plan. The Hagerstown Sewer Department is working with the deveioper to address their concerns. The Engineering Department is awaiting the stormwater management calculations and has also requested a floodplain study be conducted downstream from this development, to analyze impact of potential runoff on the current flooding situation on Maugansville Road. A flood plain study is needed to determine the sizing requirements of the stormwater management pond. An APFO agreement will have to be executed by the developer. The draft agreement calls for holding the developer responsible for projected traffic impact on Maugansville Avenue in the amount of $219,000 for 146-p.m. peak per hour trips. A part of this project involves the relocation of Shawley Drive and its existing access to Maugansville Road. While the APFO agreement does not require immediate work on Shawley Drive, it does compel the developer to establish a centerline for the reiocated Shawley Drive, within the next year, subject to the approval of the County Engineer and acquisition of right-of-way within five years from the date of the agreement. There are several options for the relocation of Shawiey Drive and the options will shift the intersection further west and ultimately it will align with the street that serves the Burger King. The Water Quality Department has issued their approval of the site plan and all other agency approvals are pending. The Forest Stand Delineation and Forest Conservation Plan is also outstanding. A discussion followed on the process of "fast track" projects. Mr. Ardinger requested that, under the given circumstances, the Planning Staff report back on how the project proceeds through the system. Mr. Reiber made a motion, based on economic reasons, that the site plan for Hub Business Center be approved and that Staff follow-up on additional recommendations between the agencies and to address Staff's comments. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. The consultant, Steve CVijanovich of Davis, Renn & Associates, stated that a Forest Conservation Plan was submitted to the Planning Office this afternoon that outlined their requested payment in lieu of since there is no forest to retain; however, if the Planning Commission does not accept the payment in iieu of request, the developer does not object to planting 1.02 acres of forest adjacent to the railroad or adjacent to the interstate. Mr. Anikis made a motion to allow the Staff to decide and determine an acceptable proposal to address the forest conservation requirements with no restrictions. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

Outdoor Advertising Signs Mr. Thompson stated that a billboard moratorium would likely be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. In the context of the moratorium, billboards that had already been submitted could proceed through the permitting and approval process. In early April, four site plans for Outdoor Advertising Signs were submitted and the 60-day expiration date is today. Based upon the language in the Ordinance, 'If there is no action taken today on the site plans, the site plans are automatically approved. Staff had a number of concerns with the billboard proposals and has met with the applicant to 44

discuss the concerns. A number of the issues have been resolved with the applicant. One outstanding issue was the size of the billboards. At the present time, the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, states that the billboards cannot exceed 1,000' for the total advertising face. The four billboard proposals are allover 1,000' and, based upon the interpretation, Staff cannot recommend approval of any of the proposed signs. The applicant will likely file an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Zoning Administrator's decision, and if the Planning Commission denies the proposed billboards, based upon the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, that decision could also be appealed. Ms. Baker explained the location of each proposed billboard. A two-sided billboard, 672' per side, is proposed off of Pennsylvania Avenue on the lands of Keystone Hunting Supply. Mr. Clopper made a motion, based upon the fact that the proposed sign is over 1,000 square feet, to deny the proposed site plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously denied. The location of the second billboard (a three-sided sign) is proposed for the south side of Halfway Boulevard on the lands of Motel 6, close to the Valley Mall. The billboard is 672 square feet per side for a total of 2,016 square feet for the sign. Mr. Clopper made a motion, based upon the fact that the proposed sign is over 1,000 square feet, to deny the proposed site plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously denied. Ms. Baker proceeded to explain that another three­ sided billboard is to be located on the northwest corner at the intersection of Massey Boulevard and Halfway Boulevard on the lands of the Roy Roger/EI Paso restaurants. The billboard is 672 square feet per side for a total of 2,016 square feet. Mr. Clopper made a motion, based upon the fact that the proposed sign is over 1,000 square feet, to deny the proposed site plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously denied. The location of the fourth billboard Is proposed for the south side of Leitersburg Pike on the lands of Peach Tree Suites, Inc. The two-sided billboard is 672' per side for a total of 1,344 square feet. Mr. Clopper made a motion, based upon the fact that the proposed sign is over 1,000 square feet, to deny the proposed site plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously denied.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Sovereign Assets LLC Mr. Lung presented a brief summary of the preliminary consultation held on Thursday, May 13, 2004 to discuss a concept plan for Sovereign Assets LLC. The subject property is located off of Maryland Route 68, north of Maryland Route 63 and Governor Lane Boulevard and is currently owned by CHIEF. The total tract is approximately 9 acres. The property is zoned HI-1. The consultation was not required under the Ordinance, but was conducted at the request of the developer to obtain the agencies input on any problems or 'Issues that may be involved with developing the site, with a variety of uses that may be allowed under HI-1. The concept plan is for a hotel site, four commercial retail sites, and a mini­ warehouse site. The developer, Mr. Lazerov, had stated that the concept plan is not a definite plan. The developer is proposing to construct a street to County standards, to serve the individual lots. The State Highway Administration will require a Traffic Impact StUdy and recommended that the study should include the most intense possible uses that may occur on the site; however, it should not include the uses of a truck stop or travelers plaza. A letter from area residents that outlined their concerns about the development, impact on traffic, and existing traffic conditions has been made a part of the record. Mr. Anikis voiced his concerns regarding the need for landscaping and buffering in the vicinity of Route 68 and Gower's Feedmill. A neighboring resident, Mr. Bell, addressed the Commission on his concerns regarding the lack of the lighting, landscaping, and buffering on the plan and the potential impact on nearby residences. No action required.

OTHER BUSINESS

College Heights PUD (Woodbridge Apartments) • Revision Mr. Lung presented a request to revise the College Heights PUD plan. This subject site is located along Robinwood Drive and across from Hagerstown Community College. The site was a part of the original Youngstoun Apartments Planned Residential Community, that predates the current PUD Ordinance. The property was rezoned to PUD in 1985, and there have been several changes since that time to the originally approved plan. In 1989, a revision was approved to include a complex of apartments, known as College Heights. In 1990, a site plan was approved for College Heights Apartments, consisting of seven buildings housing 84 dwelling units. This complex is now known as Woodbridge Apartment Community. In February 2003, the new owner requested a modification to the PUD Development Plan to allow the construction of a recreational building, swimming pool, and a parking lot to be located within the designated open space area. At that time, the Planning Commission denied that request, based on findings that the proposed pool and recreation building were not appropriate, due to the location and concerns about the ability of the soil and fill in that area to support the structure from an engineering standpoint. The Commission also stated that the proposed changes to the PUD plan wouid not be considered minor and warranted a public hearing. Since that time, the PUD plan has been revised. The swimming pooi has been eliminated and the revised proposal is to construct a management office, recreation building and fitness center for the use of the apartment residents. A parking lot and stormwater management facility will also be added. The consultant has performed a sub-surface exploration to determine the suitability of the fill to support the construction and has verified that suitability. Staff does not believe that the proposed minor changes warrant an additional public hearing. Previously, Stan Vaientine, the owner of the adjoining apartments, was opposed to the revision to the PUD. Since that time, Mr. Valentine has submitted a letter stating that he is not opposed to the new proposal. The consuitant, Mr. Cump of Cump & Associates, stated that an extensive landscaping plan is proposed to serve as a buffer to the adjacent property. Staff has suggested that, if bUilding mounted lights were used, that the full cut-off design or down-directed lights be used. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the 45 proposed revision to the PUD, giVing final approval of the site plan to the Staff after their review. Seconded by Mr. Moser. The vote was unanimous.

Demolition Permit. 6633 Old National Pike Mr. Goodrich presented the demolition permit application for the demolition of a 1Y.-story dwelling iocated at 6633 Old National Pike. The Historic District Commission reviewed and opposed the application, during its meeting held on May 5, 2004. There are implications that the structure is historical and the site is identified in the County's historic sites inventory. There was some discussion at the Historic District Commission meeting about an evaluation of the structure. Mr. Goodrich clarified that the structure is located in a drainage area, but not in a designated floodplain. Staff has presented the proposal to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to either support or oppose the Historic District Commission's recommendation to deny the demolition request. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Permits Department for the record. The recommendation is for the benefit of the applicant and will not prevent the demolition application from being approved. Mr. Anikis asked if arrangements could be made between the Historic District Commission and the appiicant to evaluate the structure. Counsel for the owner, Mr. Urner, stated that his client believes there is no evidence that the structure is a historic site, or that it has any historic significance. There is some dispute as to the age of the structure. Mr. Urner further stated that the dwelling is uninhabitable and the applicant cannot obtain insurance on the structure. The applicant, Mr. Easterday, voiced his concerns on the safety issues of the structure. He also stated that he did not object to an evaluation being performed on the dwelling, but at their own risk. Mr. Anikis made a motion to table this matter for 30 days to obtain a report from the Historic District Commission as to their evaluation of the site and asked the Staff to arrange this meeting with expert members of the Historic District Commission. If they decline, then the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the demolition application. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Discussion followed. Mr. Clopper stated that the County is restoring buildings at the Rural Heritage Museum, and suggested that any suitable logs could be donated to that cause. Mr. Urner stated that the applicant would be agreeable to donate any of the materials from the structure. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Ardinger, Mr. Moser and Mr. Reiber voting "aye" and Mr. Kercheval voting "nay."

Foutainview PUD - Side Yard Setback Modification Ms. Baker presented the request for a side yard setback modification for the purpose of constructing an attached garage to an existing dwelling on Lot 67, located in the Foutainview PUD. Since this subdivision is a PUD, the decision lies with the Planning Commission, as to setback modifications. The property is located off Sweet Vale Drive. The property is 11,600 square feet in size. The side yard setback modification request is to reduce the setback from 10' to 4'. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant the side yard setback modification for Lot 67 of the Fountainview PUD. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

RZ-04-001, Perini Industrial Land LLC Mr. Lung stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. He stated that a question was brought up at the public hearing about the adjacent iand to the south. An amended vicinity map was included with the staff report for clarification. The lands owned by Perini Industrial Land LLC does not directly abut any Residential Suburban zoned property to the south. A discussion followed on the rezoning application. Mr. Moser stated that he agreed with the request, but had concerns about the buffering whenever the property is developed. The applicant was present and stated that he plans to maintain at least a 75' buffer, not only for the sake of the residents but also for the potential businesses. Mr. Clopper made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of RZ-04-001, based upon a determination that there had been a mistake in the original zoning, and that the request to rezone the property from RS to HI-1 was logical, appropriate, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. So ordered.

RZ-04-002, Joanne Leazier and Douglas & Patricia Leazier Mr. Goodrich stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. Attached to the report is a listing of the zoning changes within the Leazier neighborhood, per Mr. Anikis' request. There was no additional written testimony in the ten days following the hearing. Mr. Goodrich summarized the Staff's conclusion that there is evidence for a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the property is surrounded on three sides by Business General zoning. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of RZ-04-002 to the Board of County Commissioners, based upon a determination that it is logical, appropriate, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

RZ-03-005, Board of Commissioners for Washington County, Comprehensive Rezoning Mr. Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission had previously reviewed a copy of the draft staff report on the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Area, during a workshop meeting held on May 17, 2004. The chart, outlining the individual Formal Requests to Review Zoning that was previously adopted, was also attached to the report. There are seven staff recommendations at the end of the report that were discussed during the workshop. The first recommendation is the consideration for allowing two lots to be exempt from the new zoning, not as compensation for subdivision or development potential that may be lost, but as an opportunity to realize some return on the investment in the land that had been expected prior to the proposed zoning changes and to generate revenue for future investment. The second recommendation was for changes to the setbacks in the Agricultural zone. Staff provided several options to return the setbacks to the current 15' side yards with the greater 50' setbacks applying to the lots that meet the area requirements in each of the zones, with an option to have a sliding scale in between the two extremes. The other alternative is to leave the setback at 50' because that would address the conflicting uses between agricultural and residential uses. The third recommendation is that a clearly 46 defined schedule be developed and adopted as polley for the Rural Business (New) designation, which would allow it to be adjusted in the future. The fourth recommendation is to include the proper, revised definitions of "truck stops" and "truck or motor freight terminais" in the proposed definitions to address the Staff's oversight. The fifth recommendation was to return the phrase allowing consideration of "functionally similar" uses for special exceptions to the appropriate location in the text. The final recommendation addressed the discussion about the Table of Land Use Regulations. Staff acknowledges that there will be a wide variety of opinions regarding appropriate business uses in the rural area and it would be a simple matter to add or subtract uses as deemed necessary, but offers no specific recommendation for changes. Some uses not listed can be addressed by the "functionally similar" clause, and by the ability to request a zoning change to obtain the Rural Business (New) zone. A discussion followed on the Staff's recommendations. Members discussed and agreed with the Staff's recommendations. They also agreed to omit the last sentence of paragraph B from the recommendation. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to adopt the Staff's report, including the chart outlining the Individual Formal Requests to Review Zoning, as their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Area, as presented, with the exception of omitting the last sentence in paragraph B regarding the side and rear yard setbacks. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Mr. Goodrich stated that a joint rezoning hearing would be held on Monday, June 14, 2004.

Mr. Moser requested that copies of the corresponding subdivision plats and site plans be forwarded with the Planning Commission agenda to assist the Planning Commission members in their review of agenda items.

.ADJOURNMENT r Mm;" m,d, by Me. Clopp". rerood'd by MI. M=e. 'f~(J' 11.00 p.m. Uo~;m,".y ,p",,,,oJ.

Don P. Ardinger Vice-Chairman 47 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JULY 12, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, July 12, 2004, in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman, R. Ben Ciopper, and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish, and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Pianners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.rn.

Before proceeding, Mr. Ardinger welcomed Linda Parrish, as the newest member of the Planning Commission. He also requested that discussion of the Planning Commission by-laws, be added to the August agenda.

MINUTES

Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of February 2, 2004, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Ms. Parrish abstained. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of March 1, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Ms. Parrish abstained. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Minutes of March 29,2004 Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of March 29, 2004 previously tabled, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Ms. Parrish abstained. Unanimously approved.

Demolition Permit, 6633 Old National Pike The demolition permit application was tabled at the June 2004 meeting, to allow members of the Historic District Commission to visit the site. The applicant proposed the demolition of a 1y,-story dwelling located at 6633 Old National Pike. The structure is identified on the County's historic sites inventory. The Historic District Commission had opposed the demolition application, during its meeting held on May 5, 2004. Arrangements were made for a site visit to occur on June 17, 2004. As a result of that visit, Merry Stinson, who is an architectural historian and is qualified to prepare Nationai Register nominations, prepared a brief summary on the description of the structure, which supports the Historic District Commission's opposition to the demolition. Mr. Anikis stated, for the record, that the applicant, Mr. Easterday, was very cooperative and helpful at the site visit. He also stated that he had suggested that the house be retained, along with an acre around the house, to give the Washington County Historical Trust six months to find a private individual who would be willing to purchase and restore the structure. Mr. Urner, counsel for the applicant, presented copies of a report, prepared by Antietam Design, on the condition of the structure, which basically stated that the structure is beyond repair. Mr. Urner also referred to the letter from the project engineer that stated the stormwater management area proposed for development on the large parcel could not be relocated anywhere on the property where it would not encompass the subject location. He further stated that the applicant did not argue with the facts presented in Ms. Stinson's summary, however, he does not think the conclusion is supported by any historical nature. The applicant is willing to donate the usable materials from the structure to any historic organization. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend that the demolition permit for 6633 Old National Pike be granted, based upon the fact that it is the location needed for the stormwater management pond. Mr. Reiber seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

Mt. Aetna Subdivision. Lots 26 - 30 - Preliminary Plat Mr. Lung presented for approval the preliminary plat for lots 26 through 30 of the Mt. Aetna subdivision. The property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road, east of Maryland Route 66. The proposed five-lot subdivision is situated on 78.57 acres. The property is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Bas'ln Special Planning Area and is zoned Agricultural. The preliminary plat was tabled at the June 2004 meeting to address two items of concern. Mr. Lung provided an update on the two outstanding items. To address the Soil Conservation District concerns about the wells, a hydrogeologist with Triad Engineering, submitted additional information on the groundwater condition in the area. The additional study indicates that there is an adequate groundwater supply to support residential development on the proposed lots. An additional letter was also submitted on the status of the well located on lot 30 that had previousiy gone dry. The Soil Conservation District has verified that they are satisfied with the additional study and their concerns were addressed. The developer has agreed to repay the Federal cost share fee for the replacement well, whenever lot 30 is developed for a non-agricultural use. The other concern surrounded comments made by Joe Kroboth, Director of Emergency Services for the County, regarding the length of 48 the cul-de-sac. A meeting was held between Mr. Kroboth, the developer, the developer's attorney, and the consultant to discuss this concern. As outlined in his memorandum, Mr. Kroboth stated that he would not object to the extension of the cul-de-sac, as long as the existing cul-de-sac remains and both locations would be posted with "no parking" signs. This would allow for turning movements by emergency vehicles and also assist with the flow of equipment entering and exiting the site. Mr. Kroboth also stated in his memorandurn, that he recommends that the Planning Commission consider adopting a maximum cul-de-sac length design standard. All agency approvals have been received. The subdivision plat includes an additional planting area, to address the forest conservation requirements. Staff recommends that, if the Planning Cornmission approves the preliminary plat, it would be contingent upon the finalization of the forest conservation plan for the additional lots, and the placement of all required signage on the existing retention areas and planting areas, that should have been previously posted. The owner, Mr. Easterday, commented that the required posting has begun. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, contingent upon bringing the forest conservation requirements of the original plat up to date. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye" and Mr. Moser voting "nay." So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Rosewood, Phase IIA, Preliminary Plat/Site Plan Mr. Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for Phase IIA of Rosewood Village PUD. The subject site is located on the west side of Robinwood Drive, between Hagerstown Community College and the Robinwood Medical Campus. The subject tract of land received a PUD overlay zoning in 1995. A final development plan was approved in 1999 for a total of 520 residential units on 79 acres, along with 7.9 acres designated for commercial use. The subdivision plat and site plan for Phase I was approved in 2000, which included 57 townhouse rental units, a 42 unit elderly living facility, and a 25 unit townhouse development, across from Robinwood Drive, known as Jade Court. The phasing plan for three phases was approved with the final development plan. The developer has elected to split Phase II into two sections. Phase IlA consists of 40 rental townhouse units, 42 elderly apartment units, 24 assisted living units, and two 12 unit garden style apartment buildings, for a total of 130 units. In addition to the residential units in Phase IIA, there is a 22,712 square foot medical/dental office building, an active recreation area, and the required open space area, with the required forest conservation throughout this phase. The townhouse units are an extension of the previously approved townhouse apartments, as a part of Phase I. There are four strips of 10 units and each of the 10 unit blocks are setup on their own lots. These units will front and access a private street system. On and off street parking will be provided for these units. Seventy-two parking spaces are required and 92 spaces are provided. Due to the location of the units that are next to the residentially zoned property, the development plan provides landscape buffer yards. Buffer planting is proposed along the southern property line. The developer is proposing a 6' stockade fence in lieu of vegetative planting, along the west property boundary. The developer is also requesting a modification to the 50' setback that is required for play lots when they located next to a road or parking area. As an alternative to the 50' setback, the developer is proposing a 3' high picket style fence around the tot lot, to separate it from the sidewalk and the street. The multi­ family residential cornponent of Phase IIA is the complex of apartments to be built off of JFK Drive, which also includes the active recreational facility for the PUD. The complex will consist of 42 elderly living apartments; a 24 unit assisted living facility, and two 12-unit garden apartment buildings, with parking to serve those units. An open space area will be located in the center and will accommodate a garden area, a series of benches, a gazebo, and a fountain to serve the residents of this area. The recreational area will encompass the clubhouse, pool, and tennis and basketball courts. The final element of Phase IIA proposes an approximately 200' x 62', two-story medical office building, located at the intersection of Robinwood Drive and JFK Drive. The required parking, landscaping, and buffer yards are provided. The buffer planting is incorporated into the forest conservation requirements. Sidewalks are proposed along JFK Drive with paths throughout Phase IIA. A pedestrian system is proposed throughout the entire PUD. The Washington County Engineering Department has reviewed the plan and requested minor revisions to the roadway construction drawings and a revision has been submitted. The County Engineering Department has forwarded information to the Public Works Director regarding the APFO roadway improvement contribution and the County Engineer will not issue the final approval until the APFO agreement has been finalized. The developer will be required to make immediate improvements along the frontage of Robinwood Drive. Accel/decel lanes will be added, along with another through lane on the north side. The developer will also be responsible for the APFO school contribution, based on the number of residential units proposed. The contribution will be a part of the agreement to be finalized by the Director of Public Works. The Soil Conservation District has completed their review of the plan and their approval is forthcoming. The City Water and Sewer Department has granted their approval, conditioned upon the signing of a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City and upon payrnent of the required fees regarding forest conservation. Park & Environmental Planner, Bill Stachoviak, has been working with the developer to gain compliance with the requirements for Phase I, since some plantings were lost due to past drought conditions and will have to be replaced. The forest conservation plan for this phase will address the replacernent plantings for Phase I, and the forest requirernents for Phase IIA. Mr. Anikis suggested that a marked pedestrian crosswalk be added across JFK Drive frorn the townhouse units to the amenities. Mr. Wetzel, consultant of Antietam Design, stated that a painted crosswalk would be included. Mr. Kercheval commented that the use of vinyi fencing would be preferred because of the long­ term rnaintenance and appearance factors. Mr. Moser rnade a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plat and site plan subject to the finalization of an APFO agreement for the school and road mitigation, the resolution of the forest conservation issue for Phase I, and receipt of any outstanding agency approval. The motion also grants approval of the requested modifications to use a 6' vinyl fence in 49 lieu of vegetative screen at the rear of lots 14 and 15 on Ashfield Court, the installation of a 3' picket style vinyl fence for a play lot on Ashfield Court with a waiver of the 50' setback requirement, and the use of a vegetative screen buffer between the southwestern property line at lots 12 and 14. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. The motion was unanimously approved.

Mt. Aetna Subdivision, Lot 25/Troy Henson - Preliminary/Final Plat Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary and final plat and a variance request for lot 25 for Troy Henson. The request is to subdivide a previously approved lot in the Mt. Aetna subdivision, off of Mt. Aetna Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. In November 2003, Mr. Henson requested permission from the Planning Commission to create this lot because the original subdivision plat for the Mt. Aetna subdivision included a note stating that any further subdivision of the lots or remaining lands would require Planning Commission approval. The Pianning Commission advised Mr. Henson that he may move forward with the subdivision and that his request did not appear to propose the same concerns as the additional lots requested by Mr. Easterday. Since that time, Mr. Henson submitted a subdivision plat, which has been reviewed and approved by all the agencies. Because the proposed new lot is usual in shape, Mr. Henson needed to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to seek a variance from lot width. The variance was granted, based upon the hardship created by the unusual shape of the lot and the location of the septic area. The written opinion of that action is pending. The new lot and the remaining lands will have road frontage on Mt. Aetna Road, however, access will be provided across a common drive to Cannon Forge Lane, with a single entrance onto Mt. Aetna Road. Due to the shape of the original lot and the location of a forest conservation easement, the remaining lands will have a panhandle length of approximately 490', which is 90' longer than the maximum allowed by the Ordinance. The local fire department and the Department of Emergency Services did not submit any objection to the additional length of the cul-de-sac and Staff has no objection to the additional panhandle length. The forest conservation requirements for lot 3 were previously addressed on the original plat. The proposed subdivision is eligible to pay the school mitigation at the building permit stage, per the APFO Transition Policy. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat and the variance request for panhandle length. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

• SITE PLANS:

Donald Pryor & Sons Plumbing Before the presentation, Mr. Clopper stated for the record that he would abstain from voting on this site plan. Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for Donald Pryor & Sons Plumbing. The subject property is situated off of Welty Church Road. The property is 3.45 acres in size and is zoned Agricultural. There are three dwelling units currently on the property that will be removed and replaced by one single-family home for Mr. Pryor. The owner is also proposing to operate a family owned plumbing business from the property. A new 30' x 50' workshop and office are proposed with a proposed future pole building for storage, measuring 30'x 30'. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Two parking spaces are provided. Five employees are proposed, and the employees are all family members. No outside storage of materials is proposed. The site is exempt from forest conservation requirements, because it disturbs less than 40,000 square feet. All agencies have approved the plat. Mr. Reiber moved to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Clopper abstained. The site plan was unanimously approved.

Valley Car Wash Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan and forest conservation plan for Valiey Car Wash. The subject site is located on the east side of Virginia Avenue. The total parcel area is 6.55 acres. The property is zoned Business General. The site plan proposes a 4,750 square foot car wash with two hands-free bays and four conventionai bays. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted approvai of the proposed use in the BG zoning. The hours of operation will be 24 hours a day, seven days a week. One empioyee is proposed, two to four hours per day, for maintenance purposes. Parking required and provided will be two spaces. There will be one van delivery per week. There will be a 104 square foot building mounted sign and 300 square foot freestanding sign with the maximum height of 35'. Exterior lighting will be building mounted. Public water and sewer serve the site. Solid waste will be collected and stored in a dumpster and removed by a private hauler. The forest conservation reqUirements will be met by retaining 1.77 acres of forest. The stormwater management requirements will be met. Landscaping will be provided around the front of the building and at the entrance. In the BG zone, screening is required when a residential dwelling is adjacent to the site. The developer is proposing to use pine trees to screen the adjacent residence. All approvals have been received except from the Health Department. The approval from the Health Department is pending a letter from the City Water Department and the Department of Water Quality. Mr. Anikis questioned whether there were any concerns about the lighting or noise from the proposed car wash. The developer, Todd Snook, stated that the only adjacent property owner attended the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing and did not object to the proposal or to the proposed screening. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval subject to receipt of all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Concordia Lutheran Church Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Concordia Lutheran Church. The site is located on Garden Lane, north of Downsville Pike. The total site area is 4.36 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural. The site plan proposes a 12,660 square foot addition to the existing church. The addition will be for a fellowship hall and classrooms. Additional parking of 59 spaces will be added to the existing 52 spaces for a total of 111 spaces. Five handicap-parking spaces are required and provided. The parking area will have pole-mounted lights. No new signage or new employees are proposed. 50 Storage and disposal of solid waste will be by private collection. Public water and sewer serve the site. A stormwater pond will be used to meet the stormwater management requirements. The expressed procedure wiil be utilized to meet the forest conservation requirements. Revisions were sent to the Health Department, City Water Department, and the Halfway Fire Company and their approvals are pending. A site plan was previously approved for the stormwater management pond and the upper parking lot. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site plan approval, contingent upon receipt of ail agencyapprovais. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

T-Mobile Cell Tower - Sandy Hook Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for a monopole cell tower to be located on property owned by the County, which is the site of a water tank, located at the corner of Keep Tryst Road and Sandy Hook Road. The property is zoned Business General. T-Mobile has entered into a lease agreement with the County for an 80' radius around the tower, as the fail zone area. In February 2004, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a Special Exception to permit a commercial communications tower on the property. It was found that there is a gap in ceilular service at this location and that there are no other suitable sites for co-iocation and the existing water tank is not high enough. The site plan proposes an 80' camouflaged monopole cell tower. The antennas will be mounted inside the structure. According to the site pian, the exterior finish wiil enhance the compatibility with adjacent land uses. The tower will be unlit. There wiil be a fenced equipment compound at the base of the tower with evergreen plantings around the compound. Access to the tower will be provided via the existing access road to the water tank, off of Keep Tryst Road. Omnipoint Communications, a subsidiary of T-Mobile Wireless, will be responsible for the removal of the tower within 12 months, at such time that it becomes unused or obsolete, and a note has been added to the plat. Ail agencies have approved the plan. The site plan is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because it disturbs less than 40,000 square feet. Mr. Kerchevai asked if there were any capability issues with the proposed ceil tower and the future County Emergency Operations system and suggested that perhaps clearer language could be used in the future to address capability issues. A representative of Omnipoint Communications was present and stated that there are no capability issues and that the County has identified a future need to ·use the site and intends to mount its own equipment on the tower. He also stated that the conditions and requests made by other agencies on the site plan have been addressed. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site pian approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

FOREST CONSERVATION

Brookmeade Drive Apartments Off-site Forest Conservation Mr. Lung presented for review and approvai an off-site forest conservation pian for Brookmeade Drive Apartments. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a site plan for an apartment complex at the June 2004 meeting. The site plan proposes ten, three-story apartment buildings consisting of 120 units. The approval included permission to meet some of the forest conservation requirements by offsite planting in a priority area, located off of Benevola Church Road. Since that time, Mr. Shaool was not successful in finalizing his agreement with the owner of that site and is presenting an aiternative site, located off of Whitetail Road. The owner proposes 4.2 acres of afforestation in a priority area to meet the requirements. Previously, during the discussion regarding the unauthorized clearing that occurred on the site, the Planning Commission asked for and the developer agreed to pay for an additional 4.2 acres of forest conservation. An easement plat wiil be signed by the property owner and recorded for the afforestation site. Access to the afforestation site will be off of Whitetail Road, adjoining the right of way dedication line. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the revised offsite forest conservation. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Shirley Sears, Lot 4 - Revised Forest Conservation Area Before proceeding, Mr. Ardinger commented that the correspondence received on this request has been made a part of the pUblic record. Mr. Ardinger also stated that he had spoken with Mr. Younker, an adjacent property owner, regarding his request to speak and since this is not a public hearing only questions would be directed to Mr. Younker for clarification purposes. Ms. Pietro briefly reviewed the contents of her memorandum that was included with the agenda, which outlined the revised forest conservation area for lot 4 of the Shirley Sears subdivision. The original subdivision plat for Shirley Sears, lots 1 through 4, off of Dellnger Road was presented to the Planning Commission in September 2002. Action on the plat was tabled until the Planning Commission could conduct a site visit. The revised plat was brought back to the Planning Commission on October 7, 2002. The revised plat illustrated several items that were discussed at the site visit to address concerns of adjacent property owners and the Planning Commission. The revised plat was approved contingent upon final approval from the Engineering Department and that the watershed area and the National Park Service easement be shown on the plat. There was also a motion to approve the forest conservation plan, which included a .50 acre regeneration area. Foilowing the Planning Commission's approval, but before actual signatures were affixed to the plat and the approval letter, the consultant, on behalf of the property owner, asked that the .50 acre regeneration area located on lot 4 be removed from the forest conservation plan and replaced with the retention of existing forest along the southern properiy line, which is closer to the Potomac River and the C & 0 Canal. Planning Director Robert Arch determined that the revised retention area was of a higher priority than regeneration in the sequence of preferred mitigation techniques and that the change was minor and could be approved at the Staff level; therefore, allowing this change to occur without review by the Planning Commission. However, the adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Younker charged that the Staff improperly approved the change and believed an administrative error was made. The Younkers' filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals and on May 13, 2004, the Board granted 51 the appeal and concluded that the change to the Forest Conservation Plan was significant enough to warrant review by the Planning Commission.

Therefore the matter is before the Planning Commission again for action. In the meantime, lot 4 is now owned by Brad Moss who would like to keep the forest retention area, as previously approved, and has requested an official approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Ardinger questioned if any improvements had been made to lot 4 and questioned the status of the regeneration area. Planning Director Mike Thompson stated that Mr. Moss has his house under construction on the site. Ms. Pietro responded that the regeneration area has been mowed. Mr. Goodrich stated that following a site inspection, Mr. Moss has been notified that the signage for the retention area was not properly installed, according to the plan. Mr. Moss also agreed to place signs to protect the regeneration areas until this issue was resolved. Mr. Goodrich also stated that there were a couple of large isolated trees removed from the regeneration area, at least one of which was dead, and the removal of the trees was not in violation with the plan that was in effect at that time. Mr. Townsley, the consultant of Fox & Associates, further explained that the request was previously presented due to the size and placement of the proposed home of the previous potential purchaser of lot 4 (Ms. Cosner). However, Mr. Moss bought the lot and prefers to retain the existing forest area instead of the original proposal of .50 acre regeneration area.

Mr. Ardinger asked Mr. Younker, the adjacent property owner, to briefly summarize his concerns. Mr. Younker stated that his concern was the potential runoff, if the regeneration area is not maintained. Mr. Kercheval suggested that perhaps there was a way to utilize funds generated by payments in lieu of retention or planting to place some plantings along the fence row area, as a solution to address the runoff concerns by the Younkers'. Mr. Goodrich stated his opinion that the DNR may see that as an improper use of the payment in lieu of funds. Mr. Wantz, counsel for Brad Moss, stated that he was not in a position to respond for Mr. Moss and he would have to confer with his client on the suggestion. Mr. Wantz suggested that perhaps Mr. Younker could place some planting on his side of the common boundary line. Mr. Townsley stated that Mr. Moss has a stormwater management plan approved by the County Engineer, which protects the runoff, so that it does not increase after development any more than "prior to development. He also explained that dry wells were designed for Mr. Moss' downspouts to collect the water. He also confirmed that the forest easement has been staked out, as shown on the approved plat, and the signs and fencing were installed. Ms. Pietro stated that the only issue in question is the regeneration area and that the previously agreed upon changes, approved in October 2002, have not be modified. Mr. Kercheval added for the record, that the entrance for lot 3 was moved back to an opening in trees, as agreed upon and as shown on the plat. Mr. Reiber made a motion to ratify the Planning Department's decision and to leave the retention area as revised and encourage both property owners to permit plantings on the fence row to help control runoff. Mr. Townsley and Mr. Wantz agreed to convey the verbiage of the motion to the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Motion carried with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Moser, Ms. Parrish, Mr. Kercheval, and Mr. Ardinger voted "aye" and Mr. Anikis voted "nay." Mr. Townsley stated that he would direct Mr. Moss to contact the Planning Staff on this matter.

OTHER BUSINESS

Dual Highway LLC - Site Plan Revision Mr. Lung presented the request to revise the site plan for Dual Highway LLC. The subject site is located on a 2.14 parcel at the southwest corner of Emmert Road and Dual Highway. The property is zoned HI-1. In September 2003, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for a used car facility along the Dual Highway, across from the Four Points Sheraton. Prior to the review of the site plan, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the developer a variance from the required 25' setback in a Highway Interchange zone, when adjacent to a residential development and the setback was reduced to 5'. The variance did not address the screening issue. To meet that Ordinance requirernent, the owner proposed vegetative screening of Leyland cypress, along the south and western property lines. Mr. Fulton has submitted a request to change the type of screening by retaining the existing deciduous hedge along the southern property line instead of pianting Leyland cypress trees. He is also requested that an 8' high wood stockade fence along the western boundary be utilized, instead of planting Leyland cypress trees. Staff has no objections to the revisions. The residentiai property to the south is owned by the applicant and is zoned HI-1. The property zoned RR is also owned by the applicant and is directly adjacent to the buffer yard. The closest existing dwelling is located approximately 125' away. Mr. Fulton presented some photos for the Planning Commission's review depicting the existing shrubs. Mr. Lung confirmed that the proposed lighting for the site is down-directed shoebox style lights and a note will be added on the plan that there shall be no offslte glare. The lights will be on during the night for security purposes. A discussion followed on the use of vinyl fencing versus wood fencing. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the applicant's request to revise the site plan and to retain the existing shrub plantings along the southern property line, and that the applicant be ailowed to utilize an 8' vinyl fence along the western boundary, instead of planting Leyland cypress. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

RZ-04-005, Board of County Commissioners Mr. Goodrich stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report and proceeded to summarize the report. The public hearing was held on June 15, 2004. The amendment was written specifically by the County Attorney in consultation with zoning officials and other counties, and aimed at solving an identified problem. During the hearing, there was discussion on concerns of citing residents too quickly for violations and how the process would be implemented. It was the Staff's opinion that supplemental resolutions and internal policies could address those concerns. A suggestion was submitted via correspondence, regarding the Inclusion of sea containers and trailers in the definition of junk. As the Staff report states, if the sea containers and trailers were discarded, then they could be considered as 52 junk; however, the containers are listed as legitimate storage units in other zoning districts, which may lead to some confusion if they are serving a legitimate function. Staff recommends adoption of the text amendment, as presented. Mr. Ciopper made a motion to recommend approvai of the proposed amendment as it is logical, appropriate, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval and Ms. Parrish abstained. Unanimously approved.

WS-04-001, Kettler Brothers Mr. Lung presented a map amendment for the Water and Sewerage Plan for Kettler Brothers. The public hearing was held on June 15, 2004. The request was to change the service priority designation for a proposed subdivision within the Town of Keedysville. Currently the plan is designated as "No Planned Service" and the request is to change the designation to "Planned Service" so the developer can move forward with obtaining the necessary approvals to extend water and sewer lines to the property. Mr. Lung stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. He stated that it appears that the applicant has met the eligibility requirements for the requested amendment for "Planned Service." Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of WS-03-002, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval and Ms. Parrish abstained. Unanimously approved.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Mr. Ardinger informed the Planning Commission members that the next regular meeting is scheduled for August 2, 2004. A workshop meeting will be scheduled in the future.

Mr. Anikis volunteered to meet with Linda Parrish to discuss the Planning Commission's perspective.

Mr. Anikis complimented Tim t.ung and Terry McGee for their assistance with his review of the traffic study for Brookmeade Apartments.

. Mr. Kerchevel reported the Board of County Commissioners would be scheduling workshops to review the Task Force and the Planning Commission's recommendations. They will also discuss the scheduling of a public hearing and the review of the individual property owner zoning requests.

6 p.m. Unanimously approved. 53

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 2, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, August 2, 2004, in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman, R. Ben Clopper; and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish, and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung; Associate Planner, Jili L. Baker, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was calied to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of April 5, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of May 3, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Paradise Heights, Section A - Final Plat Ms. Baker presented for review and approval the final subdivision plat for Section A of Paradise Heights. The property is located on the west side of Paradise Church Road and Is zoned RS. The developer is proposing 33 single-family lots and 22 semi-detached lots in Section A. Pulaski Drive wiii be extended from the North Viliage subdivision, to service the proposed development. In future sections, a secondary access wili be proposed onto Paradise Church Road. A stormwater management pond would be located in the northwest corner of the property to service Section A. Public water and sewer will serve the property. A pumping station will be onsite to service the North Viiiage subdivision and this proposed development. At the preliminary consultation stage, the Pianning Commission approved the forest conservation plan for the combination of onsite planting, to buffer along the agricultural areas and the mitigation fee of $20,865. The payment in lieu of fee wili be paid in Section A, and the onsite planting wiii occur in future sections. Paramount Elementary, Northern Middle and North High will serve the development. Paramount Elementary is currently over capacity and the developer has signed an agreement with the County to mitigate for the proposed development. The proposed subdivision is also one of the developments located in the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow Road corridor study area and the developer has signed an agreement with the County to address the mitigation fee for road improvements. The Health Department is the only outstanding agency and they are awaiting a letter from the City of Hagerstown stating that public water service is available. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the final plat, contingent upon receipt of the approval from the Health Department. Seconded by Mr.Clopper. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Donald C. Bowers Insurance, Office Expansion Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for the office expansion of Donald C. Bowers Insurance. The subject property is located on the north side of Dual Highway, west of Mt. Aetna Road, next to the Popeye's restaurant. The property is zoned Business General. The total site area is .41 acres. The site plan proposes the construction of a 28' x 58' single- story addition to the rear of the existing building, as weli as the relocation of the existing parking lot at the rear. A brick retaining wall wiii be constructed around the new parking area to provide screening from headlights. An architectural iron fence wili be placed on the brick retaining wali, with down directed light fixtures on brick pilasters that wiii light the parking lot. In addition to the wali, vegetative plantings will be provided along the rear property line. The existing landscaping around the front of the building wili be retained. A handicap parking space will be provided at the main entrance at the front of the building. The existing entrance onto Dual Highway wili remain unchanged. All agency approvals have been received. The site is exempt from forest conservation requirements because the amount of new disturbed area does not exceed 40,000 square feet. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Myers Ltd. Partnership, Lot 1 Mr. Lung presented for review and approvai a site plan for Myers Limited Partnership. The site is located in the Interstate Industrial Park, located off of Governor Lane Boulevard, along the east side of 1-81. The property is zoned Planned Industrial. Several years ago, Myers Limited Partnership created a four lot industrial subdivision, which involved the construction of Partnership Court, off of Industrial Lane. Lot 1 contains 6.6 acres and is the site of the existing business, known as Capital Core. The proposed site plan for a warehouse and office is for a second business, known as Norandex, a distributor of residential building materials. A pre-engineered 134' x 114' metal-sided building will be constructed, along with 54 associated parking and loading area. No outside storage of materials is proposed. Based on the projection of five employees and no more than five customers on site at any given time, 10 parking spaces will be required and are proposed by the developer, along with a handicap space. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. BUilding mounted lights will be shielded to prevent offsite glare. The existing stormwater management pond will be modified to accommodate the additional development. Landscaping will be provided around the building to enhance the existing landscaping that is associated with Capital Core. The existing entrance that serves Capital Core will also serve Norandex. The site plan also shows a future 12,000 square foot building and another entrance off of Partnership Court, and additional required plantings along Industrial Lane. Forest conservation requirements were addressed at the subdivision stage and the Planning Commission approved the use of offsite forest conservation. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Outdoor Advertising Signs, 13611 Pennsylvania Avenue Before proceeding, Mr. Thompson explained that the four billboards on the agenda for Outdoor Advertising Signs were previously denied by the Planning Commission at the June 2004 meeting, based upon the interpretation by the former Zoning Administrator, Bill Sprague, that a sign could not exceed a total of 1,000'. The four site plans were not reviewed in detail during that meeting. The applicant appealed that denial to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which overturned the Planning Commission's ruling, charging an administrative error, based on a different interpretation of the Ordinance that the calculation was 1,000' on each face, and that the applications did not exceed 1,000' per face. Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Staff is currently preparing a revision to the current Ordinance that corresponds to the current billboard moratorium, recently adopted by the County Commissioners. The amendment to the Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for the upcoming joint public hearing in September.

Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed billboard to be located on the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue on the lands of the Keystone Hunting Supply store owned by Dharl and Mary Wilfong. The property is zoned Business General. The proposed sign is two-sided and will contain a 14' x 48' panel for a total of 1,344 square feet of advertising space. The height of the sign will be 75' and fhe sign will be illuminated. All agencies have responded to the proposal and the site plan meets the Ordinance requirements. For the record, the developer, Mr. John Thai-Larsen, provided an unexecuted copy of the draft Opinion by the Board of Zoning Appeals that he had received late afternoon on this date. Mr. Clopper stated that since the applicant has met all of the site plan requirements, he would make a motion to approve the proposed site plan contingent upon the accuracy of the Board of Zoning Appeals' Opinion and the execution of that Opinion. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, Ms. Parrish voting "aye" and Mr. Anikis voting "nay." Mr. Moser and Mr. Reiber abstained.

Outdoor Advertising Signs. 11321 Halfway Boulevard Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed billboard sign to be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Halfway Boulevard and Massey Boulevard on the lands owned by Accor North American at the location of Motel 6. The property is zoned BG. The proposed sign is three­ sided, and each side will contain a 14' x 48' panel for a total of 2,016' of advertising space. The total height of the structure will be 75' high and the sign will be illuminated. All agencies have approved the site plan. A discussion followed on the setback issues of the proposed location of the billboard and the potential traffic hazards in the area, by motorists viewing the signs. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the proposed site plan contingent upon the accuracy of the Board of Zoning Appeals' Opinion and the execution of that Opinion. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, Ms. Parrish voting "aye" and Mr. Anikis voting "nay." Mr. Moser and Mr. Reiber abstained.

Outdoor Advertising Signs, 1726 Massey Boulevard Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed billboard sign to be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Massey Boulevard and Halfway Bouievard on the lands owned by Plamondon Leasing Associates. The Roy Rogers and EI Paso restaurants currently occupy the property. The property is zoned BG. The proposed sign is three-sided, and each side will contain a 14' x 48' panel for a total of 2,016' of advertising space. The total height of the structure will be 75' high and the sign will be illuminated. All agencies have approved the plan, Ms. Baker stated that the Ordinance states that all outdoor advertising signs shall be a minimum of 300' from any intersection of a dual highway. The proposed sign setback is 295' and does not meet the Ordinance requirement. Staff believes there is sufficient room to move the sign back, to meet the setback requirement. The deveioper, John Thal­ Larsen, stated that the setback issue has been resolved and will be revised on the site plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the proposed site plan, contingent upon the revision to meet the 300' required setback to the satisfaction of Staff and the accuracy of the Board of Zoning Appeals' Opinion and the execution of that Opinion. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, Ms. Parrish voting "aye" and Mr. Anikis voting "nay." Mr. Moser and Mr. Reiber abstained.

Outdoor Advertising Signs, 19741 Leitersburg Pike Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed billboard sign to be located on the south side of Leitersburg Pike on lands owned by Peach Tree Suites, Inc. The property is zoned Business Local. The proposed sign is two-sided, and each side will contain a 14' x 48' panel for a total of 1,344' of advertising space. The total height of the structure will be 50' high and the sign will be illuminated. All agencies have approved the plan. Ms. Baker stated that across the road from the proposed sign location is the Dorsey Palmer house, which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and has a historic preservation overlay zone. The historic property is screened with evergreen trees. Ms. Baker stated that a photo was not available, to portray the location of the proposed billboard. A discussion followed on the 55 necessity of having a photo to view and whether to postpone action on the proposal. Mr. Thai-Larsen stated that the proximity of the historic structure was brought to their attention after the location for the billboard was secured and that they wouid be willing to discuss an alternative location. Ms. Parrish made a motion to postpone action on the site plan for 30 days to allow time for the applicant to provide a photo for the Planning Commission to review. Mr. Kercheval seconded the motion. Bryan Mack, of Great Outdoors Advertising, stated that if the Planning Commission found something especially objectionable about the proposed location, they would be willing to explore a more suitable location, per the criteria of the current moratorium. Mr. Kercheval withdrew his second to the motion on the table. Motion failed. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan with the caveat that should an alternative site be agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners, Staff can approve the site plan based on the criteria of the Ordinance and it would be contingent upon the accuracy of the Board of Zoning Appeals' Opinion and the execution of that Opinion. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Motion carried with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye." Ms. Parrish, Mr. Moser and Mr. Reiber abstained.

Advertising, Inc, of Hagerstown, East Side of Pennsylvania Avenue Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for the replacement of an existing billboard sign for Advertising, Inc. of Hagerstown. The sign is located on lands owned by Kelly Eakle, located on the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue, across from the Colonial Motel. The property is zoned Business Local. The site plan is to replace an existing billboard sign and raise the height. The proposed sign is two-sided and each side will contain two back to back 12' x 25' panels for a total of 600 square feet of advertising space. The total height of the structure will be 28'. The sign will not be illuminated. The original height of the sign was approximately 20'. All agencies have approved the plan. Under the current moratorium, minor alterations are permitted, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Thompson stated that the County Commissioners and the County Attorney were aware of this request when the billboard moratorium was adopted. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the site plan and to accept the request as a minor modification. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ardinger, and Mr. Moser voting "aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "nay."

OTHER BUSINESS

Black Rock PUD, Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preiiminary development plan for Black Rock PUD. The property is located along the north side of Mt. Aetna Road, north and east of the existing Black Rock residential subdivision, and across from the Black Rock Golf Course. The original concept plan and the original PUD rezoning application proposed 990 units. The plan was presented during a public hearing in 2002 and was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant after the hearing, before any action was taken. Later in 2002, a revised concept plan, along with a new zoning application proposing 595 units was submitted and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in November 2002. That decision was appealed to Circuit Court and was upheld. That ruling has been appealed further to the Court of Special Appeals and that case is pending. No stay has been placed on the project and the developer can move forward with his plans.

The Preliminary Development Plan proposes 599 units at a density of 2.71 dwelling units per acre on 220.77 acres. The forest conservation obligation will be addressed on-site. Mr. Lung commented that a small portion of the buffering to screen the development from the adjacent agricultural land was inadvertently omitted from the drawing. Screening is proposed between the single-family units and the higher density areas. Mr. Moser questioned if the Allegheny Power easement was included in the calculation for forest conservation. Mr. Weikert, consuitant of Fox & Associates stated that there are certain plantings that meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance that Allegheny Power will accept under their power lines and the developer plans to plant what is permissible. No commercial element is associated with the PUD. There is a mixture of single-family dwellings, zero lot line single­ family dwellings on smaller lots, semi-detached dwellings, townhouses and condominiums. The plan also proposes an active recreational area and passive open space area. Sidewalks and a path system are also proposed. The plan also retains two existing structures, which are listed on the historic site survey. The PUD will be divided into 3 phases. Phase one will consists of 155 units of single-family lots, zero lot line iots, semi-detached dwellings, and a recreation center. Phase two proposes 210 units consisting of townhouses, condominiums, and some additional single-family lots. Phase 3 proposes 230 units consisting of the remainder of single-family lots and the remainder of the condominiums and townhouse units. A ten-year buildout is proposed for the PUD. Public water and sewer from the City of Hagerstown will serve the site. The City has requested that a lot be dedicated for the location of a water tower to address water pressure concerns. There is a combination of open and closed section streets within the development. Streets within the condominium and townhouse sections will be private with a gated entrance. Intersection improvements at Mt. Aetna Road would occur in Phase 2 and 3 and accel/decel lanes will also be required. Mini-roundabouts will also be added as traffic calming measures within the development. The gated access will not be manned and will be used to slow traffic and prevent vehicles from using the access as a loop road. According to Mr. Shaool, emergency eqUipment should not be delayed at the gated entrance. There will be sidewalks provided aiong the closed section streets. A path system will link the lower density areas with the active recreation area. Mr. Lung stated that pedestrian access is aiways a concern with open section streets, and that the layout was discussed with the Planning Commission at the concept plan review stage. The plan matches what the Planning Commission previously endorsed, as a part of the concept plan review. Approval of this Development Pian will also constitute approval of the townhouse lots to front on a private street system. The developer is proposing a modification to the side yard setbacks from 10' to 8' in the townhouse section. Also, at the zero lot line single-family section, the developer is proposing the same setbacks at the zero lot line as the same proposal for the adjacent subdivision of King's Crest. The Zoning Ordinance does not outline the standards for zero lot line, single-family dwellings, so the standards will need to be established as a part 56 of the PUD approval. Greenbrier Elementary School will serve this PUD and it is currently over capacity The APFO test will be performed at the final plat stage for each phase, All agencies have issued their approval of the plan, However, an additional comment was received today from the Engineering Department regarding the street alignment in Phase 1 and their request for a loop within the development The developer's consultant met with the Engineering Department and they have agreed to include an additional section of street, to provide a loop and a temporary access for emergency vehicle access, which will result in additional lots being added in Phase 1, The plan was forwarded to the Funkstown Fire Department and the Department of Emergency Services and no comments were received, as of this date, Mr. Kroboth had indicated that he would forward his comments on the plan,

Mr, Kercheval inquired whether there would be a more detailed amenity schedule, Mr. Shaooi stated that they plan to install all of the proposed amenities by the end of Phase 1, A discussion followed on the proposed amenities, Mr. Shaool suggested that, perhaps they could tie the amenity schedule to the Use and Occupancy permits, based on a certain number of units being built A discussion followed on the need for additional walkways in the PUD, particularly pathways in Phase 1 that would connect to the recreation area, An additional pathway, to provide connectivity in the vicinity of Pamela Lane, was suggested, The developer, Mr, Shaool, informed the Planning Commission that there would be no off­ street parking, He also agreed to add a walkway in the open space area, along the edge between Kings Crest at the zero lot line lots and add walkways at several iocations between units, to access the sidewalk at the zero lot line lots,

Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the Preliminary Development Pian for the Black Rock PUD with the following caveats: Engineering Department approval of the street design for Phase 1 construction, Department of Emergency Services approval, the installation of additional walkways at the zero lot line lot area, amendment to the plan to add buffer planting that is adjacent to the agriculturai area, where it was inadvertently omitted from the plan, and refinement of the amenities schedule, at a reasonable measure, to tie the completion of amenities to the Use and Occupancy permits issued for a certain number of units, to be determined, Seconded by Mr, Reiber. Unanimously approved,

John & Linda Bishop, Onsite Septic Reserve Area Mr, Thompson presented the request by John and Linda Bishop for an offsite septic reserve area, The Bishops own 12,82 acres off of Maryland Route 144, The request is to subdivide 3.25 acres for their daughter, who has qualified for a low interest home loan, However, there is no acceptable site for a drainage field on the proposed new lot As explained in the applicant's letter of July 15, 2004, the applicants are proposing to create an easement over their remaining land to an approved septic reserve area, The family owns the entire property and it is their intention for the property to remain in the family, According to their letter, the applicants have discussed this matter with the Health Department and the proposal is acceptable, A discussion followed on the request Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the offsite septic reserve request Seconded by Mr, Anikis, Motion carried with Mr, Clopper, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Kercheval, Ms, Parrish and Mr, Moser voting "aye" and Mr, Ardinger and Mr. Reiber voting "nay,"

Discussion of Planning Commission By-Laws Mr. Ardinger stated that in reviewing the Planning Commission By-Laws, in his opinion, the wording of Article 7, Section 3 should be amended, because there are agenda items that do not require any action, such as preliminary consultations, Section 3 currently states that, "A motion from the floor must be made and passed in order to dispense with any item on the agenda," For clarification purposes, Mr, Ardinger suggested that language be added to address agenda items that do not require any action, This matter was tabled until the September meeting to allow Staff time to draft a revision of Section 3, per the discussion,

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Future workshops Planning Commission members discussed several topics for future workshops, The topics included, further discussion of the Planning Commission by-laws, input from parties of interest, discussion on pathways and sidewalks with open section streets, discussion on changes to the Ordinance with PUD's and the layout of high density and single-family dwellings, Further discussion on amenities and how to tie the amenities to unit numbers, reserving future school sites in open space areas, and more discussion on the demolition permitting process, Mr, Ardinger stated that a future workshop meeting would be scheduled at the September meeting,

Appointment to Water & Sewer Infrastructure Commission Mr. Thompson informed the Planning Commission members that House Bill 1211 was passed this year, which created a Washington County Water & Sewer Infrastructure Commission, The statute specifically states that one of the members is to be one of the members of the Washington County Planning Commission, appointed by the Chairman, The Commission will consist of 21 members from various agencies and organizations, Mr. Moser volunteered to represent the Planning Commission on the newly created Water & Sewer Infrastructure Commission and V'}f\s so appointed by the Chairman,

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourne 57 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, September 13, 2004, in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planner, Lisa Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner­ Grillo, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. Terry Reiber, R. Ben Clopper, and Linda Parrish were absent.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of June 7, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of July 12, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Thompson noted for the record, that the minutes of August 2, 2004 reflect a change that was made under the Black Rock PUD, to indicate that Greenbrier Elementary will serve the proposed PUD, rather than Eastern Elementary. Mr. Anikis made a rnotion to approve the minutes of August 2, 2004, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Revision - Planning Commission By-Laws

Mr. Thompson stated that during the August 2004 meeting, Mr. Ardinger had suggested that Article 7, Section 3 of the Planning Commission by-laws be amended to address the agenda items that do not require any action. Section 3 currently states that, "A motion from the floor must be made and passed in order to dispense with any item on the agenda." The Planning Commission reviews agenda items that do not require formal action. At the August meeting, the phrase" unless the item does not require any action by the Commission" was proposed. The by-laws of the Commission may be amended by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission, provided it is proposed at a prior meeting and made available to all Commission members in writing, at least three days prior to the meeting. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the revision to the Planning Commission by-laws, as proposed. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Arnold & Kristy Murphy

Mr. Thompson informed the members that Mr. and Mrs. Murphy had submitted a request for a waiver from the APFO school mitigation. This request was received after the plat was executed by the owner and approved by the Director of the Planning Department. Mr. Thompson stated that he had contacted the County Attorney for direction on this request. The County Attorney deemed that it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to consider such a request, since the waiver was submitted more than thirty days after the plat was signed and approved and that the matter could not be appealed. The applicants were advised that their request would not be considered.

Claggett's Mill (formerly known as Valentia) - Preliminary (238 Lots) & Final (Section 1. Lots 1-87)

Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for 238 single-family lots and the final plat approval for Section 1, lots 1 through 87. The property is located on the north and south side of Poffenberger Road, just west of the Antietam Creek. The property is zoned Agricultural and is located in the Urban Growth Area. The total tract is 227 acres and 9.7 acres will be the remaining lands. Minimum lot sizes will be approximately 20,000 square feet. Public water and public sewer will serve the lots. All lots will access the new public streets and will not have direct access onto Poffenberger Road. There will be six stormwater management ponds. To meet the forest conservation requirements, 37 acres of trees will be planted, along with retaining forest in the priority areas. The developer has proposed sidewalks for pedestrian access. A homeowners association is also planned for the development. The State Highway Administration (SHA) has commented that, since the site would gain indirect access to Maryland Route 65 and Alternate US 40, they have no objection to approVing the first 87 lots. However, the SHA expressed concerns about the inadequate site distance and no additional plat submittals will be accepted, unless the site distance issues are addressed. The Engineering Department has given preliminary plat approval, with the condition that there are numerous APFO issues and mandated offsite improvements are required, prior to the final plat approval for the 87 lots. The improvements would include road width corrections on Poffenberger Road and accel/decel with bypass lanes. To obtain final plat approval for the 87 lots, outstanding corrections shall be incorporated into an onslte road 58 plan. The Engineering Department must receive acceptable widening plans for the effected portions of Poffenberger Road, and an acceptable concept for correcting the site distance deficiency at Alternate US 40 and Poffenberger Road, prior to final approval of Phase 1 of 87 lots. Any subsequent phases will require a full set of construction plans for the corresponding construction of the vertical and horizontal alignment and pavement improvements to Poffenberger Road, and improvements to the intersection of Poffenberger and Alternate US 40. Steve Cvijanovich, consultant with Davis, Renn & Associates, further explained that improvements will be made to two locations on Poffenberger Road approximately 2,800 feet from the east side of the bridge to Alternate 40, where the paving is less than the reqUired 18 feet. There have been discussions about a realignment of Poffenberger Road where it connects to Alternate 40. He further stated that the developer would be responsible for the clear distance, as a part of the site easement, and a statement will be added onto the plat, that there will not be any obstructions or plantings in the clear area. He also stated that the Department of Water Quality Is looking at the possibility of installing a different type of pump controller in their pumping station and has not signed the drawings. The Soil Conservation District has also raised some issues that the developer is currently addressing. A discussion followed on the proposed traffic light at the intersection on Route 65 and the proposed realignment of Rench Road. Mr. Anikis asked for a status report from the State Highway Administration on the proposed traffic light on Route 65 and the status of the realignment project for Rench Road. Mr. Ardinger questioned the specifics of the APFO agreement and would the road improvements that this developer will incur be shared by the other developments that will also add traffic in this area. Mr. Thompson commented that there have been discussions with the Public Works Department to consider other options to share costs on road improvements with the other developments that contribute to traffic issues. Commissioner Kercheval said he was okay with this phase of the development but cautioned the developers in the area, including Westfields Estates, that the county is awaiting input from the school board on the impact of 500 new kids per year county-wide has on the school's CIP requirements. He also mentioned that based on these early numbers, it will be difficult to provide the funding for the CIP in total, which may result in adequate school capacity not being available for future phases of the development. The developer plans to construct the proposed development in four phases. The first phase will be completed in approximately one year with the total buildout planned in 4 to 6 years, depending on the market. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant preliminary approval for the entire project consisting of 238 lots and final plat approval for Phase 1 consisting of 87 lots, subject to receiving all approvals, and the approval of the forest conservation plan, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

Monroe Manor Estates - Preliminary Plat Ms. Baker presented a preliminary plat for lots 6 through 23 for Monroe Manor Estates. The property is located along Mill Point Road and is zoned Agricultural. Lots 1 through 5 were previously approved in March 2004. A prelim'lnary consultation was held in April 2004. The Planning Commission members made a recommendation to the County Commissioners that the plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2002. On May 18, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation and granted authority for this plat to move forward. The original tract parcel was 101.79 acres. Lots 1-5 were previously approved and the remainder was 96.33 acres. Under the new density rules, 19.2 units are permissible and in this case, the developer is requesting 18 units on 33.13 acres of land with approximately 66 acres left as the remainder. Notes will be added to the final plats encumbering the remainder of the property, that all the development rights have been exhausted. Individual wells and septic systems will serve the lots. A new cul-de-sac road will be built to the serve the new lots. Stormwater management will be met via a pond and individual onsite mitigation will occur on a few of the lots. Forest conservation will be met by onsite retention. The subdivision is located In the Boonsboro School District. The Boonsboro Elementary School is currently over capacity and the developer has been notified. A final analysis of the capacity will occur at the final plat stage. The Engineering Department has requested several revisions and the revisions have been submitted for their review. The Washington County Soil Conservation District is awaiting the Engineering Department's approval. Joe Kroboth of Emergency Management Services submitted comments on the proposed subdivision. The first comment was on the driveways located to the north side of the new cul-de-sac road in the steep slope area. The developer has proposed shared drives and designed the curves of the driveways to meet the minimum turning radius of the fire equipment and the grade has also been addressed. Mr. Kroboth had recommended a half of a cul-de-sac, which would provide a loading and unloading location for the fire equipment. However, this concept conflicts with the designs of the Engineering Department, and is an issue that he would like resolved in the future. Mr. Kroboth requested that a dry hydrant be placed in Antietam Creek, apprOXimately a mile and half from the site, to assist with fire protection issues. Ms. Baker stated that the Subdivision Ordinance design standards do not stipulate the implementation of dry hydrants. Mr. Kroboth's comments are only a recommendation and Emergency Management Services is not an approving agency. The Planning Commission members do have an obligation, according to the Subdivision Ordinance, to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. Mr. Frederick, the consultant of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, explained that the driveway grades are 1% less than the maximum amount permitted by County standards, and there will be common use maintenance agreements for the shared drives. He also stated that the developer was willing to meet with Mr. Kroboth at the site to discuss other alternatives that would resolve his concerns. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval, subject to the Emergency Management Services approving alternate water sources for fire safety, per Mr. Kroboth's comments, and receipt of the outstanding agency approvals, and also giving Staff authority for final approval. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Chuck E. Cheeses Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Chuck E. Cheeses. The subject site is located on the corner of Cole Road and Massey Boulevard. The total parcel area is 1.55 acres. The property is zoned Planned Business. The site plan proposes a 7,868 square foot building at the height of 28' for the Chuck E. Cheeses restaurant. The hours of operation will be Sunday through Thursday, from 10:00 AM to 10:00 p.m., and Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The restaurant will employ a total of 30 full time and part time employees. Parking required is 108 spaces and 114 spaces are provided inclUding five handicap 59 spaces. There will be one delivery per week. The proposed signage will be building mounted. Exterior lighting will be building mounted with single and double lamplights in the parking area. The site is served by public water and sewer service. Solid waste will be collected and stored in a dumpster and removed by a private contractor. An existing stormwater management pond will serve the site. Landscaping will be provided around the property lines, the buiiding, and along the parking areas. Forest conservation requirements were met previously in 1999, as a part of the Valley Mall expansion plan. The approval by the City Water Department on the site plan and the subdivision plan is pending the review by the City's Annexation Review Committee. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site plan approval subject to receipt of all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Conservit, Inc. Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Conservit, Inc. The subject site is located along the south side of Leslie Drive, just off of the Sharpsburg Pike. The property is zoned Industrial General. Conservit, Incorporated is proposing to install an ATM machine on a 1 acre parcel. The disturbed area will total less than 5,000 square feet. The ATM machine will be owned by Conservit and is solely for their customers. Customers will deposit their refuge at the site and will receive a bank-type card for payment at the ATM machine. According to the consultant, Bob Angle of Best Angle Surveys, this concept will assist with traffic flow and staffing. A wrap around driveway will service the ATM and will connect with Leslie Drive. There will be a building mounted light and sign. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements since the disturbed area is less than 40,000 square feet. All agency approvals have been received. No new employees are proposed. Members discussed the location of the proposed ATM, the unknown traffic volumes, and the potential for travelers to mistake the ATM for general use. Mr. Anikis stated that he believed there was adequate room across the railroad tracks on the west side to place the ATM rather than the proposed location, that is adjacent to a historic stone house. Mr. Anikis made a motion to deny site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously denied.

Save-A-Lot - Expansion Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Save-A-Lot. The subject site is located on the west side of Prosperity Lane and Lappans Road. The property is zoned Planned Industrial. The property owner is proposing a 32,488 square foot warehouse addition to the existing building for warehouse use. Total square footage will be 325,898 square feet. The total site area is 16.9 acres. Public water and sewer currently serve the site. Building mounted lights will be added to the new addition. No new signs will be added to the site. Currently, there are 192 employees and no new employees will be added. The hours of operation are 24 hours per day, seven days a week. There are 66 parking spaces available, and 43 spaces are required. The existing dumpster will be utilized. There will be no increases to the current freight and delivery. Several trees will be relocated with the construction of the addition. All agency approvals have been received. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by a request for payment in lieu of for approximately one acre. The existing stormwater management facility will also address the proposed addition. Mr. Moser suggested that there may be sensitive areas on the back portion of the property that could be planted, given the drainage from the proposed adjacent subdivision. Mike Gesell, consultant of Bohler Engineering, stated that they would be willing to look into some plant"lngs and would work with Staff on this matter. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon, if practical, a review of whether reafforestation can occur on site, rather than paying the requested mitigation fee. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved

Greenbrier Baptist Church Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for the expansion of the Greenbrier Baptist Church. The subject site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of National Pike and Mapleville Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. The property owner is proposing to construct a 2,258 square foot sanctuary. The site is currently served by an individual well and septic system. Existing access is located off of the National Pike. There are 21 parking spaces required, and 41 spaces proVided. No new signs will be added. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The church will also be open from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sundays, and on Wednesday and Thursday evenings. Landscaping will be added to the west of the property, along with foundation plantings along the addition. Solid waste will be collected and stored inside. A proposed canopy encroaches into the setback of the building restriction line. The owner is currently in the process of requesting a setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because it disturbs less than 40,000 square feet. All approvals have been received except from the Health Department and Staff does not foresee any problems with their approval. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval subject to all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Joe Horst Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Joe Horst. The subject site is located on the east side of Old National Pike, across from where Roxbury Road connects with Old National Pike. The property is zoned Agricultural. The property owner is proposing to construct a 5,600 square foot addition to an existing two­ story brick building for tire sales, repairs and minor mechanical services for agricultural uses. An existing two­ story house and block garage is also located on the site. There will be three full-time employees. The hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The existing commercial entrance will be used. Freight and delivery will be 3 box trucks and 1 tractor-trailer delivery per week. Solid waste will be disposed of in an existing dumpster. The existing well and septic system will be used. Lighting will be building mounted. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements, because the disturbance is less than 40,000 square feet. All agency approvals have been received. Ms. Pietro summarized the history of the proposed expansion. In October 2002, the former Zoning Administrator Paul 60

Prodonovich made a decision that proposed expansion by Mr. Horst was permitted in the Agriculture district. In December 2002, the neighbors fiied an appeal citing an administrative error. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the appeal. The neighbors then appealed that decision to the Circuit Court. The Court remanded the matter back to the Board of Zoning Appeals to obtain further information on the proposed expansion. Again, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the neighbor's request and stated that an administrative error did not occur, as outlined in the Opinion of May 28, 2004. Currently, the matter is being appealed back to Circuit Court. Mr.' Thompson stated that the County Attorney's position was that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed site plan, because the Court's decision did not issue a stay from any action on this matter until a final decision has been made. A discussion followed on the proposed expansion of the business, the intensity of the use, and whether the use is considered agricultural in nature. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site plan approval with the understanding that the applicant proceeds at his own risk, based on current litigation and assuming the use is primarily engaged in agricultural work, and that the use is consistent with the Board of Zoning Appeals opinion of December 2002 (AP202-154). Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved

-FOREST CONSERVATION:

Forest Conservation Candidate Sites - Frank & Joan Taylor and Gregory Bartles Mr. Goodrich explained that the payment in lieu of retention or planting fees paid by developers to comply with the Forest Conservation Ordinance are used in a program administered by the Washington County Soil Conservation District to purchase easements on private property to preserve existing forest cover or to allow planting of new forest cover. Elmer Weibley, District Manager of the Soil Conservation District, was present and explained the proposed forest easement sites. The first site, owned by Frank and Joan Taylor, will utilize a managed iawn to plant 2.2 acres of new forest to the existing forest around the subdivision on Geeting Road. Gregory Bartles owns the second candidate site, located on Mountain Laurel Road. The site has existing quality timber and a well-developed understory. in addition to the forest easement of 13.5 acres, 1.1 acres of new forest will be pianted. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the forest conservation candidate sites to the Board of County Commissioners, Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

Stonecrest (formerly Hartwood Acres) Mitigation Request Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a revised forest conservation plan for Stonecrest. The property is located within the Town of Keedysville. In May 2003, the Planning Commission preViously approved a forest conservation mitigation request for Hartwood Acres, consisting of 13 lots. At that time, the mitigation request was to retain 1.36 acres of existing forest, plant 0.21 acres of new forest, and payment in lieu of for the remaining 0.19 acres of mitigation. Since then, the property has transferred and there is a new subdivision plan. The new owner is proposing 21 lots on the same amount of acreage. The proposal for forest conservation is to retain 0.51 acres of existing forest in a steep slope area and the remaining forest would be cieared. The owner is requesting to use the payment in lieu option for 2.10 acres of the mitigation that is required, which is approximately $9,500. Discussion followed on the comparison of the forest conservation request on the previous plan and the current request. The consultant Gary Castle, explained that the previous owner of the property never moved forward w'lth the plan, because the Town of Keedysvilie adopted a new regulation that limited the cul-de-sac length to 500'. The new owner designed a new plan with a loop road design to meet the Town's criteria, with an extra wide entrance. The Town of Keedysville has approved the concept plan and the preliminary plan. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the mitigation request, as presented. Mr. Ardinger seconded the motion. Motion carried with Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye" and Mr. Anikis voting "nay." Mr. Moser abstained.

OTHER BUSINESS

Elmwood Farms Stream Buffer Mr. Goodrich presented a request for a waiver from the Subdivision Ordinance regulations that would require a stream buffer as recommended by the Soil Conservation District for the Elmwood Farms development. He proceeded to briefly review Section 409 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which outlines the stream buffer requirements. The buffer width shall be based upon a recommendation from the Soil Conservation District, and in this case is consistent with the floodplain boundary. No permanent structures or construction shall be permitted within the stream buffer except those designed to improve water quality in the stream or structures that limit access to the stream. The plan proposes to cross the floodplain with a road and a stormwater management pond is proposed just upstream of the roadway crossing, also located within the floodplain. There was debate at the Staff level about whether this is a structure designed to improve water quality in the stream, and it is possible to interpret the pond as a structure to improve water quality. The Soil Conservation District is recommending that the buffer be established to be consistent with the floodplain boundary and that the pond not be permitted in the floodplain. Mike Shifler of Fox & Associates, stated that according to the Army Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) definition, there is no stream or defined channel or floodwater on the site. By the stream buffer regulations, it is only interpreted to be a stream, based on the drainage area. The pond would be a shallow bio-retention area upstream from the road crossing and a large portion of the floodplain will be planted in forest. The plan proposes that the stormwater will be over-managed due to some known flooding conditions behind the Save-A-Lot facility and into the Interstate Industrial Park. He also explained that the alternative to the proposed stormwater management pond would lead to four additional ponds to address water quality and quantity for a total of seven ponds onsite. Mr. Anikis stated his concerns about the depth of the ponds and the safety of children in the proposed development. The ponds have been designed with flatter slopes and will not require fencing, except the pond along the railway embankment. The adjacent property owners have been notified of the plan. Mr. Welbley, representing the Washington County Soil Conservation District, stated that under their criteria, it is an intermittent stream and it qualifies for application of the review. He further stated that the proposed pond would change the character of the water flow. He also explained that a pond would provide 61 water quality benefits, but the negative effect is that it would discharge warmer water downstream and the properties downstream would also be affected for a longer period of time. Don Owens of Catoctin Development, stated that the proposed design was based on the Engineering Department's request to over-manage the runoff and eliminate downstream fiooding. Members discussed and agreed that additional information was needed to properly address the request. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to table the request to the October meeting and asked Staff to obtain more information on the affects of flooding downstream, the biological impacts of the proposed pond to be located in the floodplain area, additionai information on the intermittent stream, and a comment from the Engineering Department on the pros and cons of four additional ponds versus the proposed pond. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Discussion followed. Motion carried with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Anikis and Mr. Ardinger voting "yea" and Mr. Moser voting "nay."

UPCOMING MEETINGS A joint rezoning hearing is scheduled for September 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House.

A Planning Commission workshop was scheduled for October 18, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Anikis requested information be presented on the traffic concerns at Edgewood, Route 40, and the Robinwood corridor area.

ADJOURNMENT r I Mo';oo moO, '" Me M;';', ,~oo'" " Me, A",""c, " "j"m .l~JAf, DO~ ---ft~-- Aoo;o", Chairman 62

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004

The Washington County Pianning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, September 20, 2004, in the Washington County Circuit Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room #1, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman, R. Ben Clopper, and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish and Ex-Officio, James Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michaei Thompson; and Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung.

CALL TO ORDER

The special meeting was called to order by the Chairman, immediately following the joint public hearing.

OTHER BUSINESS:

WS-04-005 - City of Hagerstown, Water & Sewerage Plan Text Amendment - Recommendation

Mr. Lung presented staff report and analysis for the text amendment to the Water and Sewerage Pian, WS-04-005, a request by the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Lung stated that there did not appear to be any testimony presented during the public hearing previousiy held this evening, that would be contrary to the 'information submitted with the staff report, in determining consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson explained the expedience of the process and further explained that the City of Hagerstown will be making a presentation to the State of Maryland on Friday to request funding. The Board of County Commissioners will take action on the applicant's request during their regular meeting tomorrow. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of WS-04-Q05, to the Board of County Commissioners, based upon a determination that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Water and Sewerage Pian. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

Topics for Planning Commission Workshops Mr. Thompson provided a draft copy of the proposed topics of discussion for future Planning Commission workshops. He asked the members to review the listing and provide their prioritization of the topics before the regular October meeting. A brief discussion followed on additional workshop topics. A workshop is scheduled for October 18, 2004 at 1:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT ' There being no further business, Mr. Clopper made a...(motio....n' sn,.,ded by Mr. Reiber to adjourn the h~ ~ ,p"'" m,,"pg • gOO pm / rid --'

Don fli'. Ardinger Chairman 63

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 4, 2004, in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; R. Ben Clopper Vice-Chairman and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, and Terry Reiber. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planner, Lisa Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. James F. Kercheval, and Linda Parrish were absent.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS

Elmwood Farms Stream Buffer Mr. Goodrich presented the stream buffer waiver request for Elmwood Farms. The original request was presented and discussed, during the September 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission was asked to make a determination on a stream buffer requirement for Elmwood Farms, which proposes a stormwater management area within the floodplain and potential stream buffer. The Planning Commission tabled the request so that additionai information could be obtained and reviewed. Mr. Goodrich summarized the information provided to address the Commission's request. An excerpt was provided from Washington County's Stormwater Management Ordinance indicating the County's authority to require the "over-management" of stormwater to address the existing downstream flooding .problems. A copy of the definition of a "stream," from the Subdivision Ordinance, was also provided with an aerial photograph of the subject area that includes the floodplain boundary, which addresses the questions about the nature of the downstream development and flooding conditions. The Planning Commission had also requested a formal response from the Soil Conservation District. Since the September meeting, Soil Conservation representatives, the developer, and the consultant have met and agreed to changes in the proposal. Soil Conservation has submitted a letter that recommends the proposed design of the stormwater management pond within the buffer, because of additional design efforts. The revisions to the plan will include additional forest planting in the floodplain, and additional wetland type plantings in the pond, to address the concern about the temperature increases in the runoff. Therefore, the Soil Conservation District has given their recommendation for the proposed design and all parties are in agreement to the revisions. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the proposed design concept of the stormwater management pond in the stream buffer area, as recommended by the Soil Conservation District, and agreed to by the developer. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

Subdivisions:

Westfields, Preliminary Plat -Section 3

Ms. Pietro stated that the final plat for Section 3A has been removed from the agenda and only the preliminary plat for Section 3 will be reviewed and considered. Mr. Thompson stated, that in accordance with the policies adopted by the Commission, if the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat, Staff could review and approve it. The subject site is located along the west side of the Sharpsburg Pike. The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and is zoned Agricultural. The total tract is approximately 443 acres. Section 3 proposes to create 184 lots on 53 acres. Public water and sewer will serve the development. Newly constructed streets will serve all lots. The road names have been reviewed and approved. A second entrance wiil be constructed off of the Sharpsburg Pike. The State Highway Administration, County Engineering Department, and the developer have agreed that the developer will have to submit an access permit packet for the second entrance, prior to final plat approval for Section 3­ C. A total of 18.3 acres of forest easement is required for Section 3. The developer is proposing 8.2 acres of forest retention, and 9.3 acres will be planted on the western boundary of the site. The Health Department is the only outstanding agency, all other agency approvals have been received. The Health Department approval is pending the receipt of the availability letter from City Water Department and County Water and Sewer. The developer has signed an Annexation Agreement with the City of Hagerstown. Several open space areas are proposed in Section 3 and will be maintained by the homeowners association. The developer will begin the construction of a large tot lot that will include basketball and tennis courts that will be finalized upon the compietion of Section 3. Mr. MacGillivray, consultant with Ausherman Development Corporation, stated that they are willing to continue working with the County on the donation of a school site within the proposed subdivision and on the agreements on the previous preliminary plat approvals. Mr. Moser questioned whether the State Highway Administration (SHA) study had given any indication on traffic light requirements on Route 65. Mr. MacGillivray stated that the main entrance into the development has a condition that, if the SHA determines in the future that a light is necessary, a traffic light will be placed at the main entrance. The developer has also performed a traffic study that will have to be updated for the SHA, after the development reaches 500 units, to address any issues or concerns raised at that point. Mr. Anikis stated that, during the last storm event, he had noticed drainage issues around the pumping station to the south, and questioned if more worked 64 was planned on the stormwater management. Mr. MacGillivray stated that, it is their belief that the existing culvert under the County pump station driveway is insufficient, and they plan to discuss it with the appropriate County staff. Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan and the preliminary plat for Section 3, as presented, subject to the Health Department's approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

WS-04-003. Town of Boonsboro - Text Amendment

Mr. Lung presented a text amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan for the Town of Boonsboro. The pUblic hearing was held on September 2Q; 2004. Mr. Lung explained that normally this type of an amendment request is handled as a part of the periodic comprehensive updates to the Water and Sewerage Plan, but the application was submitted because of timing issues and the need for the municipality to move forward with their funding request to be processed by the State. Senior Planner Timothy Lung explained the text amendment request submitted by the Town of Boonsboro. The request was to amend the text of the Water and Sewerage Plan to recognize the construction of a new sewage treatment plant with an upgraded capacity. No changes are proposed to the existing service area. Staff's findings were that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, based upon the existing wastewater treatment plant is located within the corporate limits of the Town of Boonsboro and the proposed expansion and upgrade will also occur at this location. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the County indicates that there is a Town Growth Area established for the Town of Boonsboro. The Comprehensive Plan encourages growth and development to occur within designated growth areas where public facilities exist or can be easily extended. Also, based on the testimony presented by the applicant, the upgrades to the treatment technology should improve water quality in the area. The applicant has also addressed all of the technical items in Appendix B of the Water And Sewerage Plan required for this amendment to the Plan. Amendments to the Water and Sewerage Plan do not require the record to be held open after the hearing, and in this case, the record was closed at the hearing. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval, as presented in the Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing, to the Board of County Commissioners for the text amendment of WS-04-003, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

WS-04-004, Town of Funkstown - Text Amendment

Mr. Lung presented a text amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan for the To"'!n of Funkstown. The pUblic hearing was held on September 20, 2004. Senior Planner Timothy Lung explained that the request was to amend the text of the Water and Sewerage Plan for proposed upgrades to the Funkstown treatment plant. No changes are proposed to the existing service area. The plant would serve the existing service associated with the Town. At this point, there are discussions ongoing with the City of Hagerstown, the Town, and the Department of Water Quality for Washington County regarding options to install a pump station and transfer the flow to the Hagerstown treatment plant. A final decision is expected in the near future. The Town of Funkstown wanted to continue to more forward with this request. If the upgrades to the treatment plant do not come to fruition, the Town will withdraw their amendment request and submit another amendment to transfer the flow to a new pump station. No one representing the Town was present at the public meeting, apparently due to a communication problem. Amendments to the Water and Sewerage Plan do not require the record to be heid open follOWing the hearing, and in this case, the record was closed at the hearing. Staff believes the Town presented adequate information with the application submittal to move forward with the amendment and that the amendment would be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the text amendment of WS-04-004, based upon that the Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing provides enough evidence that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

A workshop was scheduled for October 18, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. An agenda for the workshop will be forthcoming.

Mr. Thompson informed the Planning Commission that Commissioner Kercheval requested that members be informed that the billboard site proposed for Leitersburg Pike may be relocated in the vicinity of Maryland Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive, or to another designated location.

Mr. Ardinger encouraged the members to read Doug Wright's handout on outdoor advertising signs, presented during the joint public hearing held on September 20, 2004.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:4p.m., 7,n 1~/t(/ Don P. Ardinger Chairman 65 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - OCTOBER 18, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, October 18, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman, R. Ben Clopper; and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish, and Ex-Officio, James F. KerchevaL Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Pianner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Pianners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman. Public Works Director Gary Rohrer and Chief Engineer Terry McGee were also present.

DISCUSSION

• Traffic Concerns at Edgewood. Route 40 & Robinwood Corridor Area

Public Works Director Gary Rohrer informed the Planning Commission that approXimately one year ago, he had proposed a 3-way project agreement to the State Highway Administrator and the District Engineer for the Robinwood corridor area. A document has been executed that commits the State of Maryiand, the City of Hagerstown, and the County, to a 1/3 cost share on the preliminary engineering and traffic analysis for the Robinwood Corridor area. The County's share will include APFO funds for the construction costs. A consuitant for the State Highway Administration (SHA) performed a detailed US 40 corridor study from the Nissan dealership to Cleveland Avenue, which also examined the major intersections. Chief Engineer Terry McGee expiained the preliminary plans for the ultimate buildout of the project, based on what is envisioned from the traffic study. SHA examined iow build and high build alternatives, the zoning in the City and the County, the projects currently planned, and the surrounding vacant land. The Study looked at five years, ten years, twenty years, out to 2023, to determine different road need scenarios along US 40. They looked at six lanes, with three lanes in each direction to eight . lanes, with four lanes in each direction. In the 2023 timeframe, even with the high build scenario with eight lanes, there were still significant problems at several of the major intersections. Mr. McGee stated that the intersection of Edgewood Drive and US 40 has the most problems and is the first priority in this corridor. He proceeded to explain the improvements planned for this intersection. Construction on the improvements to the intersection will begin in approximately two years. The widening along US 40 is still subject to discussions, on how far the widening will extend. Other traffic studies have been performed in this area, including a traffic study completed for the Washington County HospitaL Mr. Rohrer stated that the traffic study for the hospital site was a regional analysis and was completed under the scrutiny of the Engineering Department. Shortly thereafter, Mt. Aetna Farms PUD subrnitted their concept plan and it was recommended that they retain the same consulting firrn so the hospital's data could be expanded for their study. The same consultant completed their study and the two studies do mesh and compliment each other, although a revision may be forthcoming as a result of a change to the PUD concept. Any major zoning changes or major land use changes that would increase traffic would change the traffic forecast in the study. Mr. Rohrer stated that planned improvements to the intersection should be finished in approximately 12 to 15 months before the hospital would open, if it is approved for the Robinwood site. He further stated that, even if the hospital is not built at the Robinwood compiex, the project improvements to the Edgewood and US 40 intersection are needed now, because the intersection is failing. The original APFO agreement executed in 1995 with the Washington County Health System, stated that they would not participate in the improvements for along US 40 or at the intersection, because they had already contributed a sizeable amount for earlier improvements, but the hospital will participate in some fashion with the improvements needed on Edgewood Drive.

Mernbers discussed their concerns with the current flow of traffic traveling into Funkstown and the increased traffic in this area. Mr. Rohrer stated there have been discussions about several alternative routes for a Funkstown bypass (Southern Boulevard) and funding is being sought for this project.

Mr. Moser questioned when the proposed bridge that would cross over the Antietam Creek to Eastern Boulevard would be constructed and would that elevate traffic problems. Mr. Rohrer stated that there were discussions during the relocation of the northern end of Robinwood Drive about this bridge. This connection from Eastern Boulevard to Robinwood would aiso benefit from the proposed development of Mt. Aetna Farms and Hagerstown Community College, by providing a second ingress and egress. The developer of Mt. Aetna Farms has been told he must set aside a connection for the college and they have agreed to do so. So far the studies show that the bridge is not needed at this time. Mr. McGee stated that the developer of Mt. Aetna Farms has already been notified that he will have to provide at least two access points for the development.

• Traffic Study Update

Mr. Ardinger stated that one of the dilemmas that the Planning Corn mission faces during the rezoning, public hearing review process for map amendments, particularly for PUDs, is the opposition factors like traffic concerns, congestion, failing intersections, etc. During their deliberations, the Planning Cornrnission considers the concerns raised, and it would be helpful to have a traffic study before rezoning applications were heard. Chief Engineer Terry McGee explained that the Engineering Department is really not in favor of having the traffic study performed too early, because traffic generation is very project specific and a particuiar zoning designation can allow a multitude of uses, with various traffic characteristics. Mr. McGee stated that the APFO, which is imposed at the site pian or subdivision part of the development process, clearly states that, if the developer cannot show that they can deal with the traffic situation on the project proposed, regardless of zoning, that particular project will not receive the Engineering Department's 66 approval. He further stated that if a traffic study is performed too far in advance, there are assumptions that make the results much more suspect. The Engineering Department prefers to have the traffic study performed when more details are known and quite often on rezoning applications the details are unknown.

• Cul-de-sac Length Design Standard

Mr. Thompson stated that currently there are no specifications in the Ordinance on cul-de-sac lengths, and no standard to regulate the lengths. Public Works Director Gary Rohrer stated that he has spoken with Emergency Services Director Joe Kroboth on his concerns regarding cul-de-sac lengths. During their meeting, it was discussed that, for safety and operational aspects, 800' is a reasonable length for cul-de-sacs for a maximum of 25 lots. At 800' a fire can be fought efficiently from the main road and this proposed standard will assist from an operational aspect (I.e. snow removal). The 800' would start from the intersection of the right of way lines of the two roads and be measured to the center of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rohrer stated that Chris Carter of the Board of Education, informed him that parents often complain that their child has to walk a distance because school buses cannot access cul-de-sacs. Mr. Anlkls made a motion to direct Staff to draft an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance that would limit the cui-de. sac length to 800' and for no more than 25 lots, for fire safety, school safety, and road maintenance purposes. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval asked that information on standards from other counties also be obtained for consideration. Mr. Rohrer suggested that, as Staff develops this standard, another discussion should be scheduled with the Director of Emergency Services to work out the details on the logistics and placement of fire hydrants, etc. Mr. Ardinger stated that the details of the Motion do not preclude Staff from making modifications to the proposed standard.

(Terry Reiber left the meeting at 2.30 p.m.)

• Pathways & Sidewalks

Mr. Thompson stated that currently there is no requirement to have sidewalks and pathways in larger developments and PUD's. He suggested that in certain types of developments with certain sized iots, the ·developer would be required to provide sidewalks and pathways with a closed section roadway. A discussion followed on the use of open and closed section streets. From an environmental standpoint, especially accounting for stormwater management, it is better and from a cost of construction standpoint, it is cheaper to do open section streets, but it creates a problem with installing a sidewalk. Public Works Director Gary Rohrer stated, during recent discussions, it was envisioned that the standard would be requiring pavement in the 34' range with two 9' travel lanes and two 8' parking lanes. This aspect works well in the urban areas and initially, the Urban Growth Area would be the triggering factor for using this concept. Traffic calming measures would also have to be considered, such as speed bumps or chokers with stripping. Mountable curbs provide the ability to more easily install a driveway, and also provide the mechanism to collect the water and carry it to the discharge point. Mr. Rohrer stated that a standard could also be set for the use of mountable curbs and that on-street parking should be enforced, because rarely, sufficient provisions are made for off-street parking. Mr. Kercheval stated that the County may need to determine the number of parking spaces per unit. A sidewalk ordinance would also have to be invoked for the property owner to be responsible for the maintenance of their sidewalk. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff would work on developing a proposed standard to stipulate when and where the open or closed section streets are required and will present the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for their review prior to presenting an amendment at public hearing. Mr. Moser made a motion requesting Staff to draft an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to require closed section streets in the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

• Standards for Steep Driveways

A recent subdivision proposal prompted the discussion that a maximum standard was needed to address steep driveways for safety purposes. Currently, the County has no standards for driveway grades. Chief Engineer Terry McGee stated that private driveways open a plethora of issues, from accessibility in inclement weather, emergency access, to drainage issues. Recently, the Engineering Department has required detailed grading plans for steep driveways. Currently, County CIP projects that have to tie-in with private driveways have an unwritten standard of 10%, as the preferred maximum grade and as steep as 15% grade. Mr. McGee stated a determination is needed on what the County is trying to accomplish, such as is the County is trying to account for the property owner's safety, or drainage on the roadways, etc. Chief Engineer Terry McGee stated that he was not willing to infringe on someone's use of their property; however, he would like to see better standards for the immediate access to the roadway, which is the transition from the edge of the roadway up to the driveway, also known as the "landing area." Mr. Thompson stated that a standard could be incorporated into the Subdivision Ordinance or in the design standards, through the Public Works Department. Public Works Director Gary Rohrer and Chief Engineer Terry McGee will discuss this matter in more detail and provide the Planning Director with their recommendations, to accomplish a standard that can be understood by a practicing engineer and field surveyor.

• Reserving School Sites

Mr. Thompson stated that currently, the County Ordinances do not address school sites and how to obtain them. There are a number of ways to approach reserving school sites within proposed developments. Some jurisdictions have made it mandatory for developments to provide a school site, based on the number of units within a subdivision. Mr. Thompson stated that the Board of Education has begun to be more involved and they are looking at the school site issue. The Board has presented the 67 new numbers for how many acres they would like for school sites. The concept proposes 15 acres for a elementary school, 30 acres for a middle school, and 60 acres for a high school. Previousiy, the amount of designated acreage was 12, 25, and 35 acres, respectfully. The discussion centered on options to set aside land for new schools, including raising the current APFO school fee, requiring developers to reserve land for schools, and the timing of infrastructure needs to the site. Mr. Moser stated that he believed a school site would be an asset to a deveiopment. Members also discussed how to handle reserved school sites, if later the sites were not needed. Ms. Parrish commented on the condition of some of the existing older schools and questioned if the current schools were large enough to expand. Mr. Thompson st"ted that another issue to consider is the Board of Education's philosophy on multi-story schools. Mr. Kercheval suggested that reserving school sites could be similar to the payment in lieu of option that is utiiized to address forest conservation. The County would require so many acres for a determined number of units and allow "payment in lieu of' or offsite school sites, partiCUlarly if there is already a school site close by. The current APFO does not necessarily cover every lot of record and it is only collected in the County, and is not collected by the municipalities. The County has had some discussions with the municipalities on how to generate the APFO fee; however, there are some legal issues to be resolved, because the County owns the schools. Fees could be collected for school sites by collecting a fee per unit, such as an excise tax. Currently, the County does not have the enabling legislation to collect impact fees. Mr. Thompson stated that the donation of a school site within municipalities as a part of an annexation agreement, might also come to fruition. Mr. Anikis stated that he believes the County Commissioners need to take the lead in meeting with all of the municipalities to come up with an arrangement whereby they contribute to the APFO fee, and if the municipalities cannot legally contribute the school fee, then they should be able to stop the permitting process, then the developer can contribute a fee towards acquiring land, if the developer wishes to proceed. Mr. Thompson stated that the location of schools is primarily based on the State's funding, priority funding areas, and Urban Growth Area. He further stated that the current APFO fee would probably work best in achieving an offsite school location, rather than trying to subtract land out of each development because an appropriate site may not be available on each development. He also stated that the current APFO fee of $7,355 collected per dwelling unit is placed in the County's CIP fund and is dedicated for only school construction and not for land acquisition, or offsite improvements. Mr. Rohrer stated that the fee would have to be raised at least $1,000 per dwelling unit to cover costs of purchasing land for schools.

·(Mr. Anikis left the meeting at 4:15 p.m.)

In conclusion, Mr. Thompson stated that the County will continue to work with the School Board to address the school capacity issue. County Staff will continue to discuss ideas and look at different alternatives on how to accomplish what the School Board needs, such as requiring a school site depending on the size of the development, how many acres of land to reserve on proposed development sites, or reserving land outside of the development, and increasing the current APFO fee to determine the best way to address school adequacy. A meeting has been scheduled at the end of October with the Board of Education and the Staff to discuss the APFO formula and school enrollment numbers.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Due to time restraints, the Planning Commission did not discuss the requirement for two entrances or box stores/empty store sites. These workshop topics will be rescheduled to a future workshop date.

The regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, November 1,2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Annex conference room. The Planning Commission's recommendation on RZ-04-007 (outdoor advertising signs) will be discussed at the end of the agenda.

There will be two joint rezoning pUblic hearing dates in November, due to the number of cases to be heard. The first public hearing will be Monday, November 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., and the second hearing will be held the following Monday, November 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House. ADJOURMENT ~ Moo," med,"y M', M=" ""'"'''"' M', C'opp", "'dji 'f'lo;moo",y 'P""""d

.... d" 68

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 1, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 1, 2004, in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman, R. Ben Clopper and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, and Linda Parrish, and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding, Mr. Thompson stated that the site plan for Yarrowsburg Mennonite Church and the preliminary consultation for Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park would be omitted from the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS

• AG DISTRICTS:

Mr. Thompson presented two Agricultural Land Preservation District applications, as outlined in a memorandum submitted by Eric Seifarth, Land Preservation Administrator. The Ag Districts applications are for Phyllis Barr, AD-04-001, consisting of 91 acres, and Karl K. Werder, AD-04-002, consisting of 123 acres. The applicants have applied for a ten (10) year Agricultural Land Preservation District, in exchange for property tax credits. Each property is iocated in the rural area and no public services are proposed for the areas. Staff is rec'ommending the approval of the applications because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the two Ag District applications, as the applications are logical, appropriate, and meet the goals of Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

·VARIANCES:

Glenn Bachtell Three Tier Configuration

Ms. Baker presented for review and approval the variance request for Glenn Bachtell. The request is proposing a three-lot subdivision off of the intersection of Kretsinger Road and Welty Church Road. Lot 1 was approved in December 1997. Lot 2 is proposed as a lot without road frontage and, per the Policy Statement, can be approved by the Planning Director because there is an existing dwelling and it does meet the purpose of trying to separate an additional dwelling from a lot of record. Lots 3 and 4 are the two panhandle lots that create the three tier configuration. The panhandie iengths are approximately 220' and 360'. The owner wishes to stack the lots on one side of the property because of the existing farm operation on Welty Church Road, and the floodplain and stream buffer area along Kretsinger Road. Staff supports the applicant's request and his desire to maintain as much of the farm in a contiguous configuration. Mr. Clopper inquired whether the owner would agree to the statement that no further development would occur. The applicant's consultant, Randy Dick, stated that the owner would not object to the statement being added to the plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the variance request, subject to the statement being added to the plan that no further development would occur. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

(Commissioner Kercheval arrived at 7:10 p.m.)

MINUTES

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of the special meeting held on September 20, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

·VARIANCES (continued):

Leroy Myers. Lot 2 Panhandle Length

Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance request for Leroy Myers, Jr. The subject site is located along the south side of US Route 40, east of Spickler Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. Mr. Myers is proposing the subdivision of lot 2 with a panhandle length in excess of 1,147', along the existing 60' right of way, to serve the remaining lands. An existing asphalt drive that currently accesses the remaining lands and serves lot 1 is owned by John and Teresa Barr. This drive wouid aiso serve iot 2 and the remaining lands. This will also create a panhandle length of 600', along the existing right of way, to serve the existing lot 2. Lot 2 will be required to use the existing entrance. After lot 2 is approved and sold, the panhandle and additional acreage will be added to the lands of John and Teresa Barr, because they currently have no public road frontage. A motion was made by Mr. Clopper to grant the variance request, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. 69

- SUBDIVISIONS:

South Point PUD. Phase 5 - Preliminary Plat

Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a Preliminary Plat for Phase 5 of South Pointe PUD. The property is located on the east side of Grand Oak Drive and north of Oak Ridge Drive. The property is zoned RS-PUD. The developer is proposing 45 townhouse lots with a minimum lot size of approximately 3,000 square feet. The total lot area is 8.74 acres and the open space area is 1.4 acres. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Lots will access the new streets of Peppercom Drive, Grand Legacy Drive, and Firebush Drive. The owner is proposing 5' walkway easements between several of the lots to access the rear of the properties, as on previous phases. Paved sidewalks are located along the fronts of the properties. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements, because it was a lot of record prior to 1993. All approvals have been received. Discussion followed on whether this phase was exempt from the APFO school fee. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon payment of the APFO school fee, if it applies to this phase. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Hunter's Green Business Park Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the preliminary and final plat for lot 7 of Hunter's Green Business Park. The site is located on the north side of Hunters Green Parkway, west of Hopewell Road. The property is zoned Highway Interchange-1. The developer is creating a commercial lot on 5.8 acres and 2.83 acres will remain. The existing house and bam will remain and will be used by the new owner for office space and storage. The house is listed on the Historic Site survey. Public water and sewer serve the site. The developer is requesting to use the payment in lieu fee to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. A Forest Stand Delineation was submitted and shows no forest on the site. The payment in lieu fee would be $3,789.72. The Health Department is the only outstanding agency and they are awaiting an availability letter from the Department of Water Quality, and their approvai is pending payment of the review fee. A site plan will be submitted in the near future. Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat contingent upon all'agency approvals. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. Mr. Clopper made a motion to accept the payment in lieu fee of $3,789.72 to meet the forest conservation requirement. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Broadfording Church - Addition Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for an addition to the Broadfording Church. The subject site is located on the west side of Greencastle Pike, south of Cearfoss The property is zoned Agricultural. The total parcel area is 6.2 acres. The site plan proposes an 8,600 square foot all-purpose building expansion to the existing church, to serve a variety of church functions. Public water and a private septic system serve the site. Lighting will be bUilding mounted. No additionai signage is proposed. The hours of operation will be Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The church employs only the pastor. The parking requirement for the addition is 40 spaces and 78 spaces are provided. A variance was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in August 2004, permitting a 50' right side yard setback to be reduced to 28' for the multi-purpose addition. Landscaping will be added along the parking area that will border the side of the addition. Stormwater quality will be addressed onsite. All approvals have been received. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

North Pointe Shopping Center Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for North Pointe Shopping Center. The subject site is located along the south side of North Pointe Drive, adjacent to the existing Food Lion. The property is zoned Planned Business for the new addition. The total parcel area is 3.3 acres. The developer is proposing to construct a 27,900 square foot building addition to the existing Food Lion for retail stores. The site is served by public water and sewer service. A new access will be constructed onto North Pointe Drive. The hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The addition will employ approximately 20 employees. Parking required and provided is 124 spaces. The projected daily use is 400 customers per day. Freight and delivery will be 16 trucks per week. There is an agreement with Food Lion for trucks to access the area behind the bUilding. Solid waste will be collected and stored in a new, screened dumpster. Exterior lighting will be building and pole mounted. The lights will be shielded down and the standard note will be added to the plat regarding the lighting. A new sign will be constructed at the entrance. A variance was granted in 2001 for a building setback reduction. For the purpose of screening, 6' Leyland cypress trees will be planted along the rear of the building addition. Landscaping will be provided throughout the parking area, along the street, and to the side of the travel lane bordering the stormwater management pond. The landscaping will include sugar maple, heritage birch, Leyland cypress, Japanese lilac, and juniper trees. There is no existing forest on the site. The forest conservation requirements are to be met by retaining 1.02 acres of existing forest on the developer's farm, located off of Dam #4 Road. All approvals have been received. The APFO road fee for the Maugans Avenue/Longmeadow corridor applies to this project. An existing stormwater management pond will serve the site. Ms. Parrish stated that fencing should be instailed behind the building in addition to the proposed trees, to provide additional screening and additional security to the adjacent homeowners since vehicles are able to access the area behind the building. Mr. Clopper suggested that the fence be vinyl. Mr. Kercheval stated that he understood Ms. Parrish's point, but he could not support requiring a vinyl fence in addition to the proposed trees. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approvai subject to the developer adding a 6' white vinyi 70 fence to the rear of the bUilding in addition to the Leyland cypress trees for security reasons and as an added buffer. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Discussion followed on the location of the fence. Members agreed that the fencing would be located between the proposed Leyiand cypress trees and the driveway behind the building. Mr. Moser added that he would feel more comfortable on these types of projects if the neighborhood was aware of the proposal and this matter could be discussed at a future workshop. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Ms. Parrish, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Moser, Mr. Clopper, and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye." Mr. Kercheval voted "no," based on the fencing issue. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the proposed offsite forest retention of 1.02 acres. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.

Beaver Creek Country Club Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for Beaver Creek Country Club. The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Beaver Creek Road and Maryland Route 66. The property is zoned Conservation. The owner is proposing to demolish the majority of the existing clubhouse. A small area will be retained and a 14,900 square feet addition will be added to include a 300-seat banquet facility. The facility will have 14 employees on the site. The hours of operation will be seven days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to dark, and later as necessary. The required parking is 184 spaces and 198 spaces are provided, including six handicap spaces. The clubhouse is served by private well and private septic. There are sensitive areas on the site, including floodplain, wetlands, and a stream buffer, that are not in the area that will be disturbed. The project is exempt from forest conservation requirements because the disturbed area does not exceed 40,000 square feet. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Ciopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Crosspoint Shopping Center. Section 1, Pad Site #2

Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for a freestanding commercial building to be constructed at the Crosspoint Shopping Center on pad site #2. The subject site is located just south of an existing pad site that was approved several years ago. The pad site is 0.71 acres and is zoned Business General. The proposal is for a 4,200 square foot building that will contain three retail spaces. One of the businesses is identified as a coffee shop with a drive-up window. Tenants of the other retail spaces are not identified at this time. Two entrances are proposed off of the internal access road for the Crosspoint Shopping Center. Based on the combined retail and restaurant floor space, 29 parking spaces are required and 32 spaces are provided, including two handicap spaces. A screened dumpster location is provided in the northwest corner of the site. Landscaping is provided around the site and includes dense plantings in front of the parking spaces to prevent headlight glare onto Massey Boulevard. Down directed pole mounted lighting will be located in the parking lot. No additional signage is proposed at this time. Forest conservation requirements were previously meet for the entire Crosspoint development. A regional stormwater management facility will handle the runoff from this site. Public sewer is provided by the County and public water is provided by the City of Hagerstown. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval for Section 1, pad site #2 of the Crosspoint Shopping Center. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Breezy Knoll Storage Sheds Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Breezy Knoll Storage Sheds. The subject site is located on the northeast side of Cearfoss Pike, north of the intersection of Greencastle Pike. The total parcel area is 6.5 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural. The site plan proposes a 4,000 square foot addition to the existing facility for manufacturing storage sheds, a 5,000 square foot building for material storage, and a 40' x 240' display area. In 1997, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a speclai exception to establish a manufacturing facility. In June 2004, the BZA granted a special exception to allow the proposed addition. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM to 5:30 p.m., and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. There will be a total of six employees. Seven parking spaces are required and 16 spaces are provided, including one handicap space. Exterior lighting will be building mounted. There will be approximately one tractor-trailer delivery per day. No new signage is proposed. The site is served by public water and private sewer service. Solid waste will be collected and stored in a dumpster and removed by a private contractor. Forest conservation requirements will be met by 0.99 acres of afforestation located around the back and side property lines. The existing stormwater management area will be enlarged to address the expansion. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval for the Breezy Knoll Storage Sheds. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS

William Taylor, Offsite Forest Conservation Plan & Concept Plan

Mr. Lung presented the concept plan and Forest Conservation Plan for William Taylor. The preliminary consultation was held on September 30, 2004. The subject property is located along the northwest corner of Hopewell Road and Wright Road. The owner is proposing 102 single-family lots. The total tract is approximately 70 acres. The property is zoned Rural Residential and is located within the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Lung proceeded to review several points discussed during the consultation. One item discussed was the inadequate roads serving the property and how it would be addressed. It was suggested that Wright Road could be relocated through the development to Hopewell Road. The existing Wright Road would be truncated with a cul­ de-sac at the end that would serve the existing residences. This scenario would prompt several issues such as multiple individual driveways onto a main road through the development. This suggestion has prompted the need for a meeting to be held in the future between the Engineering Department, Planning Department, and the consultant to discuss the issues involved with rerouting Wright Road. The County's Real Property Administrator has sent out letters asking for input from the property owners along Wright Road that would be affected if the 71 road were rerouted. Other items discussed during the consultation included pedestrian access, environmental features of the property, an active rail line that runs along the northern part of the property, and a future right of way connection to provide an interconnection if the vacant property located to the northeast is deveioped in the future. A discussion followed. Members agreed that sidewalks were needed with closed section streets being utilized, especially if Wright Road is rerouted through the development. Mr. Kercheval recommended that consideration shouid be given to relocating Wright Road on the backside of the lots. He also recommended more connectivity inside of the development. Mr. Anikis stated that the existing historic dwelling should be buffered and that the proposed homes close to the railroad track should aiso be buffered. Mr. Frederick stated that, due to the 70' easement for sewer and gas, they cannot plant a forest easement along the tracks, but a row of trees or a fence could be added. As explained in a letter from the consultant, the developer would like the Planning Commission's permission to grant them the authority to retain forest across the road on other lands or offsite retention on iands also owned by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Frederick further explained that the owner plans to plant forest in the 100 year floodpiain and plans to save as much forest as possible; however, they may not have the 20% needed. He aiso stated that the Soil Conservation District has viewed and endorsed the retention of all of the 100 year floodplain and also an area that used to be farmed, located above the floodplain on the west side of Route 63 and Kemps Mill Road to be retained at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio, as offered. Mr. Taylor is agreeable to the proposal. Members discussed the proposal for forest conservation and it was suggested that the owner shouid consider clustering the lots to provide more open space and maintain more of the existing forest, particular on the high ground area. Commissioner Kercheval stated that the Wiliiamsport Elementary School is currently inadequate and in the future this development could generate 25 to 50 elementary students. He further stated that developers need to understand that there is no guarantee that the Commissioners will signoff on all APFO school agreements in the timeframe that developers may want and that it is not just a matter of paying the APFO school fee. Mr. Frederick stated that he would provide a revised plan, utilizing the clustering concept, incorporating the Planning Commission's recommendations. The revised plan will include the relocation of Wright Road on the backside of the lots, and a connection road to adjacent property. A fence and a row of trees will be added along the railroad tracks, unless the road is placed to the back of the lots, then only a fence would be added for safety purposes. He further stated that their intent is to save as much forest as possible onsite, plant the environmentally sensitive areas, and provide more than the 2: 1 ratio of offsite forest retention to meet the forest conservation requirements. No action was required.

OTHER BUSINESS

Sleven & Lisa Hockman - Release from Family Member Provision

Ms. Pietro presented a request made by Mr. and Mrs. Hockman for a waiver from the immediate family member clause on a parcel of land subdivided in 1998, along Claggett Mill Lane (previously Poffenberger Road). Mr. Hockman's parents created this lot without road frontage and they own the existing lane. A right of way easement was established to access the created lot. Ms. Pietro explained the basis of a hardship, as outlined in a letter from the Hockmans. Mrs. Hockman has an employment opportunity in St. Mary's County in Southern Maryland, which would require them to relocate. The Hockmans would like to sell the lot and be released from the 10-year family member restriction. Three years remain on the agreement. Mr. Hockman was present and confirmed that his parents were aware of the waiver request and understands the situation. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant a waiver from the immediate family member provision. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

RZ-04·007, Board of County Commissioners

Ms. Baker stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. The public hearing was held on September 20, 2004. She proceeded to review the Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing. She summarized the comments made at the hearing and the written comments submitted during the 1D-day comment period. Several people spoke in favor of the amendments, but most also wanted the County to go a step further by either banning all new billboards or banning and eliminating all existing billboards. The Staff report reflects those comments, but, in the Staffs opinion, it is not the direction that either the Planning Commission nor the County Commissioners wanted to go. Members discussed and agreed that the intent of the Planning Commission members was reflected in the Staff report. The majority of the comments made during the staff analysis revolve around the comments made by Doug Wright, of Advertising Incorporated who has technical experience on the billboard industry and had provided detailed, valid comments on the proposed amendments that Staff believed needed to be reviewed and addressed. Mr. Wright indicated that he believed the language of Section 22.24.b could be interpreted that all existing billboards would be subject to the new regulations. However, the intent was not to change the existing billboards, but shouid there come a point in time that if the sign company wants to change the size of the sign, that it could not increase in size or make more of an impact. To address this concern, most of the comments were moved to Section 22.24.c to separate regulations for existing signs versus new signs. Mr. Wright commented on sections limiting the height and size of new billboards. Ms. Baker explained that Staff has changed the language for the proposed sign face area from 350 square feet per face to 300 square feet, with the cumulative sign area not exceeding 600 square feet. This is the standard size of the industry and consistent to the City of Hagerstown Ordinance. Members agreed to this proposed sign face area and also agreed that no sign shall have more than 2 faces. The Planning Commission also discussed and agreed that the signs shall have the two faces placed back to back in a parallel arrangement and that they can approve a modification up to 45 degrees, if a hardship can be proven. The Commission members discussed at length and agreed that no sign shall be greater than 30' in height. They also agreed that the height would be measured from the lowest road grade at centerline and if a sign were located in an intersection, the lowest grade of the two road grades would be used. Under Article 22.c.8, members agreed that the word "residential" should be added to the text for further clarification. They also agreed that no changes would be made to the proposed text under Article 22.d, prohibiting mobile signs. Members agreed with Staff on the designated corridors where outdoor advertising signs may not be erected and directed Staff to make minor revisions to several of the designated routes. Members agreed that no outdoor 72

advertising sign shall be located within 500' of another outdoor advertising sign, but the proposed separation requirement of 250" of outdoor advertising signs from other existing signage was omitted from the verbiage of the proposed text. Members also discussed and agreed with Mr. Wright's suggestion that the BL and HI-1 zoning districts be included in the districts where billboards wouid be allowed. They also agreed with Staff's recommendation to add HI-2 to the list of zoning districts where billboards are prohibited. Staff proposed removing the proposed text of Section 22.24.d, as agreed upon by the Commission members, because it is inconsistent with the existing language of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing statement under Section 4.3.f of the Zoning Ordinance regarding non-conforming uses states that they may be restored up to one year after destruction from acts of God and nature. Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, as drafted by Staff, to the Board of County Commissioners, including the comments made by the Planning Commission this evening. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis commended Ms. Baker on her efforts in preparing the draft document.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Two joint rezoning public hearing dates are scheduled for November. The first public hearing will be held Monday, November 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., and the second hearing will be held the following Monday, November 15,2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House.

The regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, December 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Annex conference room.

A future Planning Commission workshop date will be discussed at the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT Ir L'i _co m," by M,. CW""". ,=",'" by M,. Moo". '" "',om " "~9fi;1

Don F9. Ardinger Chairman r----­ 73

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 6, 2004

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, December 6, 2004, in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; Vice-Chairman, R. Ben Clopper and Members: Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish, and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members: Planning Director, Michael Thompson; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung; Associate Planner, Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Before proceeding, Mr. Thompson stated that the Water and Sewerage Plan amendment application for Rehoboth United Methodist Church had been withdrawn and would be omitted from the agenda.

MINUTES

Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of September 13, 2004, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis requested a status report from the State Highway Administration, on when a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection on Route 65, and the status of the realignment project for Rench Road. Mr. Anikis also questioned whether a resolution was reached between the developer of Monroe Manor Estates and the Emergency Management Services on fire safety issues. Mr. Thompson advised the Members that an agreement has been reached.

Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 4, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis stated that he had noted that the pumping station, south of Westfields, was underwater during a recent storm event and the developer had stated that there was a problem with the eXisting culvert and that is was a County issue. He questioned if this problem had been resolved. Mr. Thompson stated that he would investigate this matter.

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the workshop minutes of October 18, 2004, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Thompson stated that an update on the topics discussed during the workshop of October 18, 2004,would be provided at the next workshop

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of November 1,2004, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

- SUBDIVISIONS:

Rosewood Section liB - Preliminary Plat/Site Plan

Mr. Lung presented for approval the preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for Phase liB of Rosewood Village PUD. The subject site is located on the west side of Robinwood Drive, south of Hagerstown Community College. The property is located in the Urban Growth Area. This site was granted a PUD zoning overlay in 1995. A final development plan for the overall design of the PUD was approved in 1999 for a total of 520 residential units on 79 acres, along with 7.9 acres of commercial area. The PUD will be developed in three phases. Phase I was approved in 2000, which included 57 townhouse rental units, a 42 unit elderly living facility, and a 25 unit townhouse development, across from Robinwood Drive, known as Jade Court. The phasing plan for three separate phases was approved with the final development plan. The developer has elected to split Phase II into two sub-phases. Final approval has not been granted on this phase. Phase IIA consists of additional rental townhouse units, a medical office building, elderly apartment units, assisted living units, and two garden style apartment buildings. Phase liB is located on approximately 19 acres and includes the construction of Varsity Lane. Phase IIA was approved in July and was conditioned upon an APFO developer's agreement and a resolution of the pending forest conservation issues. Phase liB consists of 57 townhouse units off of Capital Lane, 73 townhouse units off of O'Neal's Place, four 8-unit apartment buildings off of Varsity Lane, for a total of 32 units. This phase also includes a 3-acre commercial area, in the vicinity of Varsity Lane and Robinwood Drive, which will contain a convenience store, gas station, bank, office/retail building, and a small retail strip center. There will be 4 Y2 acres of open space area spread throughout the development. Forest conservation for this phase was addressed in the Phase IIA plan. During the review of Phase IIA, there were forest issues still outstanding on the original plantings for Phase I that needed to be addressed and was a condition of the approval for Phase IIA. The developer is working on resolving this matter. Pedestrian access is provided and will tie in with the overall pedestrian plan. This submittal also includes a request for several setback modifications. The Capital Lane townhouses will be located off of a new cui­ de-sac street and will consist of nine blocks of townhouses with each block containing three to eight units on their own lot, for a total of 52 units. The townhouse units will be 3-story, with driveways to accommodate the off-street parking requirements. Per the zoning regulations, a RV parking area is 74

provided off the end of the cul-de-sac. A closed section street design will be utilized, with sidewalks provided along both sides of the street, tying into the overall pedestrian plan for the PUD. A covered school bus shelter will be provided at the intersection with a pedestrian crosswalk across Varsity Lane. A tot lot is provided and is located between lots 22 and 23. A setback modification request was submitted for this tot lot to reduce the setback from 25' to 15'. Staff does not object to this request, since the tot lot is located within the interior of the PUD with iandscaping provided around the area. This section also involves a modification request to the setback from 40' to 30' on lot 19, located on the corner of Varsity and Capital Lane. The next section consists of 14 blocks of 3-story townhouses, consisting of four to eight townhouses per block, for a total of 73 units. The townhouses are located on the new cul-de-sac street of O'Neai's Place, off of Varsity Lane. There is no space for RV parking at this iocation, therefore, additional space is provided in Phase liB. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and will tie into the overall sidewalk system. There are two tot lots located in this section. Two setback modifications are requested to reduce the 25' sideyard to 15' on townhouse lot 71 and to 20' on townhouse lot 106. The Engineering Department has commented that the reduced setbacks will not conflict with the sight distance with the intersections at lots 71 and 106. The next section consists of approximately 3 acres of commercial area, known as Capital Shopping Center, located at the corner of Robinwood Drive and Varsity Lane. This section will include a 4,750 square foot convenience store, a bank with drive-up window, and gas pumps with an overhead canopy. A 4,225 square foot building, for either retail or office use, and a 10,000 square foot retail strip, consisting of five shops. Based on the proposed uses, 96 parking spaces are required and 110 spaces are provided. Loading areas and screened dumpsters are provided for each of the uses. Two signs are proposed and each meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape islands are provided within the parking area and around the perimeter of the site. Staff requested additional landscaping along the fronts of the parking spaces to prevent headlight glare onto Robinwood Drive. There will be pole-mounted, down-directed lights provided in the parking lot and down-directed security lighting will be provided around the rear of the buildings. The sidewalk system connects the commercial area to the other areas within the PUD and along Robinwood Drive. The final section of this phase will consist of four 8-unit apartment buildings, for a total of 32 units, located off of the north side of Varsity Lane. Off-street parking is provided in a parking lot, and along the side of the building. Sixty-four spaces are required and 67 spaces are proposed. Two small tot lots are proposed and meet all the requirements. An enclosed dumpster is provided. RV parking for this section is also provided off-site in Phase IIA. The proposed landscaping meets the requirements. Building-mounted, down directed security lighting will be provided. Public water and sewer from the City of Hagerstown will serve the site. Stormwater management was previously addressed by a large regional facility, which was installed as a part of the Phase I development. Mr. Lung stated that the Eastern Elementary School, which serves this site, is currently over capacity. Mr. Kecheval stated that there is land available, across from the current Eastern Elementary School, for a future school site and that the project is in the County's CIP. Mr. Ardinger suggested that, perhaps a workshop with representatives from the School Board could be scheduled in the future to discussed school issues. Mr. Lung stated that all agencies have either approved or commented on the plan for Phase liB. The Health Department has approved the plan. The Soil Conservation District has requested some minor revisions to the plan. The Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department has approved the plan with the condition that minor items be addressed on the plan. The Engineering Department has completed its technical review of the plan and is awaiting the execution of an APFO developer's agreement, between the County and the Developer. One of the conditions for the approval of Phase IIA was the execution of a developer's agreement with the County. The Engineering Department has indicated that one developer's agreement may include Phases IIA, liB and III. A developer's agreement for Phase IIA had previously been drafted by the Public Works Department and forwarded to the developer; however, the developer had not signed it. Mr. Kercheval stated that there is a philosophical difference between the County and the applicant on how the APFO agreement should be written and he would like to see the agreement resolved before Phase III is reviewed. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for Phase liB, subject to including modifications to the setback for the tot lot at Capital Lane and townhouse lots of lot 19, 71, and 106. The approval would be contingent upon final agency approvals, and resolution of forest conservation issues, and the execution of a developer's agreement to address the APFO requirements for schools and roads. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. The motion was unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Yarrowsburg Mennonite Church

Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Yarrowsburg Mennonite Church. The subject site is located on the west side of Rohrersville Road. The total parcel area is 4.61 acres and is zoned Conservation. The site plan proposes a 3,400 square foot church to seat 100 parishioners. The hours of operation will be Sunday from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM and 8:00 PM. The church will have one employee. Twenty parking spaces are required and provided. The exterior lighting will be building mounted only and no new signage is proposed. A private well and septic system will serve the site. There will be one UPS delivery daily. Solid waste will be collected and removed by a private hauler. Landscaping will be provided in front of the building and along the property lines. A stormwater pond will address the stormwater management requirements. Forest conservation requirements will be met by retaining forest on remaining lands. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. 75

-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS,

Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Expansion

Mr. Goodrich stated that a preliminary consultation was held on October 25, 2004, to discuss the master concept plan for the expansion of Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park, located on the south side of Route 68. Currently the site consists of 150 RV sites, 36 cabins, 11 tent sites, registration and store area, and other amenities. The owners of the campground are proposing to expand the site in four phases, to add additional RV sites, cabins, and lodges, for a total of 475 units. A water park, sport fields, and an addition to the registration/store area are also proposed. During the consultation, one of the issues discussed at length was the water and sewer connection to this facility. A Water and Sewerage Plan amendment was approved several years ago that would designate this property for public sewer service, which is the ultimate intention for servicing this development. During the consultation, several options for the connection were discussed. Originally, the connection was proposed at the Red Men's Club. However, it may be possible to connect to the public sewer system at the proposed development of Elmwood Farms, which is closer to the campground. There is also an adjacent property further from the Growth Area that is proposed for development by Rehoboth United Methodist Church. A Water and Sewerage Plan amendment was recentiy submitted by the Church to allow them to connect to the public sewer system. During the consultation, it was believed that the Church's request would proceed and the connection would be made through the campground, and the County would ultimately own the infrastructure, including the pumping station. The Church has asked that the amendment be put on hold to assemble additional information. If sewer service were not extended to the Church, the sewer system on this site would be privately owned and operated by the owners of the campground. Mr. Goodrich stated that the water system for the campground is a community system currently owned and operated by the owners. Another issue discussed was how the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Area. The property is currently zoned Agricultural and the proposed uses of the master concept plan are permitted in the Agriculturai zone. This property is proposed for a Rural Business designation and this use is also consistent with this designation. Mr. Anikis - questioned if the campground had lighted directional signs to assist in emergency situations. Mr. Vitkun stated that the campground signage is reflective and he explained that they have an emergency plan in place where their staff meets emergency service personnel and escorts them to the need. Mr. Anikis also inquired whether the campground and its facilities were open to the general public. Mr. Vitkun explained that, due to health codes and their desire not to disrupt their campers, the campground and amenities were only for their guests. Mr. Vitkun stated that the build out for the proposed expansion would be at least 10 years. No action was required.

The Preserve at Glen Erin

Mr. Goodrich presented for review a concept plan for The Preserve at Glen Erin. The property is located on the north side of Maryland Route 60, east of its intersection with Longmeadow Road. The development site is composed of 2 parcels, a 3-acre parcel zoned Business Local, that provides frontage onto Longmeadow Road, and 35 acres zoned Rural Residential for residential development. The development proposal includes 60 semi-detached units on individual lots and an 8,000+ square foot commercial building. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Planning Department received letters from Mr. Lynch, the attorney representing the owners, regarding the two main issues discussed during the consultation of road access and sewer service for the property. During the consultation, the Engineering Department commented that the access point onto Longmeadow Road does not meet Engineering design standards for the separation of access points onto a Minor Arterial highway, nor the Highway Plan, which requires 500' spac'lng for all new access points. The combination of the two parcels has created the conflict of not having 500' between the proposed access and the existing accesses either direction, along Longmeadow Road. Staff is not opposed to re-routing some of the existing access points to the new public street, to obtain the 500' separation. The applicants' attorney disagrees with the application of the requirements and, in his opinion, the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance regulations have not been amended to comply with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lynch stated that the owners believe the proposed point of access onto Longmeadow Road is the safest and ecologically the most prudent way because they do not want the commercial parcel to be landlocked. Mr. Moser questioned the gated access to Maryland Route 60. Mr. Goodrich explained that this access is for emergency vehicles only. The State Highway Administration (SHA) has not denied access off of the Leitersburg Pike; however, it is unknown whether the SHA understood the intention of this access point. SHA did not attend the consultation and more information will be obtained from their representative on this proposed access. The other issue discussed during the consultation was the provision of sewer service to this property. The subject site is located in the Growth Area, but it is outside of any existing service area boundary. Effluent from this site would go to the City's treatment plant and the consolidated service agreement between the County and the City of Hagerstown would have to be amended to include this property. The owners have several options to obtain public service to the property. One option is to obtain easements from private property owners for a gravity flow system. Another option would be the construction of a pumping station. Treatment capacity is another issue. The owners discussed the concept of a temporary treatment plant. Staff would not recommend this concept at this time, which would also require an amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan. Mr. Moser questioned the Staff's comment concerning disturbance in the floodpiain area and asked the developer to realign the lot lines so they will not encroach on the floodplain. The owner, Paul Perini stated that he believed the lots could be adjusted. Ms. Parrish questioned the forest conservation plan for the site. Mr. Goodrich stated that the developers have not submitted a plan, but the first priority is always to retain the onsite forest. No action was required. 76

OTHER BUSINESS

Demolition Permit - Lakeside Mobile Home Park

Mr. Goodrich presented the permit application for the demolition of a two-story brick dwelling currently used as office space for Lakeside Mobile Home Park. The Historic District Commission reviewed and opposed the application, during its meeting of November 3, 2004. The building site is identified in the County's historic sites inventory. Staff has presented the proposal to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to either support or oppose the Historic District Commission's recommendation to deny the demolition request. The recommendation is for the benefit of the applicant and will not prevent the demolition application from being approved. A representative of the Lakeside Partnership attended the Historic District Commission meeting, to present their case. The building is in disrepair, even though they are still using a couple of the rooms on the first floor, and they did not have plans to use it for the long term and apparently did not perform any maintenance or rehab to the dwelling. The owners want to construct another building elsewhere in the park and convert the site to parking. Mr. Goodrich provided the Planning Commission members with a copy ofthe review procedures for demolition permits, a copy of the Historic District Commission minutes that explained their action, a copy of the permit application, a vicinity map, a copy of a letter to Lakeside Partnership, and the Inventory Form that described the subject dwelling. Mr. Anikis asked if the Historic District Commission (HOC) had an opportunity to visit the dwelling to verify the description of the amount of decay that had occurred. Mr. Goodrich responded that the HOC did not go inside the building, but the representative for Lakeside Partnership had provided them with photos of the current conditions. Mr. Moser stated that the Lakeside Mobile Home Park was originally approved in the early 1970's and he believed the subject dwelling was to be used for office space and a community center and if so, the building should be maintained for those purposes. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Planning Department could try to find and review the original site plan. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend against the proposed demolition. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. A discussion followed. Mr. Anikis stated that the County does not have an enforceable ordinance regarding historic properties. He believes that the Historical Advisory Committee wrote a letter several years ago to the Commissioners asking them to consider adoption of an ordinance similar to the Anne Arundel County, which states if the -County denies a demolition for a historic property the applicant has to go to Circuit Court to obtain a Judge's approval for demolition. Mr. Goodrich stated that this applicant is already outside of the 60-day review time limit. Mr. Anikis withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Moser amended his original motion to recommend against the demolition and to also ask Staff to research the original site plan, as to whether the dwelling was designated as an office/community bUilding, and if so, the owners would still have to provide a community building for the park, even if this structure is torn down. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval stated that he was disappointed with the HOC's position and in his opinion they really did not make an effort to give any reasons for their opposition, which lacks creditability. Mr. Reiber agreed with Mr. Kercheval's comments and also stated he did not support the owners for neglecting the structure. Motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Ardinger, and Mr. Moser voting "aye" and Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber and Ms. Parrish voting "nay."

WS-03-003, Corporation of Keedysville

Mr. Lung presented a text amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan for the Corporation of Keedysville. A public hearing was held on November 8, 2004. The Comprehensive Plan for the County indicates that Town of Keedysville is considered a Rural Village and the Comprehensive Plan encourages growth and development to occur within Rural Villages where public facilities exist. The applicant has addressed all of the elements outlined in Appendix B for amendments to the Plan. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval, as presented in the Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing, to the Board of County Commissioners for the text amendment of WS-03-003, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

WS-04-007, Maryland Environmental Service

Mr. Lung presented a text amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan for Maryland Environmental Service. The public hearing was held on November 8, 2004. Mr. Lung stated that in the mid 1990's the Maryland Correctional Institution installed a new treatment plant with an increase in design flow capacity. That change was never adopted into the Water and Sewerage Plan and when the Department of Environment began processing the renewal of the prison's discharge permit, it was discovered that the design capacity was not included in the current Plan and indicated that before they would renew the discharge permit, the Plan would have to be amended to show the increased design capacity. Mr. Lung further stated that a representative from Maryland Environmental Service, who operates Maryland Correctional Institution, was at the public hearing, but did not identify himself and that two representatives from Maryland Environmental Service were present to answer any questions regarding the amendment. Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval, as presented in the Staff Report and Analysis Following Public Hearing, to the Board of County Commissioners for the text amendment of WS-04-007, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.

RZ-04-010, John Akridge Development Company Mr. Goodrich presented the Staff Report Following the Public Hearing for the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. For the record, Mr. Goodrich confirmed that the Planning Commission members had received and reviewed all of the correspondence received on this request. Mr. Moser 77

ORT zone, $uch a$ den$ity $tandard$. The applicant ha$ empha$ized their experience in designing mixed-u$e development$. The Planning Commi$$ion and the Board of County Commi$$ionem have the ultimate authority to deny this concept of re$idential U$e in the ORT zone. Member$ di$cu$$ed the rezoning application at length. Mr. MO$er $tated that he believe$ there are portions of thi$ parcei that would be adaptable to residential development, particularly along Bower Avenue, and that the applicant would be better $erved if they were to reque$t a rezoning for a $pecific portion of the parcel for re$idential development, which could al$o be addre$$ed, a$ a part of the future comprehen$ive rezoning of the Urban Area. Mr. Aniki$ $tated that he believe$ that a lot of land would not be utilized for the purpo$e it wa$ intended. He further $tated that the County'$ Economic Development Commis$ion did not recommend thi$ propo$al and repre$entative$ of the only tenant in the current ORT di$trict, Mountain$ide Teleport Corporation, are oppo$ed, becau$e of their concern$ about what may be establi$hed adjacent to their property. Mr. Reiber $tated that when the technology park wa$ e$tabli$hed with the current provi$ion$, the owner wa$ a $trong, vibrant bU$ine$$ in Wa$hington County who wa$ $pearheading the technology development concept; however, economic$ ha$ changed $ince then. He further stated that even though the property i$ geographically located off of 1-70, he does not believe the County $hould be oppo$ed to new concept$ and that con$ideration should be given to the request. M$. Parri$h stated that $he believe$ thi$ parcel i$ prime real estate, which wa$ $pecifically planned for the ORT purpo$e and to $witch geam would be short$ighted. Mr. Clopper $tated that he al$o believed thi$ i$ valuable property and that the re$idential overlay i$ a $tretch for the ORT zone, which doe$ not permit residential use$. Mr. Ardinger $tated that since the ORT zoning ha$ been in place a little over two years, he i$ not sure if the bU$ine$$ community or the Ecomonic Development staff ha$ been given time to bring job$ here and it i$ too early to give a large portion of thi$ land to re$idential. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend denial of RZ-04-010, based upon his opinion that it i$ too great a diversion from the intent of the ORT zone that allow$ no re$idential development to an overlay zone, which i$ primarily a re$idential district and that the exi$ting ORT zone ha$ not been given enough time to really see if it can be developed or not. Seconded by Ms. Parri$h. Motion carried with Mr. Aniki$, Mr. Clopper, Mr. MO$er, and M$. Parri$h voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "No." Mr. Kercheval ab$tained.

. Planning Commission Bylaws . Mr. Thomp$on stated that following the adoption of the recent amendment to the Planning Commi$$ion bylaw$, the County Attorney had reviewed the bylaw$, a$ they have not been updated $ince 1980. The majority of the newly propo$ed amendments are minor in nature and provide clarification to the stated language of the bylaw$. Per Article X, bylaw$ may be amended by a majority vote of the entire membemhip of the Commi$$ion provided $uch amendment i$ propo$ed at a prior meeting and made available to all Commi$$ion member$ in writing at lea$t three day$ prior to the meeting at which it i$ to be con$idered. A vote will be in order at the regular meeting in January 2005.

UPCOMING MEETINGS A continuation of the joint rezoning hearing i$ $cheduled for Monday, December 13, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kepier Theater at Hagerstown Community College.

The regular Pianning Commls$ion meeting will be held on Monday, January 10, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

A revi$ed li$ting of workshop topics and several potential date$ for an upcoming Planning Commi$$ion work$hop will be di$tributed to the Pianning Commission members, prior to the January meeting.

Mr. Thomp$on a$ked the Planning Commis$ion membem to contact him, if they were intere$ted in participating in the Maryland Citizen Plannem A$$ociation.

Mr. Ardinger $tated that he had reviewed the Robert$ Rule$ of Order regarding the Chairman'$ pO$ition. He ciarified that he will not make a motion or $econd a motion; however, he will vote if there i$ a tie vote or to bring a motion to a tie vote, allowing the motion to fail.

Mr. MO$er reported that the Washington County Water and Sewer Infra$tructure Commi$$ion recently held their fir$t meeting, which was primarily an organizational meeting. Mr. MO$er i$ $erving a$ the Planning Commi$$ion'$ repre$entative, and i$ one of the 21 member$ from variou$ agencie$ and organization$ $erving on the Commi$$ion. Their next meeting i$ $cheduled for January 7, 2005.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Clopper, seconded by Mr. Aniki$, to adjouf at 10:00 p. . Unanimou$iyapproved.

,/ hi I!i