63

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 7, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 7, 2002 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Timothy Henry, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bertrand Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Secretary, Sandy Coffman. Absent was Don Ardinger.

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

MINUTES: Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of December 3, 2001. Seconded by Mr. Henry. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS:

Subdivisions:

Tammany Heights North - Section II Ms. Pietro presented the Preliminary Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Tammany Heights North - Section II. The subject site is located on the southeast corner of the 1-81 and 1-70 Interchange. The property is zoned HI-2. Section II creates two duplex lots on .2 acres and three single-family lots on .3 acres. Total acreage of Section II is 1.7 acres and there are 22.4 acres of remaining land. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Access will be provided off the new public street of Calvery Drive. The Forest Conservation obligation will be met on lots 16, 17 and 18. The total afforestation for Section II is .295 acres. All agencies have approved the plan with the exception of the Water and Sewer Department and the Washington County Soil Conservation District. Spokesman for the residents of Tammany, Gary Baker, indicated that the residents had no concerns with the proposed Section II. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the Preliminary Plat contingent on final approval from Water and Sewer and the Soil Conservation District. Mr. Clopper seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Rosewood Village - Phase 1E Mr. Lung presented the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Final Subdivision Plat, Site Plan, and Forest Conservation Plan for Phase IE of Rosewood Village PUD. The subject site is located on the southeast side of Robinwood Drive across from the preceding phases of Rosewood Village. Phase 1E is the final section of Phase 1 and consists of twenty townhouses in five blocks on 3.4 acres. There will be 3 to 5 units per townhouse block. The lots will front on a new public street called Jade Court. Lot sizes range from 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. The layout is per the approved development plan for the Rosewood PUD. Forest Conservation will be addressed on site consisting of .43 acres. Additional on-site planting will be provided per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance along with screening for the adjoining single-family lots. Open Space requirements have been met within this phase and will be owned by a Homeowners Association. Public water and sewer is provided. The requirement of two parking spaces per unit has been met, and a RV space has been provided. All agencies have approved the plan with the exception of the Washington County Health Department and Water Pollution Control, who are reviewing a revision per their comments. Mr. Lung stated that he is also awaiting comments from the Transportation Director of the Washington County Board of Education regarding the possible need for a school bus waiting area. The developer, Mr. Shaool suggested that a pad be installed on the southeast side to avoid children crossing the street and stated he was willing to work with the Board of Education to address and maintain the safety of school children. There will eventually be a sidewalk system along Robinwood Drive. The County Attorney will need to review the Homeowners Association documents prior to approval of the Final Plat. Phase I passed the APFO test at the Final Development Plan stage, where 77 units were approved for both school and road adequacy. The next phase (Phase II) will require new APFO testing. Mr. Iseminger questioned if all the requirements were met with regard to the accel/decel lanes on Robinwood Drive. Mr. Lung stated that Engineering has reviewed and approved the plat and site plan. Mr. Sassan Shaool added that the Engineering Department advised him that approximately 100 square feet would be needed for a grading easement. The right of way is located on Todd Snook's property and permission in writing is needed from Mr. Snook. Mr. Anikis questioned if the stormwater management area behind the townhouses would be fenced. Mr. Cump advised that the 64

stormwater management area "IS shallow and fencing is not required. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Final Plat approval contingent on approval from Water Pollution Control, County Engineering and the County Attorney's review on the Homeowner Association documents. Mr. Henry seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary Plat and site plan approval contingent on the grading easement and the Board of Education's resolution with regard to the school bus waiting area. Mr. Clopper seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Forest Conservation approval for on-site planting and screening per the submitted plat. Mr. Henry second. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Avonlea Hills Estates Mr. Lung presented the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Avonlea Hills Estates. The site is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road, west of Maryland 66. The property contains approximately 36 acres and is zoned Agricultural. The proposed site is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area. The subdivision consists of six lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 10 acres. A new cul-de-sac street will be built by the developer and dedicated to the County. In August 2001, a variance was granted for panhandle lengths with a stipulation that no further subdivision would occur. A stormwater management facility will be provided on site per the new regulations and Engineering has given verbal approval. Individual wells and septics utilizing denitrification systems will be provided and verbal approval has also been received from the Health Department. There is no existing forest on the property. Requirement for Forest Conservation will be mitigated by 7.18 acres of on-site planting. The plantings will provide a buffer to the adjoining agricultural land. Per the Planning Commission's comments at the Preliminary Consultation, a note has been added to the plat advising that this subdivision is adjacent to active agricultural activity and is also located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin and that the use of "urban best management practices" will be necessary. All agency approvals have been received and the written approvals from the Health Department and the County Engineering Department should be forthcoming. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval contingent on approval from Engineering and the Health Department. Mr. Anikis seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Site Plans:

Pavestone Company, Inc, Ms. Pietro presented the revised site plan for Pavestone Company, Inc. The original plan was approved on May 1, 2000. The subject site is located on the east side of Hopewell Road and west of 1-81. The property is zoned IG. The site encompasses 21.5 acres and is the site for the manufacturing of pavers, retaining walls and other concrete products. The purpose of the revised site plan is to replace some of the tumbler machines. The units are to be placed in the storage yard. The plant and the office are existing. The total number of employees is 45-50. Office hours are Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p,m. The manufacturing plant is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The site is serviced by public water and sewer and all agencies have approved the revised site plan with the exception of the Permits Office. Permits Director, Mr. Paul Prodonovich, cited several issues regarding the site plan as follows: 11 He requested that Section 4.12 be addressed with regard to the dust and noise of the tumblers and that additional information be provided; 2) it was reported that dumping activity has taken place in the "not to be disturbed" area and if so, a revised site plan showing what is going on in this area is needed, or the items discarded will need to be removed; 3) Also, the office is not in compliance with the revised site plan because of setback issues. Mr. Iseminger questioned whether there was another unresolved issue regarding the sign. The Site Manager for Pavestone, Mr. Lebo, advised that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the sign last Tuesday. Mr. Cump explained that the "not to be disturbed" area is a ravine area and unusable bricks have been placed there. MOE personnel indicated that a supersilk fence and a drawing would be needed for the grading plan and provided to the Permits Department, Mr. Lebo advised that the office is a temporary facility consisting of two mobile units that were previously under a separate site plan. Mr. Lebo explained that the tumbler contains its own dust collection system, which enables less than 4 to 5% of dust to escape and the entire unit is lined with a 1" rubber lining to reduce the noise. Mr. Arch indicated that granting approval of the preliminary site plan would provide six months to obtain final site plan approval. Members agreed to give staff final approval. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval giving staff the ability of final site plan approval contingent on the revised site plan being submitted for the "not to be disturbed" area that is being used for stockpiling materials. Additional information will also be provided to the Zoning Administrator with regard to performance standards as outlined in Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Also, sufficient evidence will need to be provided to the Zoning Administrator on an approved site plan for the location of the temporary office, or a request for a variance will be needed. Mr. Henry seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered. 65

MD003P Cell Tower Mr. Lung presented a site plan for a 190 foot monopole cell tower to be positioned on a 400 x 400 foot leased parcel on the west slope of Sidling Hill Mountain, south of 1-68 and north of Stumpf Road. The property is zoned Conservation. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the special exception for the cell tower in July 2001 with no conditions. The cell tower meets all the setback requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. There will be a 100 x 100 foot fenced compound area surrounding the base of the tower that will also include the equipment shelters for the carriers. Nextel Partners, Inc. will be locating an antenna on the tower and there are provisions for three additional carriers to co-locate. The lease stipulates that the tower will be removed if no longer in use. There are no historic sites impacted by the tower and the Maryland Historic Trust has completed the Section 106 review. Mr. Lung advised that the pending Environmental Compliance Checklist is a part of the FCC permit, which could be made a condition for approval of the site plan. A report from the Maryland Natural Heritage Division of the Department of Natural Resources is also pending as to whether this site, which is located in an area identified as being a habitat of threatened or endangered species per the Sensitive Area regulation, impacts any habitats. All agencies have approved the site plan with the exception of the Permits Department who recently received a revision of the plan. The consultant, Mr. Haus advised the members that he anticipated a response from the Maryland Natural Heritage Division would be forthcoming and he did not anticipate any problems since the tower is very close to the edge of the sensitive. Mr. Lung added that this issue should be resolved before the Permits Department could issue any type of permit for the tower. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the Environmental Compliance Checklist, Maryland Natural Heritage Division and the Permits Department. Mr. Iseminger seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Preliminary Consultations:

Marsh Pike PUD (Emerald Point) Ms. Pietro presented the preliminary consultation for Marsh Pike PUD. The consultation was held on Thursday, October 18, 2001 to discuss a concept plan for Marsh Pike PUD (Emerald Pointl. The present site is located at the intersection of Leitersburg Pike and Marsh Pike. The developer is proposing approximately 256 living units with a combination of single family, townhouse and duplex units with eight acres of commercial development. The total development acreage is 97.16. The property is zoned Agriculture. At the consultation, the developer, Mr. Crampton, advised that he was considering constructing the PUD as a gated community, or giving the effect of a gated community by adding brick pilasters every 15 to 16 feet with iron fencing. Mr. Crampton further indicated that he wanted to eliminate the connecting road from the residential section to the commercial area. The developer is planning to gear the PUD toward older residents. Ms. Pietro advised that the proposed development is in the County's Sub-District #15, which is a joint service area, but it is not inside the service boundary area that the County and City have agreed upon. In order for the County to provide sewer service, the developer would need to write a letter to the City of Hagerstown requesting an amendment to the consolidated agreement between the City and County. The consultant, Mr. Townsley advised that they have already forwarded a letter to the City. Also, Dave Shindle with the Water Department had confirmed that technically there are no allocations, and they are currently awaiting an agreement with the City and County for allocation. The County Engineering Department advised that accel/decel and by-pass lanes would be required at the proposed entrance, which is located off of Marsh Pike. The other entrance would be off of Longmeadow Road. Stormwater management will be required per the new Stormwater Management Ordinance. Traffic calming measures should be incorporated to prevent motorists from taking shortcuts through the development. A traffic impact study would also be required and a scoping letter has already been sent to the consultant. State Highway indicated that they would like to see a hydraulic study to determine the stormwater management effects on Maryland Route 60. A traffic study is also needed to determine the effects on the intersection at Marsh Pike and Longmeadow Road and also to indicate whether a traffic signal would be needed. Also, due to the hi9hway alignment and traffic volume on this section of Leitersburg Pike, access to this site needs to be limited to Marsh Pike. Planning Staff had concerns regarding the location of the commercial area and the need for screening or buffering to shield the commercial area from the surrounding single family homes. Mr. Crampton added that the proposed PUD will be heavily landscaped with Leland Cypress and very dense vegetation behind the brick pilasters and iron fencing along Marsh Pike, which will also provide a privacy buffer of the homeowner's yards who backup to Marsh Pike. On November 8, 2001, the Historic District Commission reviewed the concept plan and recommended that the farmhouse listed on the Historic Site Survey be saved and incorporated into the design. The revised concept plan shows the farmhouse being incorporated into the design of the site. Mr. Iseminger questioned if there was a system of sidewalks throughout the development and would

3 66

access be provided to the North County Park. The consultant. Mr. Townsley advised that they plan to have the walk path through the floodplain and a walkway along Marsh Pike that other surrounding residents could also utilize to access the County Park. Mr. Crampton advised that the Homeowners Association would take on all aspects of the yard care, security, pool area and all the amenities provided in the clubhouse. Mr. Anikis cautioned against any obtrusive lighting of the commercial area. Mr. Crampton advised that their plan is to establish a commercial area that is aestheticallY pleasing to the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental. Mr. Anikis inquired if there was a firm commitment to incorporate the historic stone farmhouse into the design of the PUD. Mr. Crampton stated that they will try to maintain the integrity of the farmhouse plan to design the community center around the farmhouse, however, if the structure is going to be a hindrance or safety factor, they would remove it. A joint public hearing will be held in March 2002 on this proposed PU D.

Primus Dan Ryan - Paradise Ms. Pietro presented the preliminary consultation for Primus Dan Ryan- Paradise. The consultation was held on Friday, October 26, 2001 to discuss a concept plan for Primus Dan Ryan-Paradise. The developer is proposing to construct 110 single family units on approximately half-acre lots. The property is located along the east side of Paradise Church Road on 75.5 acres and is zoned Agriculture. The County Engineering Department advised that stormwater management in accordance with the new regulations would be required. The development must also comply with the County's Road Adequacy Policy and a traffic impact study would be required. The Engineering Department will not allow three access points in a row and the plan will need to be reconfigured. Half of lots 53 through 64 are basically located in the flood plain and will need to be reconfigured. Also site distance at the intersection of Paradise Manor Drive and Paradise Church Road does not meet the criteria due to trees and landscaping that restricts the site distance. Before the traffic study is initiated existing driveways in the Paradise area will need to be counted. The City Water Department advised that public water is available, however, service will be based on the Annexation Policies between the County and the City at the time of application for service. Ms. Pietro stated her concerns regarding the proposed lots in the floodplain area whether there would be adequate space if the buyer wished to add a shed or other structure in the future. The Forest Delineation Plan has been approved and the developer is proposing to retain existing forest on the remaining lands and some aforestation is planned for the floodplain area. Mr. Renn advised that during the floodplain study, some errors were discovered in the FEMA floodplain area. Once the detailed study is completed and the exact floodplain is determined, the roads may shift and there may be lesser lots. Mr. Renn advised that the build-out of this proposed development would depend on the market.

Seneca Ridge Mr. Goodrich presented the preliminary consultation for Seneca Ridge. The consultation was held on November 19, 2001. The property is located on the north side of Maugans Avenue on 51.97 acres and is zoned Highway Interchange II. The developer is proposing to construct 67 single family units, 114 townhouses, and 120 apartment units. This proposed development was the subject of a consultation held approximately five years ago, known as FB-l Limited Partnership. This new proposed development is less dense than the previous one proposed. Mr. Goodrich advised the Planning Commission that they would need to be prepared to evaluate buffers along the property lines and the type of buffers used between the proposed development and the existing single family dwellings situated along Sunrise Drive. Mr. Goodrich stated another issue is that private roads will serve the townhouses and in the past, the commission has been asked to grant a variance to allow those lots to front onto a private street. Also, parking is located along these roads where the individual spaces will back out into the travel lane. The Zoning Ordinance will not permit this type of design, whether it is a private or public street. A traffic study will need to be completed, which will be the basis for the requirements for the necessary improvements to Maugans Avenue. Accel/decel and by-pass lanes will be required for both entrances. The proposed cul-de-sac at lots 16-19 does not meet the County's requirements and will need to be redesigned. Public water and sewer will serve the development. This proposed development is already in the service area, however, allocation is needed and service will depend on the Annexation Policies of the City. The Maugansville pumping station is inadequate and permits are not being issued at this time. The developer was informed that he would be required to contribute a significant amount of money for the improvements of the station. Additional noise buffers will be needed along Interstate 81. Staff advised the developer that the County would not be responsible for any retrofit noise buffers in that area. The proposed Forest Conservation will provide some buffering, however, staff suggested that additional buffering be added. Staff also recommended a pedestrian system not only to interconnect the entire development, but also to connect this development with the community of Maugansville. Staff also suggested a pedestrian system that would direct school children to an interior street of Maugansville, to where the crossing guards are 67

already in place, however, the ultimate design of the development and input from the Board of Education will determine the final outcome. Mr. Goodrich advised that comments were received from the Airport Manager. Their concerns are primarily noise and safety issues. They are on record that they oppose any residential development that is underneath the flight pattern and they do not want the County to be responsible for retrofitting individual dwellings because of complaints about noise, however, there are no regulations in place. Mr. Goodrich stated that in the previous development-planning phase, there were some concerns from an adjacent property owner, Mr. Seifarth. He had previously requested that the developer provide a right of way from a new interior street to his parcel so he would have access, if needed in the future. Since this is now a different developer, staff suggested that the previous arrangement be maintained to provide the same right of way for Mr. Seifarth. Mr. Anikis questioned if the development would fall within the airport zone under the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Arch advised that this property would be within the zone, however, the current zoning would permit this development. Mr. Anikis questioned if the Planning Commission would be handing future Commissioners the problem of a residential development within the airport zone and handicapping ourselves in the future. Mr. Iseminger suggested that the developer be encouraged to use additional insulation in the construction and buffering to muffle the sound. Mr. Anikis questioned the play areas in the apartment complex and whether that issue had been resolved. Mr. Goodrich advised that according to the consultant, Mr. Prodonovich has indicated it is in compliance. Mr. Goodrich added that the 1-81 widening project would impact this area and would be a factor to consider in the future.

Primus Dan Ryan - Greencastle Pike Mr. Lung presented the preliminary consultation for Primus Dan Ryan - Greencastle Pike. Mr. Lung stated that there were two major issues. First is the fact that the proposed access along Maryland Route 63 has been denied. The State Highway Administration purchased the access controls, which would have to be broken in order to achieve access. The second issue is how the sewage would be handled. The Health Department and Planning Department staff recommends that public sewer serve this development. The developer had some discussions with the County Water and Sewer Department about the use of grinder pumps in this area, however, at the consultation they were proposing the use of individual septic systems. It is the staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission require public sewer serve this development. The consultant, Mr. Renn, advised that the sewer issue is being worked out with the County and they plan to run a sewer service line to the area. All information has been obtained, except for the traffic study, to apply for a break of the access controls. It was recommended that an access be also attempted off of Route 40 and the developer is currently working on obtaining a right of way off of Route 63 and Route 40.

OTHER BUSINESS:

RZ-01-007. Larry B. Artz, Mr. Goodrich presented the map amendment for Larry B. Artz. Mr. Anikis made a motion to accept the rezoning as proposed. Mr. Ernst seconded. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

Stream Buffer Reduction Mr. Goodrich presented the variance request for a stream buffer reduction for Brooklane Health Services, Inc. Mr. Goodrich explained that while the consultant was preparing the site plan for the proposed expansion and improvements to the Brooklane facility, they discovered an infringement on the required stream buffer that will be applied during the site plan review phase. The stream buffer requirement states there shall be no permanent construction within the stream buffer unless it is a structure designed to improve water quality. Soil Conservation District has recommended the full width of 44 feet be provided. Mr. Arch further explained that the stream buffer is not the same as the flood plain. A buffer is usually designed for additional water quality. Mr. Goodrich explained that there are already improvements within the buffer area, consisting of portions of the roadway and a parking area. Mr. Iseminger questioned if Mr. Weibley had reviewed the drawings and had made a determination or recommendation. Staff indicated that he had and the recommendation was to provide the full 44 foot buffer as indicated by the standard. Mr. Barnes of Cump & Associates explained that they are requesting that the 44 foot buffer area be reduced to the limits of the 100 year floodplain and advised that the roadway and the stormwater management would be within the buffer area. They are proposing to do so in order to maintain the water quality and have discussed their water quality channeling proposal with the Engineering Department. Mr. Barnes further explained that other site improvement, not located in the buffer, would redirect stormwater flow to the stormwater management pond and provide better overall water quality control. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the stream buffer reduction as requested contingent upon a detailed 68

stormwater management plan being prepared as part of the site plan which meets the approval of Engineering and the Soil Conservation District. Mr. Anikis seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Future Meeting Mr. Arch advised that the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan are currently being printed and will disseminated to the different agencies. A date is being sought for the public hearing to be held at the Kepler Theater.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. ~~ A~'4c Pau~. Lampton Chairperson 69

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 4, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bertrand Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Secretary, Sandy Coffman. Absent was R. Ben Clopper.

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

Before proceeding with New Business, Mr. Arch stated that a site plan for Chris Doyle and a request for payment in lieu of for John Otzelberger would be added to the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS:

Variances:

Park Development - Carriage Hills - (formerly Cross-Creek East) Ms. Pietro presented a variance for the Carriage Hills subdivision by its developer, Park Development. The proposed subdivision is located behind the Cross Creek subdivision along the north side of Poffenberger Road, east of Sharpsburg Pike. The property is zoned HI-2. The developer is proposing to construct 110 townhouse units and a private parking area situated on 25.9 acres. The variance request is from Section 405.11 .B, which requires all lots to front on a minimum of 25 feet on a public roadway. Bill Weikert, Engineer, Fox & Associates advised that Homeowner's Association documents were currently being drafted to address the maintenance and repair of the proposed private road. Mr. Iseminger stated that due to the density of the proposed subdivision and for safety reasons, fencing would need to be added along the property that adjoins the railroad tracks. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the variance. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Subdivisions:

Fountainview Phase III Mr. Lung presented the Final Subdivision Plat for Fountainview - Phase III. The site is located along the eastside of Pennsylvania Avenue, south of Showalter Road and the Hagerstown Regional Airport. In 1988, PUD overlay zoning was approved for this tract and the development plan was approved in 1993. The Preliminary Subdivision Plat and the site plan were approved in 1994 for the entire development. Phase III and Phase IV are being presented for approval and are the final phases of this project. Phase III consists of 31 single-family lots on 12.39 acres, with new public streets, an open space area and stormwater management area. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Forest Conservation will not apply because the PUD zoning was approved prior to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. As one of the conditions of the PUD approval, notification has been placed on the Final Plat regarding the proximity of this development to the airport. This notice will also be recorded in the deeds for each lot. All agencies have approved this plat with the exception of Water Pollution Control and the Permits Department. Mr. Lung stated that the recreational area, located in the common open space area, needs to be shown on the plat and the maintenance of the open space area will need to be incorporated into Homeowner's Association documents. Mr. Lung further stated that there was an existing Potomac Edison easement on two of the lots and recommended that the plat be approved, conditioned upon either the easement being extinguished or the two unbuildable lots be removed from the plat and resubmitted at a later date. The consultant, Mr. Zoretich of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, advised that the lots would be removed from the plat and resubmitted at a later date. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the Fountainview - Phase III Final Subdivision Plat contingent upon approval from the Permits Department and Water Pollution Control. The Homeowner's Association document will also need to address the open space issues and the two lots affected by the power line easement will be deleted from the plat. Mr. Ernst seconded. Mr. Henry abstained. So ordered. 70

Fountainview - Phase IV Mr. Lung presented the Final Subdivision Plat for Fountainview - Phase IV. This phase consists of thirty-one lots on approximately 14 acres. New streets, stormwater management area and some open space will also be constructed. Mr. Lung stated that the same comments regarding Phase III also apply to Phase IV, however, there are no Potomac Edison easements. Open space details are needed in the Homeowner's Association document. Approval is pending from Water Pollution Control and the Permits Department. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the Subdivision Plat contingent upon the approval from Water Pollution Control and the Permits Department. Also upon the final submittal of the Homeowner's Association documents addressing the maintenance of the open space area and recreational paths. Mr. Ernst seconded. Mr. Henry abstained. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Site Plans:

Popeye's - Valley Mall Mr. Lung presented the site plan for a Popeye's fast food restaurant to be located on an existing out parcel located on the eastside of the Valley Mall, west of Massey Boulevard on the Valley Mall Road. The parcel is located on approximately .75 acres and is zoned Planned Business. The property fronts on Massey Boulevard and access will be shared with the Burger King restaurant off of the internal Valley Mall loop road. Stormwater management is provided via a bio-retention area per the County's new stormwater management regulations. Twenty-four parking spaces are provided, which includes two handicap spaces. The Board of Zoning Appeals previously granted a variance to allow an 18-foot deep parking space and a 24-foot wide access lane. A drive-thru pickup window is proposed, with room for fifteen vehicles to que at the drive-thru before blocking the access lane. The proposed building is approximately 70' x 30' and the drive-thru provides a one­ way rotation around the building. A screened dumpster is provided. A tie-in to the existing sidewalk along Massey Boulevard for pedestrian access will also be provided. There is ample landscaping provided around the restaurant, designed to shield the glare from headlights. Pole-mounted parking lot lights will be down directed and designed to prevent off-site glare. All agencies have approved the site plan. Staff has concerns with the internal design of the site with regard to pedestrians negotiating vehicular traffic coming into and around the drive-thru while attempting to enter the restaurant. A stripped pedestrian walkway has been provided for the handicap spaces. Mr. Iseminger suggested that the lower parking area be designated for employee parking, which would allow customers to use the spaces closest to the restaurant for easier access. The consultant, Mr. Renn agreed with Mr. Iseminger's suggestion. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on designating with signage the parking area closest to Massey Boulevard as employee's parking. Mr. Anikis seconded. Mr. Ernst abstained. So ordered.

1" National Bank - Greencastle Ms. Baker presented for review and approval the site plan for the 1" National Bank of Greencastle. The property is located on the southwest corner of Maugans Avenue and Shawley Drive, across from the Burger King (formerly the High's Convenience Store). The site is approximately one acre and is zoned HI-1. The developer is proposing to remodel the existing building and add an addition to the building on the east side of the property. Sixteen parking spaces and two handicap spaces are provided, 11 spaces are required. Hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., number of employees will be six. Pole-mounted and building mounted lights are proposed. Stormwater management will be mitigated on site. Landscaping will consist of several different shrubs around the building, as well as along the perimeter of the property along Maugans Avenue, Shawley Drive and the adjacent property to the west. Ms. Baker explained that since zoning is HI-l, screening is required along the entire perimeter of the property. There is stipulation stating if there is a business that is functionally similar across the street, the Planning Commission may waive the screening requirement. Due to the Burger King being across the street and the U-Haul business that is located on the eastside, the developer is requesting a waiver of the screening on those two sides. The developer is also requesting a waiver to the rear of the property since it is also zoned HI-l and is slated for commercial development. Mr. Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission would still have the ability to require screening on the adjacent commercial property, if and when, it is developed. The western portion of the property will encompass an assortment of shrubbery and fencing to prevent headlight glare from the drivi3-thru lanes. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval and grant a waiver from the screening requirements along Maugans Avenue, Shawley Drive and along the south side of the property. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. So ordered. 71

Callas Contractors Ms. Baker presented for review and approval the site plan for Callas Contractors. The developer is proposing a two-story addition to their existing facility. Three existing portable units will be removed. The parcel is 13.66 acres and is zoned Agricultural. Fifty-eight parking spaces are provided, the Zoning Ordinance requires 45 spaces. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with occasional shop hours on Saturdays. The site does contain a 100-year floodplain. however, the proposed development will not encroach upon that boundary. Public water and an on-site septic system will serve the site. A waiver has been granted by the Engineering Department for stormwater management. Lighting consists of several existing floodlights and new floodlights will be added on the corners of the new building. Solid waste will be handled in the existing dumpster. A 25-foot landscaping buffer is provided. The current office building is identified on the Historic Site Inventory. The Historic District Commission reviewed the plan and recommended that the new addition be kept in harmony with the architecture of the existing building. All agency approvals have been received. Ms. Lampton questioned the waiver for stormwater management. Mr. Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval. Mr. Henry seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Michael Tucker Ms. Pietro presented the site plan for Michael Tucker. The subject site is located at the intersection of Hog Maw Road and Millbrook Road, south of Boonsboro. The property is zoned Conservation. The property owner is proposing to construct a 2,400 square foot addition to an existing gymnastics school. The total lot size is 3.31 acres, which includes Mr. Tucker's residence. There is an existing well and septic on the site, which will serve the expansion. The parking area will be paved per the new paving requirements. Building­ mounted lights will be added to the outside of the facility and the existing sign will remain. Solid waste will be disposed of inside the building and will be removed by the owner. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. There is one employee and eight students per class. A special exception was granted in 1998 to establish a gymnastics school on this site and a variance was granted to change the setback from 50 feet to 15 feet. Parking requirements were also changed from 62.5 spaces to 15 spaces (AP2001-431. All approvals have been received with the exception of the Health Department. The Health Department needs to complete perc tests at the site. The consultant, Mr. Frederick, explained that the Health Department is requiring a perc test because the septic area is located in a floodplain. Mr. Henry made a motion to grant site plan approval as presented, subject to the Health Department's approval. Mr. Ernst seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Chris Doyle Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Chris Doyle. The subject site is located north of Netz Road, south of Boonsboro. The property is zoned Agricultural. The property owners are proposing to construct a 4,500 square foot greenhouse on 4.45 acres. The proposed greenhouse will be a wholesale operation. No sign is proposed and the hours of operation will be on an as needed basis. There is one proposed building-mounted light. Freight and delivery will be one unit per week. Solid waste will be collected and disposed of in an interior dumpster by the owner. All agencies have approved the site plan with the exception of the Permits Department, which have recommended parking spaces for the greenhouse. The consultant, Fred Frederick, indicated that Mr. Doyle and the Permits Director were close to resolving the parking issue. He further stated that Mr. Doyle owns Mountainside Gardens in Boonsboro and all sales occur at that location. Staff recommended approval of the site plan contingent on approval by the Permits Department, and suggested that the parking issue may be resolved by adding a note to the plat. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon approval by the Permits Department. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Forest Conservation:

Mountain Shadows Mr. Goodrich presented the Forest Conservation Plan for Mountain Shadows. A single­ family development located within the municipal limits of Smithsburg. The developer has requested the ability to pay the fee in lieu of for aforestation as their method for meeting the requirements for the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Phase I consisted of 15 single-family lots, which was approved prier to the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Phase II consisted of 32 townhouse units, which was after the adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The County reviewed and approved 1.7 acres of on-site planting. The final phase consists of 53 single-family lots, an extension of Phase I and is the subject of the request for the ability to pay the fee in lieu of. There is no record of any prior approval of this section when Phase I was approved, therefore it is not eligible for an exemption. The 72

consultant has requested the fee in lieu of, since there is no adequate location for on-site planting, nor existing forest or sensitive areas. Mr. Goodrich noted that the incorrect Land Use Category was used on the Forest Conservation Worksheet. Therefore, the percentages that determine the amount of forest should read 15% and 20%, which reduces the fee in lieu of requirement from approximately $24,000 to $15,000. Mr. Iseminger questioned why there was no screening along the railroad track area. The consultant, Mr. Zoretich explained there is an easement in this area associated with the new stormwater management regulations. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the request for payment in lieu of for Forest Conservation. Mr. Anikis added the approval is subject to the new calculated fee. Mr. Henry seconded. Vote unanimous. So ordered.

John Otzelberger Ms. Baker presented the Forest Conservation request for John Otzelberger. Ms. Baker explained the event that triggered the need for the Forest Conservation request was the result of a minor site plan that was submitted. When the property was originally subdivided, it was exempted from Forest Conservation since the property was in the process of being subdivided while the Ordinance was being drafted. The functional use of the property is being changed and because it was not a lot of record as of the effective date of the Ordinance, Forest Conservation now applies on the property. The property consists of 2 acres and the mitigation would be .31 acres, requiring payment of $1,350.36. Retention or on-site planting would be preferable, however, there is no forest to retain and no planting can occur due to the platted septic reserve area. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to approve the request for payment in lieu of. Mr. Ernst seconded. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance (January 1 - July 1, 2001) Mr. Arch stated that a total of 364 dwelling units were approved during this reporting period with 202 qualifying for school exemptions. Of those qualifying for exemptions, 148 were one or two family dwellings located within the Urban or Town Growth Areas, 12 were immediate family members and 42 were elderly apartment units. Seven units were granted exemptions from road adequacy review through the immediate family member exemption during this reporting period. During the reporting period no subdivision was denied because of school inadequacies, lack of adequate public water or sewer facilities or denied because of the lack of an interim fire protection system. As required under Article 5, Section 5.1, the Planning Department reviewed the adequacy of schools for the reporting period. Based on the June 2001 enrollment figures, all senior, middle and elementary schools operated below the APFO rated capacities 1105% including portable classrooms). No substantive amendments to the APFO were recommended during this reporting period. Mr. Arch further stated that after Comprehensive Plan revisions have been finalized, there would most likely be APFO revisions, along with revisions to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He foresees changes with the methodology for apportioning costs and changes to the school exemption based upon philosophical and practical issues. Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance be maintained. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

Future Meeting Mr. Arch advised that the Comprehensive Plan public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. Members agreed to schedule a workshop on April 1" at 4:00 p.m., prior to the Planning Commission regular meeting. Mr. Ardinger stated that he recently attended an Airport Commission meeting and urged them to review and comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Arch advised that he had also met with the Airport Commission in December and discussed some of their concerns regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. ~~A I:~~ Paula' A. Lampton V Chairperson 73

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 4, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, March 4, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry, George Anikis. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Secretary, Sandy Coffman. Absent was Bert Iseminger.

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

Ms. Lampton presented a thank you note from the Planning Staff members for the Valentine's luncheon. Mr. Arch reiterated the staff's appreciation.

MINUTES: Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of January 7, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. So ordered.

Before proceeding with New Business, Mr. Arch stated that a site plan for Dollar General would be added to the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS:

-VARIANCES:

Harry Latimer Mr. Lung presented a Subdivision Ordinance variance request for Harry Latimer. The property is located on the north side of Dogstreet Road, east of Mt. Briar Road. Zoning is Agriculture. Mr. Lung explained that the variance request is to allow a 600' panhandle for a new lot on an existing 8 acre parcel. This parcel contains an eXisting house owned by Mr. Latimer, which will be subdivided to create a new one acre building lot. The existing 8 acre parcel is served by a 50' wide panhandle. There is an existing lot along Mt. Briar Road. The existing panhandle would be split into two 25' panhandles. The new lot would also create a 3-tier stack of lots. The hardship is due to the irregular shape of the existing lot. There would be no potential for further subdivision to occur on the remaining lands. Mr. Clopper questioned if family members would own the three lots. Mr. Latimer explained that his stepson owns the existing lot, he would own the new one acre lot and if no one in the family wanted the 7 acre lot then he would probably sell it. Mr. Lung stated he had suggested to Mr. Latimer that he split the existing driveway and share the entrance with his stepson, which would not change the number of access points onto Dogstreet. Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the variance request with the stipUlation that a single shared driveway access Dogstreet and that no future subdivision shall occur on the remaining lands. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Ardinger opposed the motion. So ordered.

Todd Hoffman Mr. Lung presented a Subdivision Ordinance variance request for Todd Hoffman. The subject property is located on the south side of Broadfording Road, east of Greencastle Pike. The property is zoned Agricultural. Mr. Hoffman recently purchased the existing 80.84 acre farm, which has 100' of road frontage. Mr. Lung explained that Mr. Hoffman would like to subdivide two building lots to be located behind an old existing lot on Broadfording Road, to raise funds to make improvements to the existing house and buildings. The two proposed lots will have 25' wide panhandles. The remaining lands will be accessed via a 50' wide, a 600' long panhandle, and will use the existing lane. A shared driveway will be used for the new lots. The hardship is that the irregular shape of the property dictates the lot design. The request involves three variances: to allow a panhandle length of 600', to allow three panhandles side by side, and to allow the creation of a three tier stacking of iots. Mr. Lung suggested that all 3 lots share the access and with the stipulation that construction of a new street would occur if any future subdivision occurs. He also suggested that an easement be included on the two new lots that would require that the driveways access any future street. Mr. Lung suggested that a stipulation could be added that there be no further subdivision until a street is built. There was discussion regarding the orientation of the lots and the potentlai for future subdivision due to the large area of remaining lands. Mr. Ciopper made a motion to deny the variance request. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Henry and Mr. Anikis voted "aye". Ms. Lampton voting "no." Mr. Ernst abstained. The request was denied.

-SUBDIVISIONS:

Avonlea Hills Estates Mr. Lung presented the Final Plat for lots 1 through 6 for Avonlea Hills Estates. The property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road and is zoned Agricultural. The Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Forest Conservation Plan were approved on January 7, 2002. There were no changes made to the previous approved Preliminary Plat. A variance was previously approved for the panhandle length and other panhandle considerations with the stipulation that there be no 74

further subdivision. A new public street will be built and dedicated to the County to serve all the lots. On-site wells and septics will serve the lots. Notes were added to the plat regarding the location in the Beaver Creek Special Planning Area, the requirement for denitrification septic systems, and that the location of this subdivision is adjacent to active agricultural activity. Stormwater management will be provided per the new requirements for the water quality and quantity. All approvals have been received. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the Final Plat as presented. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

-SITE PLANS:

Dollar General Store Mr. Lung presented a site pian for the Dollar General Store located on the eastside of Virginia Avenue. The business is to utilize an existing building on the site. No new construction is proposed to the existing buiiding. The only change is the use of the bUilding from a craft store to a Dollar General store. Parking and lighting requirements will remain the same and no changes to the entrance or building mounted sign. The State Highway Administration has reviewed the plan and indicated that no new improvements were needed. The Permits Department verified that the parking and other requirements would not change for the new use of this site. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the site plan. Mr. Anikis seconded. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

-PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Dale Eugene Miles Mr. Arch presented the one lot preliminary consultation for Ms. Pietro. The subject property is located aiong the southeast side of St. Paul Road. The developer is proposing to construct a one acre lot for single family use, known as lot #8. Members had no additional comments or questions. No action required.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Administrative Amendment Water & Sewerage Plan Town of Clear Spring Mr. Lung presented the Staff Report and Analysis on the Application for Map Amendment to the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan. At the request of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MOE), the Town of Clear Spring has submitted WS-02-001. The town has applied to MOE for funding to construct a new water tank to improve its public drinking water supply system to conform to the Clean Water act. The proposed water tank is to be located at the well arid reservoir located at the foot of Fairview Mountain, approximately one mile west of Clear Spring. The well, reservoir and the majority of the transmission line is located outside of the designated priority funding area for the Town and the State mandated Priority Funding Area (PFA). The MOE has advised the Town that in order for the proposed water tank to be consistent with Smart Growth policies, no new development outside of the PFA shall be allowed to connect to the existing water line from the proposed water tank to the Town. In order to satisfy this requirement by MOE, it is necessary to amend the text and the map in the Water and Sewerage Plan to designate the water line between the proposed tank and the existing service area boundary as Restricted Use. This designation will not change the existing situation because, there is not a service area currently established along the line, however, the MOE needs a clarification in the Plan that it is a restricted use line and no connections shall be made, per the criteria outlined in Appendix B, Section V of the Plan. The Town of Clear Spring, as stated in their letter of January 16, 2002, agreed to designate the water line as "denied access". Mr. Lung explained this is the final step in the funding process for the Town of Clear Spring. Mr. Henry recommended approval of the Administrative Amendment-Water & Sewerage Plan for the Town of Clear Spring as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Offsite Forest Conservation Mitigation - Bonnard Morgan Mr. Arch presented on behalf of Jill Baker the Offsite Forest Conservation Plan for lot 8. The property is located along the eastside of Chestnut Grove Road. Mr. Morgan has requested that the mitigation of 3.76 acres for lot 8 be located on an adjacent parcel. The Planning Commission has previously permitted off-site mitigation for lots 6 and 7 and several other lots. Mr. Ernst made a motion to grant the Offsite Forest Conservation Mitigation as requested. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

FUTURE MEETINGS:

Joint Rezoning Public Hearing Mr. Arch advised the members that one text amendment and four map amendments would be heard at 7 p.m. in Court Room #1 at the Washington County Courthouse. Mr. Arch presented a letter from John Urner, which outlined an issue with regard to property ownership and the proper signing off on the subdivision piat in relation to RZ-02-001. Planning staff has confirmed in writing that the subdivision plat would not be signed for recording purposes until the ownership matter has been resolved.

Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Mr. Arch stated that legal and back page ads have been placed in the local newspaper announcing the pUblic hearing date. Staff will present an introduction of the plan and a 75 presentation outlining the major changes to the draft plan. A workshop session will be held at 4:00 p.m. prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting on April 1, 2002.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Ernst, seconded by Mr. Henry, to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Unanimously approved. }>~;1'~l Paula A. Lampton \.J Chairperson 76

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 1, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, April 1, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bertrand Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

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

MINUTES: Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of February 4, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Henry. So ordered.

Before proceeding with New Business, Mr. Arch stated that an off-site forest retention on lot 17 of Wildflower Meadows would be added to the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS:

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICATIONS:

Mr. Arch presented an Ag District for Billy L. Clark, AD-02-002, consisting of 75.27 acres, which is contiguous to another property. An Ag District was also presented for Anna L. Rowland, AD-02­ 003, consisting of 153 acres. The applicants have applied for a ten (10) year Agricultural Land Preservation District establishment in exchange for property tax credits. Mr. Arch advised that both properties qualify and are located outside of the Urban Growth Area. The Agricultural Advisory Board has approved both properties. Mr. Henry made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Ag District of Billy L. Clark, AD-02-002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Ag District of Anna L. Rowland, AD-02­ 003. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

SUBDIVISIONS:

Walnut Point Heights - Section 5 (Final Plat) Mr. Lung presented the Final Plat for Walnut Point Heights - Section 5. The property is located west of Maryland 63, north of 1-70, west of Hosta Drive and White Pine Drive Extended. The Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Forest Conservation Plan were approved in 1995. Section 5 contains 19 lots on 8.8 acres. The property is zoned Residential Rural. Final Plats were previously approved for Section 1 through 4. Mr. Lung explained that the subdivision will ultimately access Maryland 63 off of the Business Parkway and further stated there would be no access to Walnut Point Road due to a condition of the rezoning that occurred in the early 1990's. Lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,000 square feet. Public water and sewer is available to the subdivision via the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Sewer Department. Stormwater management is controlled in a regional facility located in Section 1 and has been approved by the Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District. The subdivision is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance. All agency approvals have been received. The original plat showed the corner lot as two lots for two single-family semi-detached dwellings. The revised plan reflects one lot for one single-family dwelling. Verification is needed from the involved agencies regarding this change to the plat. This is the only outstanding issue. Mr. Anikis questioned the bUffering between Walnut Point Road and the subdivision. Mr. Lung stated there was additional dedication for future widening of the road per the Engineering Department, however, there is no buffering required on any of the sections as part of the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Lung stated that 38 lots are proposed for future Section 6 and 27 lots for Section 7. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the Final Plat subject to the approval of the revised plan regarding the change to the corner lot. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

SITE PLANS:

Carriage Hills Ms. Pietro presented a Preliminary Plat and site plan approval for Carriage Hills located along the north side of Poffenberger Road, adjacent to and east of Crosscreek South. The property is zoned HI-2. The developer is proposing 40 single-family lots on 14 acres and 110 townhouses on 28 acres. Total area of development is 42 acres. Public water and sewer will serve the lots. The single-family lots will access two public streets that will connect with Poffenberger Road. The townhouses will front on private streets per a variance previous granted. Landscaping in the townhouse area will be scattered throughout and will consist of locust, maple, oak, cherry, leland cypress, and fir trees. The open space area will be 18 acres. Minimum lot sizes for the townhouses will be 2,200 square feet for the townhouses and the lot sizes for the single-family homes will be between 10,000 and 11,000 square feet. Parking for the townhouses with garages 77 will consist of 57 spaces and the driveways will add 57 spaces. The parking lot areas constitute 135 spaces for a total of 249 spaces for the townhouse area. The Forest Conservation requirement Is 7.76 acres with 4.828 acres being retained off-site and 2.9 acres planted on-site. A 4' high chain-link fence will be installed along the railroad per the Planning Commission's recommendation. All agencies have approved the plat with the exception of the Engineering Department. They have requested a note be added to the plat regarding the sequence of events with the connection of Battlecreek Boulevard and Poffenberger Road. A revision has been submitted for their review. According to the Engineering Department, the connection to Poffenberger Road will have to be completed with the first phase of construction, which is the construction of the new streets. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat and site plan subject to the connection and realignment of Poffenberger Road and that no U & 0' s be issued until such time the connection is complete. Mr. Ernst seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. So ordered. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation plan. Seconded by Mr. Iseminger. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Hagerstown Church of Christ Ms. Pietro presented a site plan for Hagerstown Church of Christ situated on the northwest side of Leitersburg Pike. The property is zoned Residential Suburban and is located in the Urban Growth area. The site plan is for a 6,000 square foot addition to the existing church. The proposed addition is for a new auditorium and lobby area. 98 parking spaces were proposed and 55 spaces are required. On-site water and sewer will serve the site. Hours of operation are Sundays and Wednesday evenings. Additional pole-mounted lights will be added. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it was a lot of record prior to the Ordinance. Landscaping will be added around the parking area and the new addition. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Iseminger questioned if public sewer and water serviced this area. The consultant, Mr. Cump, stated that there is sewer available across the street and one block back in the Northbrook subdivision. He further stated that the Heaith Department approved the site plan and had requested a preliminary design. He has presented a plan and profile that, if necessary, the site could be served by gravity and a note was also added to the plat. Mr. Cump presented a letter to the Health Department signed by Mr. Carpenter, representing the church, stating if there were sewer problems that they would connect to the public sewer system. Mr. Cump stated that public water had not been discussed, however, there is water service across the street. Mr. Iseminger stated that he would like to have a written statement from the Health Department confirming that they have approved the site plan with the understanding that if either public system should fail, the church would be required to hook onto a public system. Ms. Pietro stated she would contact Dave Barnhart of the Health Department and request a Clarification that if the systems should fail the church can connect to the public systems, and also provide justification as to why they are not required to utilize the services at this time. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon clarification from the Health Department with regard to provision of water and sewer and the justification for not connecting to the public facilities at this time. Also, if public facilities are not required, that a note be placed on the plan that states any future failure of either system would require the owner to utilize public facilities. Mr. Ardinger seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Hopewell Sheet Metal Mr. Lung presented a site plan for Hopewell Sheet Metal located on the eastside of Hopewell Road. The property is zoned Highway Interchange I. The site is located on an existing 3.48 acre lot. The site plan is for three new warehouses and office building for Hopewell Sheet Metal to be built in three phases. Phase I will consist of a 60' x 200' warehouse, a stormwater management pond designed for the entire development, and the access road. Phase II will consist of two additional warehouse buildings. Warehouse B will be 60' x 200' and warehouse C will be 60' x 150'. Phase III will be a 75' x 50' office building with ample parking and the dumpster location. Landscaping will be provided and will primarily be installed during Phase I, except for the small plantings around the buildings. There will be no on-site employees for Phase I and II. Phase III will employ 6 to 8 new employees. Public water and sewer is not available to this site due to a gap in service in this area. A well and septic will be installed as a part of Phase III. The Health Department will not require any facilities during Phase I or II. The access road to the site will be gravel and is permitted per the paving requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which state that paving is not required for warehouses considered an industrial use in the HI-1 zoning district. The developer will be required to pave the front portion of the access road in Phase III. Building mounted, shielded lights are proposed around the building. No freestanding sign is proposed. All agencies have approved the site plan with the exception of the Permits Department. They are currently reviewing a revision per their comments on clarification on the parking requirements. The property is exempt from Forest Conservation since it was a lot of record prior to the Ordinance. Mr. Cump advised that he had spoke with the Permits Department earlier today and the revised plan had been approved. Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATlONS:

Bonnard Morgan /Iots 8-11) Ms. Baker presented for review and comments the preliminary consultation for Mr. Morgan for lots 8-11. The subject property is located along the eastside of Chestnut Grove Road, approximately two miles south of Trego Mountain Road. The property is zoned Conservation. Ms. Baker also stated for the record that due to extenuating circumstances lot 8, which was a part 78

of the consultation, has already been approved. Ms. Baker stated that she advised Mr. Morgan that stripping the road frontage may result in future problems, however, the proposed layout is what Mr. Morgan desires. Ms. Baker explained that lots 10 through 17 are land-locked and they are separate lots of record. These lots are also a part of an oid deed of Antietam Ironworks. Mr. Morgan is adding lots 10 through 17 into this subdivision and plans to access the land-locked areas by a simpiified process. Mr. Morgan has a 50 foot access easement that runs parailei with lots 4 and 5. Ms. Baker stated, that as outlined in her report, that it would be in Mr. Morgan's best interest to make some type of accommodation while he stiil has road frontage to provide access to the back properties, however, he is not obiigated to do so. Ms. Baker also suggested for the remaining lands that the owner leave a minimum 50' right-of-way to provide adequate space to gain access to the back parcels in the future. Mr. Morgan has met the iimit of four panhandles and is creating a problem with tiering by adding the additional lots. Ms. Lampton stated that the Planning Commission is also concerned about the stripping of the road frontage and the tiering of the lots. No action was required.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Andrew J. Michael - Offsite Forest Retention Ms. Pietro presented a request for off-site forest retention for lot 17 in Wildflower Meadows. The request refers to a 5-acre lot owned by the Michael family. The subdivision was created in a farm field and no forest or priority area exist. Mr. Michael owns approximately 15 acres of forested area on Orebank Road and is the proposed site to retain forest versus payment in iieu of. The requirement for the 5-acre parcel is 1 acre of forest. The Forest Stand Delineation was approved for the site. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the Forest Conservation plan for off-site forest retention. Mr. Ernst seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Capital Improvement Program Mr. Arch distributed copies of the Washington County Capital Improvement Program. The Planning Commission's action is to review the CIP for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. No action is required at this time.

Washington County Airport Carolyn Motz, Airport Manager, has requested that their department be invited to any preiiminary consultation for a project within a two-mile radius of the airport. Members agreed with Ms. Motz's request and the airport will be notified accordingiy.

Glen Erin/Perini Subdivision - Mr. Urner's Letter Mr. Urner has forwarded a letter to Mr. Arch and Ms. Lampton requesting a response on floodplain issues and the status of the Glen Erin/Perini subdivision. Mr. Arch wiil discuss this matter with Ms. Lampton and formulate a written response to Mr. Urner.

Comprehensive Plan Mr. Arch stated that the Planning Staff would present the revised Comprehensive Plan to the Board of County Commissioners later in April. Mr. Arch thanked the members for their time and efforts.

ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

l~A~ Paula A. Lampton U Chairperson 79

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION & PLANNING STAFF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP - APRIL 1, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop session in the County Administrative Annex on Monday, April 1, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting.

Members present were: Chairperson, Paula Lampton; Vice Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bertrand Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch, Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung, John Gudmundson, GIS Technician, and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER Ms. Lampton called the workshop session to order at 4:00 p.m.

Ms. Lampton stated that this workshop was to review proposed changes to the draft of the Comprehensive Plan following the public hearing held on March 19, 2002.

Mr. Arch stated that Planning Staff reviewed requests for map amendments and also reviewed some text revisions. Planning Commission members have received copies of the correspondence received after the public hearing, which primarily focused on the density issue.

MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTS Maps were provided to the members depicting areas that requests were received for either an inclusion within the Urban Growth Area or a request for a change. Four maps depicting the different areas were distributed to the members.

• MAP ONE

1) Kent Oliver Mr. Oliver requested that the entire parcel be included within the Urban Growth Area. A portion of the property is located within this designation. Mr. Ardinger noted that this request had been discussed before and the recommendation was made not to expand the Urban Growth Area boundary line to include the entire parcel. Mr. Arch confirmed that public water and sewer is not extended to this property. Mr. Iseminger stated that if the parcel would be developed, it would need to tie into the Sharrett Business Park for access purposes and a rezoning application would be necessary. Mr. Iseminger stated for the record that if water and sewer were available and access agreements could be reached, that the Commissioners would be favorable to rezoning the parcel. Members discussed the size of the parcel and the surrounding farms. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend denial of Mr. Oliver's request. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Mr. Ardinger and Ms. Lampton voted "no" and the motion carried with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper, Mr. Henry and Mr. Ernst voting "aye" and Mr. Iseminger "abstaining." So ordered.

2) Roulette Farm This request asks that the entire parcel be included within the Urban Growth Area. A portion of the farm is already located within the boundary. Mr. Arch stated that eventually the access from Poffenburger Road to Maryland Route 65 will cease and the traffic will be redirected on a new boulevard. Mr. Iseminger suggested that the boundary be moved to the north side of Wagaman Road and there are residents along that area that could hook onto the services. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to extend the Urban Growth Area boundary to the southern border of the Roulette property to the eastern border of Wagaman Road. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Anikis voted "no" and Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

3) Doub Realty Partnership This property is located within the Urban Growth Area. The current zoning is HI-2 and the owners have asked to remain this zoning classification. Mr. Arch stated that the problem with this parcel has been ingress/egress issues and this property would probably be a strong candidate for rezoning of another use if the access issues were resolved. Staff would be reluctant to put a designation of commercial or highway commercial, or Industrial-Flex on this parcel without having some type of access identified and would not recommend any changes to this parcel at this time. Mr. Ardinger made motion to recommend that the parcel remain as is given the only -access is through a residential neighborhood. Second by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Iseminger abstained. Unanimously approved. 80

• MAP TWO

1) Kendle/Wilkes Property Mr. Arch advised that a preliminary consultation for a residential development was submitted for this tract. The owners plan to extend water and sewer lines to service the proposed development. Their request is to include the property within the Urban Growth Area. Staff would recommend a low-density designation and inclusion within the Growth Area.

2) Halteman Farm The Halteman's have asked to remain Agricultural, which will ultimately not be a zoning classification within the Urban Growth Area. The Halteman's letter stated they were concerned about their ability to continue farming and the impacts from an assessment standpoint. The Planning Commission had designated this area as Industrial-Flex.

3) Ebersole Property Mr. Ebersole sent a letter in support of the Kendle/Wilkes request and expressed interest in also being designated residential. Staff would recommend a low-density residential designation and inclusion within the Growth Area.

Members discussed that the Industrial-Flex area along the railroad tracks and the extension of public water and sewer to this area would be the developer's responsibility. Members also discussed the Halteman property and that the Industrial-Flex classification would not impact his desire to farm and would not change his taxes. Members also discussed that the neighboring property owners would be aware that this property is zoned Industrial-Flex.

Mr. Ardinger made a motion to designate the Wilkes/Kendle property and the Ebersole property as a low-density residential within the Urban Growth Area and that the Halteman property would remain within the boundary as Industrial-Flex. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Mr. Clopper added to the motion that public water and sewer would also serve the Ebersole property. Mr. Iseminger abstained. Vote was unanimous.

4) Yogi Bear Campground Mr. Arch advised the members that a limited access sewer service was extended to the campground. The owners have requested this property be included within the Urban Growth Area. The property is not contiguous to the current boundary line. Mr. Ernst made a motion that the campground not be included within the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Henry and Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

• MAP THREE

- Bair and Bachtell Properties The Bair and Bachtell properties are located off of Cave Hill Road in Smithsburg. On behalf of each property owner, Mr. Cump of Cump & Associates requested that both properties be included within the Urban Growth Area. Both properties are approximately 18 acres and are not contiguous to the town boundary. The properties do have access to water service, but do not have sewer service. Mr. Arch stated that the town Growth Area boundary could be changed in the future to include the properties when there was certainty on the water and sewer situation. Mr. Anikis made a motion to deny the request made, on behalf of the Bair and Bachtell properties, to be included within the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Iseminger abstained. Unanimously approved.

• MAP FOUR

- Perini Property Mr. Arch explained that a portion of the Perini property was previously included within the Urban Growth Area. The owner has requested that the remainder of the property be included within the boundary. The property does not have sewer service, but public water is available. Members discussed the floodplain issues and traffic issues in this area. Mr. Anikis made a motion to deny the request to include the Perini property within the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Iseminger abstained. Unanimously approved.

TEXT AMENDMENTS

11 Southwest Civic Association Request: Mr. Arch advised that the Southwest Civic Association requested to amend Goal #1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The language recommended for Goal #1 is as follows: "Support and promote the protection, preservation and improvement of the character, safety and other positive aspects of existing residential neighborhoods." Members discussed the proposal, 81 but agreed that language in the Comprehensive Plan is balanced and that no change would be made to the text of Goal #1.

2) City of Hagerstown Planning Commission/Doug Wright Mr. Wright voiced at the public hearing that the City of Hagerstown had requested more designations for higher-density areas. The Staff recommends that the designations remain as presented and that the PUD processes would generate more high-density areas within the Urban Growth Area.

3) Impact Fees/lnfrastructure/APFO Issues Mr. Arch stated that there were several. comments on impact fees, infrastructure and APFO issues. He stated that there would be changes made to the APFO regarding school issues. He further explained that impact fees would have to be justified and legally defensible in Court with a systematic process in place to determine what is valid and it cannot be used as a tax. Transfer fees on property sales were also discussed. He further stated that the different Ordinances would be amended to support the Comprehensive Plan. This process will begin after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. No action required.

4) Maryland Department of Planning Mr. Arch stated the Maryland Department of Planning suggested that dimensions of the sidewalks be amended. No action required.

- DENSITY/RURAL AREAS DISCUSSION

Mr. Arch stated that there was a variety of correspondence received and testimony given at the recent public hearing on the density issue. The comments mainly consisted of three formats: proposed ratios of 1: 10, 1:20, and 1:30 ratios reduced to ratios close to the 1: 1 and 1:3; keep the proposed densities, but eliminate the bonus provisions; and explore TDR programs.

- 1:10, 1:20 and 1:30 Ratios With or Without Incentives Members discussed at length the concerns of the area farmers with regard to the value of their land and discussion of the incentives and the farmer's ability to borrow money. The County does provide the tax incentive ten-year program to farmers to help maintain farm profit. The bonus incentive provides 1:5, 1:8, and 1:10 ratios. Members agreed that the proposed densities with bonus incentives were reasonable in its approach. No action required.

- TDR Program Mr. Arch stated that the Planning Commission members previously discussed the TDR program and that this program is probably not the best option for the County at this time. He also stated that some legal constraints would come into play with this program. Mr. Ardinger suggested that given the current status of the County, that the TDR program be kept on a back burner and perhaps be reconsidered in six years. Members agreed with Mr. Ardinger's suggestion.

- RECOMMENDATION OF THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend the draft Comprehensive Plan with the changes approved by the Planning Commission members during the workshop meeting of today, and directed the Staff to make the changes and forward the document to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Iseminger abstained. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Arch stated that on behalf of the Planning Staff, he wished to extend their appreciation to the Planning Commission members for their attendance at the meetings and for ail their time and efforts.

AJOURNMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

~~ ri .7t?/W\kf~ Paula A. Lampton Chairperson 83

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MAY 6, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 6, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bertrand Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER:

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

Mr. Arch reported that Robert Ernst has been reappointed to the Planning Commission for another five-year term.

MINUTES:

Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of March 4, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS:

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICATIONS: Mr. Arch presented two Ag Districts for Robert, Andrew, Boyd Michael and Susan Michael­ Hoelschen. AD-01-02E consists of 200.04 acres with 99% of qualifying soils classes I, II, and III. AD-01-02F consists of 209.01 acres with 78% qualifying soils I, II, and III. The applicants have applied for a ten (10) year Agricultural Land Preservation District establishment in exchange for property tax credits. Mr. Arch advised that both properties qualify and are located outside of the Urban Growth Area. The Agricultural Advisory Board has approved the properties. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Ag Districts of AD-01-02E and AD-01-02F. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

VARIANCES:

Glen Wilt Mr. Lung presented the variance request for Glen Wilt. The property is located along the east side of Mapleville Road (Maryland Route 66). The property contains 5.22 acres and is zoned Agriculture. The new lot for Mr. Wilt's son would be located to the rear of the property and would require an 834' long panhandle and a new access location onto Route 66. The Wilts are requesting variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the 834' long panhandle and the reduction in access separation on a minor arterial highway. The application stated that the hardship is based on the location of the perc site and a drainage swail, which dictates the location of the iot. The limited road frontage and the location of the existing dwelling dictate the location of the proposed drive. The State Highway Administration has reviewed the driveway location and does not object to the reduction of access separation. The iength of the panhandle would not appear to present a problem from a topographic standpoint. The property is relatively flat as depicted in photos provided by the Wilts. The curves in the panhandle do not appear to pose any problems with delivery trucks or other vehicles that would have to negotiate corners. The Wilts provided letters from the Boonsboro Fire Department and the Rescue Services, which stated they have no objections to the variance request. This is an immediate family member conveyance, however, it does not qualify for the exemption for immediate family lots to be created without road frontage because this is not an agriculture use parcel and there is no existing farm lane. Mr. Lung stated that with the narrow shape of the property, and the placement of the existing dwelling makes it almost impossible to create any additional lots. Mr. Lung further stated that using a shared driveway would create setback issues. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance from the access spacing requirements and the panhandle length, contingent upon that no further subdivision of the property occurs. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

SUBDIVISIONS:

Kenneth Grimm - Lots 4, 5, 6 and Replat of Lot 2 Ms. Pietro presented for approval a Preliminary and Final plat for Kenneth Grimm for lots 4, 5, 6 and a replat of lot 2. The subject site is located along the west side of Greencastle Pike. The property is zoned Agriculture. The property owner is proposing to create three single-family lots for his three children. All lots will be served by well and septic. Access will be off of an existing lane known as Leon Grimm Drive. Lot 4 has an existing dwelling. Lots 2 and 3 were previously approved. Lot 6 triggered the requirement to have a Preliminary Consultation. The owner has 84 requested that the Preliminary Consultation be waived since they have no future plans to subdivide the remaining lands of eighteen acres. All agencies have approved the plan. Ms. Pietro explained that the irregular lot configuration and replat of lot 2 was dictated by the septic location. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant subdivision plat approval for lots 4, 5, 6 and the replat of lot 2 with the stipulation that the ten year immediate family member statement be placed on the lots and that any future subdivision of the property would require construction of a public street per County's standards. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

South Pointe PUD - Phase 4/Block B Ms. Pietro presented for approval the Preliminary Plat for South Pointe Phase 4, Block B. The site is located On the east side of South Pointe Drive and north of Oak Ridge Drive. Zoning is RS-PUD. The deveioper is proposing to create 46 townhouse lots. All lots will have access onto the new public road, South Fork Drive. Public water and service will serve the site. The total area of Phase 4, Block B is 6.4 acres. An existing stormwater management area will serve the site. All approvals have been received. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements. Mr. Iseminger questioned if the stormwater management area was modified to comply with the new Ordinance. The consultant, Mr. Townsley stated that the water quantity was approved, but they had to retrofit the pond area to address the water quality. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant Preliminary Plat approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Henry abstained. So ordered.

Black Rock Estates- Section C/Block 1 Mr. Lung presented for approval the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Black Rock Estates-Section C, Block 1. The property is located along the north side of Mt. Aetna Road, east of the existing Black Rock Estates development, adjacent to Shasha Boulevard. Section C contains 36 acres and is zoned Agriculture. A Preliminary Consultation was held in October 2001 , which proposed 54 single-family lots, ranging In size from 20,000 square feet to 43,000 square feet. 20,000 is the minimum lot size in an Agriculture Zoning District when served by public water and sewer. Several new streets with two access points onto to Sasha Boulevard will serve Section C. Stormwater management for this proposed deveiopment will be addressed by channeling the runoff under Mt. Aetna Road into the Black Rock Golf Course ponds via an arrangement with the County to supplement the water supply at the golf course. The developer will have to improve some of the conveyance ditches on the opposite side of Mt. Aetna Road. Forest Conservation requirements were previously addressed and a forest retention area is proposed on the remaining lands, north of Black Rock Estates with some additional supplemental plantings. The developer has made provisions for a pedestrian path along the frontage of Mt. Aetna Road that will ultimately provide pedestrian access to the County Park. The Health Department and the Hagerstown Water Department approved the plat. The Engineering Department has approved the Preliminary Plat, but had some comments that still need addressed on the construction drawings. Hagerstown Water Pollution Control has approved the plat, but had some technical comments on the construction drawings that will need to be addressed. The Soil Conservation District had comments on a potential stream buffer and the consultant has responded to those comments with a revision. The Permits Department approved the plan with a request that notes regarding the setbacks be added to the plan. A discussion followed regarding the school capacity, water pressure in the area and accessibility by fire and rescue units. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval contingent upon addressing the comments from the Soil Conservation District and the Permits Department and also to give staff the authority for Final Plat approval. Mr. Ernst seconded the motion. Mr. Henry abstained. So ordered.

Mt. Aetna Subdivision Lots 8-24 Mr. Lung presented for approval, the Preliminary Plat and Forest Conservation Plan for the Mt. Aetna subdivision lots 8 through 24. The property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road, east of Maryland Route 66. The proposed lots are situated on 47.92 acres and are zoned agriculture. The property is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area. Lots 1 through 7 were previously approved. A Preliminary Consultation was held in the fall of 2000 and there were significant changes made to the plan to address comments from the agencies and the Planning Commission. On the original concept plan there were more lots proposed on the property towards the west. The lots were moved eastward and away from the quarry Zone of Influence and out of the sensitive areas on the property. The lots range in size from 1.5 acres to 5 acres. The new pUblic street, Easterday Court, will serve the majority of the lots. Three lots will use a shared entrance onto Mt. Aetna Road. The geologic information from a water quality and water quantity standpoint was submitted to the Health Department. Approval has been issued with the condition that denitrification septic systems are required. The Soil Conservation District has required notes on the plat regarding use of Best Management Practices. Stormwater management will be addressed on-site to control the water quality and water quantity. The Engineering Department has approved the subdivision plat, and had some minor comments on construction draWings. The Soil Conservation District has approved the plat and they are still reviewing the construction draWings. The Permits Department and the Health Department have approved the plat. Forest Conservation requirements will be addressed through a combination of retention of existing forest on the site and supplemental planting in identified priority areas. The forest retention area is 7.67 acres and the afforestation area is 2.65 acres. There is a note on the plat regarding the Zone of Influence, absolving the County of any responsibility for replacing any failed wells as a result of activity at the quarry. A note regarding Best Management Practices and the Special Planning Area will be added to the plat. There is 85 also a note from action on the previously approved seven lots, that there would be no additional subdivision including the 101 acres of remaining lands without the Planning Commission's approval. Mr. Easterday stated that the remaining lands might be split with his brother for their own private residences. Ms. Lampton questioned the access points onto Mt. Aetna Road. Mr. Lung explained that iot 23 has its own access onto Mt. Aetna Road, which will be upgraded per Engineering's standards. Lots 22 and 24 would share an access that would also serve the other lots. Mr. Iseminger questioned the information obtained from the hydrogeologic study regarding this area. Mr. Lung stated that the study reported that there was adequate water quantity and that there would not be any influence from the draw down from the quarry. It would not influence the water that would suppiy these iots from a quantity standpoint. From a quality standpoint, the groundwater was verified and there were no sinkholes in the contact location. Mr. Iseminger asked that Mr. Lung review the concept plan regarding any limitation on the number of lots for this subdivision. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary Plat approval for lots 8 through 24 contingent upon receipt of all agency approvals with the understanding that any future subdivision would comply with the original intent of the Preliminary Consultation with the Planning Commission regarding the number of lots on the remaining lands. Mr. Iseminger added the approval includes the understanding that staff would have the ability to give Final Subdivision Plat approval. Mr. Henry seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

SITE PLANS:

Emmanuel Baptist Temple Ms. Pietro presented for approval the site plan for Emmanuel Baptist Temple. The subject site is located along the south side of National Pike, just west of Huyetts Crossroads. The property is zoned Agriculture. The church congregation is proposing to construct a sanctuary and gymnasium on 11.86 acres. The existing church, offices and a one-story brick residence are currently on-site. The parking requirement is 146 spaces. The site plan provides 365 spaces, which inciudes six handicap spaces. Public water and private septic will serve the site. The existing sign will be moved. Pole-mounted lights will be added to the parking area. Sidewaiks will be installed and will connect with the existing sidewaik. Landscaping will be added around the sanctuary and parking area, which will include holly, bradford pear, boxwood, and spirea. The site will be used on Sundays and Wednesday evenings. The Forest Conservation requirements are 3.10 acres. 2.08 acres will be reforested and 1.02 acres is requested for payment in lieu of. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. So ordered. Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the request for payment in lieu of for 1.02 acres at $4,443.12. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Mobile Gas Station Ms. Baker presented for review and approval the site plan for Mobile Gas Station. The site is located along Maugans Avenue. The property is bordered on the west by 1-81, to the east by the existing McDonalds, and the Texaco Station to the north. The property is 1.77 acres and is zoned HI-I. The site plan reflects a proposed automatic car wash and expansion of the number of gas pumps. Currently, the property consists of a 1,200 square foot convenience store, a 3-bay service garage, and two gas pumps. The developer is proposing to add three new pumps for a total of 5 gas pumps. The canopy will also be expanded to cover the gas pump area. A new car wash with a vacuum island will be located to the rear of the property. Hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There will be a total of five employees. Ten parking spaces, plus one handicap space are required. Parking provided is twelve spaces with one handicap. Solid waste and recyclable will be stored in a dumpster on-site and removed by a private hauler. Deliveries to the site are on a weekly basis. A tanker truck will deliver the gas, a short semi-truck will deliver store supplies and a pick-up truck will supply parts for the garage. Public water and sewer serve the site. Stormwater management has been exempted for this project. Forest Conservation is exempt since it was a lot of record prior to 1993. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Preliminary Consultations:

Elmwood Farm Ms. Pietro presented for review and comments the concept plan for Elmwood Farm. The subject property is located north of Lappans Road and is located within the Urban Growth Area. The developer has submitted a revised concept plan that reduced the lots from 174 to 160 on 176 acres for single-family homes. Lot sizes will range from 20,000 to 30,000 square feet. The existing farmhouse will remain. Ms. Pietro provided an overview of the highlights from the preliminary consultation and responses from the different responding agencies. The Engineering Department responded that the proposed development must comply with the new stormwater management regulations. A second access is required and recommended traffic calming measures (i.e. mini-roundabouts). A traffic impact study will be required. Accel/decellanes will be required along Kendle Road. The Permits Department provided their standard comments on the proposed development and also stated that approval from the Board of Appeals may need to be sought for the proposed gazebos and pathways. The City Water Department advised that public water is available. Water and Sewer Department commented that any costs incurred to extend the system wouid be at the owner's expense. The State Highway Department is also 86 requiring a traffic study. The Homeowners Association will maintain the afforestation areas and the open space areas. The owners are considering installing sidewalks on one side of the street, which is not a requirement. Mrs. Wilkes was present and presented photos she had taken in the south depicting the quality and the options in design. Some photos depicted entrances with a landscape divider and cul-de-sacs that were obiong with landscaped centers. Ms. Wilkes described her plans for the open space areas throughout the development and her desire for low maintenance landscaping in the cul-de-sac areas and that these areas would be tended by the Homeowners Association. Ms. Pietro stated that this concept was new and had not been proposed before by a developer and that the Engineering Department is not in favor of this concept. Mr. Arch stated that the Planning Commission would have a certain amount of leeway with regard to the excellence in design. Mr. Iseminger questioned the ability to have walking trails through the Forest Conservation area. Mr. Arch stated that the goai is to keep the areas as natural as possible and perhaps a trail could be on the fringe. No action required.

Primus Dan Ryan - Daugherty Property Ms. Baker presented for review and comment the proposed 23 lot subdivision on the east side of Maryland 67, immediately adjacent to the east of Bent Willow Estates. The property is zoned Conservation and the total acreage of the property is 105.6 acres. The original concept plan showed a loop road design and depicted 24 iots. A revised plan was submitted based upon the Health Department's comments regarding the restricted soils testing due to the drought situation, therefore the lots were reconfigured so that perc testing could begin this year. The entrance to the subdivision will be via the existing Stone Row Lane and will branch out into three small cul­ de-sacs. The property contains several sensitive areas as well as the Appalachian Trail Special Planning Area, which requires 1,000 feet buffer. The proposed Forest Conservation retention area is concentrated on the steep siope sensitive area, the stream area and the Appalachian Trail corridor. Ms. Baker added that if the proposed Forest Conservation easement were located in the Appalachian Trail area, the developer would not be able to sell that portion to the National Park Service. Mr. Iseminger questioned if the developer would consider donating this area to the National Park Service and, if so, the Planning Commission would agree to consider this as meeting a requirement and work with the developer to come up with a solution to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. The developer and owners agreed to subdivide the portion off and donate it to the National Park Service. Ms. Baker stated that there were some historic buildings on the property that were not designated on the County's survey. The Historic District Commission recommended that the sites be preserved and that the site be surveyed and submitted for the record. The developer has created a lot around the existing building, giving the potentiai for someone to buy that lot. Ms. Baker stated that property owners in Bent Willow Estates have expressed their concerns regarding this proposed development and their main concern is the traffic flow, given that the only access is through their development to Maryland Route 67. The State Highway Administration plans to reevaluate the entrance, however the proposed development meets all the requirements and the County Engineering Department has also submitted their comments and agreed to the one access point. Members discussed the need to establish a guideline for developers regarding the number of access points. Mr. Ernst questioned the stream buffer areas. Ms. Baker stated that the stream buffers would be approximately 25 to 30 feet on either side of the stream. Mr. Iseminger requested that denitification septic systems be on all the lots and Best Management Practices statement be added on all the lots for homeowners. Mr. Weikert stated that the stormwater management quality would be addressed in broad, flat ditches instead of using a pond. Ms. Lampton requested clarification on the comments received from the Engineering Department regarding the access and the access easement to the north of the property. Mr. Iseminger questioned the length of the panhandle and the accessibility by the fire department. Ms. Baker will make a phone call to the fire company servicing the proposed development and will also contact the National Park Service regarding the Appalachian Trail corridor. No action required.

Paul Merson Ms. Baker presented for review and comment a concept plan for Paul Merson. The property is located on the east side of Appletown Road approximately .5 miles north of Reno Monument Road. The developer is proposing an 11 lot subdivision on 17.82 acres and the property is zoned agriculture. The developer is proposing a cul-de-sac design. There is an area of wetlands on the property associated to an old farm pond, as well as a 3 dot intermittent stream. The sensitive areas are proposed to be protected by Forest Conservation easements. The proposed development is on a dead end street and there is no potential for future subdivision other than lot 11 due to its size, however, it would not have any impact on the proposed plan. Ms. Baker had nothing further to add to the summary previously provided. Mr. Iseminger recommended that the lots immediately adjacent to the intermittent stream have the denitrification septic systems and that a note be added to the plats regarding Best Management Practices. No action required.

Richard & Susan Lohman Mr. Lung presented for review and comments a concept plan for Richard and Susan Lohman. The deveioper is proposing eight lots on 5 acres of the Forge Hill Estates located off of Davidson Drive near Sharpsburg. The consultant has submitted a letter requesting payment in lieu of for onsile Forest Conservation. There is no existing forest, nor priority areas on the property. The requirement would be 0.92 acres. Public water and sewer will serve the lots. The property is located in the Rural Legacy area, however, it is a relatively small property and is surrounded by existing developments and would not be considered a priority for Rural Legacy funding. Mr. 87

Clopper made a motion to accept payment in lieu of for the Forest Conservation. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

William & Gail Reams Mr. Lung presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for William and Gail Reams. The proposed subdivision is for four lots on 12.75 acres off of Geeting Road. Six lots were previously approved in 1989. There are 62 acres of remaining lands and the owner has no plans for further development. This area is located in the Rural Legacy area. Mr. Lung explained that the State does not consider this site as high on their priority list due to the.development that has already occurred in this area and the property is not directly visible from the approach to the Antietam Battlefield. There is some existing forest on-site and enough to meet the requirements by retaining the existing forest. No action required.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Scott & Cynthia Canfield, PUD Setback Modification Ms. Baker presented a request for a PUD setback modification. The property owners purchased and built a home located within the Fountainview subdivision. Ms. Baker explained that the minimum building setback line created an extremely small building area, which is engulfed by the entire existing dwelling. The owner wishes to build a deck onto the rear of their dwelling and by doing so they are projecting into the rear yard setback by 20 feet. The request is to reduce the minimum building setback from 40' to 20'. Mr. Arch added that there are no variances granted in a PUD and by granting the proposed modification, the Planning Commission would be reestablishing the setback line. Mr. Arch stated that the staff would create a policy for review by the Planning Commission at the June Meeting to address minor modifications on a staff level. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to grant a modification for lot #S-65 for a rear setback of 20 feet. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Kings Crest Section B Mr. Lung presented a request for a PUD setback modification for Kings Crest. Mr. Lung explained that the PUD was approved in the mid- 1990's and the developer is in the process of building out the development. The owner has requested a modification to the side yard setback on lot 1, which is a corner lot. The modification is from 13' to 8'. When the footer survey was completed, there were some encroachments on the setback and therefore the request is to accommodate the footer. Mr. Lung explained that the builders are using a standard building design and when a corner lot is involved they realize that the standard design will not fit on the corner lot and therein lies the problem. Mr. Valentine has stated in writing that he does not foresee this problem occurring on any future lots to be developed. Members discussed the continuing problems occurring with PUD setback modifications and agreed that the builders need to be put on notice. Mr. Iseminger remarked that a letter should be addressed to the developers of PUD's putting them on notice regarding setback changes. Motion made by Mr. Clopper to grant the establishment from the PUD sideyard setback line for lot 1 from 13' to 8'. Mr. Iseminger seconded the motion with the understanding that Mr. Valentine had confirmed that there would be no further occurrences. Motion carried with Mr. Clopper, Mr. Iseminger, Mr. Ardinger, Ms. Lampton, and Mr. Ernst voting aye and Mr. Anikis voting no and Mr. Henry abstaining. So ordered.

Rosewood - PUD Development Plan Revision Mr. Lung presented a request for a revision to the previously approved Development Plan for Rosewood PUD. The approved development plan for Phase II provided for five, three story 12 unit garden apartment buildings. The developer, Mr. Shaool has requested a change to the development plan resulting in two, three story, 12 unit garden apartments and one 36 unit garden apartment. The is no change in the total number of units or the density, and no change in the open space. There is a minor change in the active amenities to eiiminate the day care facility. Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the modification. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Henry abstaining. So ordered.

RZ-01-008 - Violet Myers Mr. Goodrich stated he had nothing further to add to his staff report. The site is already listed on the historic inventory as a part of the entire community of Leitersburg. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

RZ-01-010 - Manny Shaool Mr. Lung stated he had nothing further to add to his staff report. He further stated that the traffic study was received within the ten (10) day comment period and preliminary comments were also received from the County Engineer, Terry McGee, indicating the need for additional data for a complete review. However, he stated there was no reason to indicate that the development could not proceed under the APFO review process. Mr. Lung stated that there was a considerable amount of testimony at the public hearing from those who requested another public hearing to review additional information regarding a traffic study. Generally, the traffic study comes after the rezoning is approved. Mr. Arch stated that Mr. McGee's analysis of the traffic study did not reveal any problems that they were not already aware of in this area. It may take up to six months or more to determine all the off-site improvements that may be necessary and warranted as a part of 88 this process. A discussion foilowed regarding a second public hearing. Mr. Arch stated that the staff does not recommend a second pubiic hearing because it would not provide any further information than what is currently avaiiable. Further discussion foilowed regarding key global issues in relationship to the proposed PUD. Staff expressed some concerns with the compatibility of the PUD with the existing development in this area, particularly with the high­ density portion being adjacent to the low-density rural agricultural area. Aiso, whether the development is premature for this area with regard to water, sewer, drainage, and other services and the overall regional iocation within the City and county issues. The developer has submilted an extension lelter for an additional sixty days to take action upon this matter. Mr. Arch explained that the current zoning would allow a maximum of 440 units (two single-family dwellings per acre), which wiil stiil impact this area. Mr. Clopper questioned if the PUD was granted, couid the number of units be limited to the current zoning density. Mr. Arch stated that it would be best to deny the PUD as presented, if the density is not acceptable. Mr. Arch stated that if ail the criteria is met in the PUD process, it does not mean that the BOCC has to grant a PUD. Mr. Clopper stated that his main concern was, even though this property is in the Urban Growth area, that this is the rural portion of the Urban Growth area and the impact of this proposed development and the increased traffic on White Hall Road, Route 66 and Mt. Aetna Road, which are outside of the Growth Area, and added that he would prefer singie-family dwellings for this area. Mr. Ardinger agreed that it was hard to justify multi-family housing for this area and agreed that single-famiiy dweilings would be preferred. Mr. Ernst stated he was not in favor of limiting what the growth will be. Mr. Clopper made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to deny the proposed PUD (RZ-01-0100) based upon the foilowing: 1) the compatibility of multiple family units and the existing residential development, which is primarily single-family in nature; 2) The transitional effect of having high density at the fringe of the rural Agricultural area and how that transition actuaily impacts activities particularly in a Agricultural area; 3) Traffic and community infrastructure issues need to be addressed in this entire region prior to approval of any large scale development at this time. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Motion carried with Ms. Lampton, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Clopper and Mr. Ardinger, voting aye. Mr. Ernst voted no. Mr. Henry and Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Capital Improvement Program

Mr. Arch explained that the CIP is updated every year based upon the County's budget limitations and that the action of the Planning Commission is to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. A discussion foilowed regarding the Robinwood Drive extension and the replacement of Barnes Road Bridge. Mr. Ernst made a motion that the CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henry seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. ~p1¥----- Chairperson 89

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 3, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 3, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry, George Anikls. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

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

ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr. Ernst made a motion to nominate Paula Lampton as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Iseminger moved to close the nomination. So ordered. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to nominate Bob Ernst as Vice-Chairperson of the Pianning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Iseminger moved to ciose the nomination. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. So ordered.

OLD BUSINESS:

- PUD Setback Modification Policy Mr. Arch provided an overview of the memorandum submitted by Senior Planner, Tim Lung on the PUD setback modification policy that wouid establish a policy allowing the Planning Director the ability to grant modifications to the minimum building setback requirement established as part of a PUD. The draft policy is as follows: a) Projection into Yards - Up to 40% of the established rear yard setback for the purpose of constructing a one story open deck without a roof, that is attached to a dwelling; b) Projection into Yards - Bay windows, chimneys, entrances, vestibules, balconies, eaves, and leaders extending into any required yard not more than 4 feet; provided, that such projections (excepting eaves) are not over ten (10) feet in length and c) Setback modification - Up to 20% of the established setback to address minor building infringements as a resuit of surveying or stake out errors. Mr. Arch stated that each modification would be looked at on a case by case basis in granting the maximum amount allowable. Mr. Ardinger suggested that Item C be amended to state up to two (2) feet rather than 20% of the established setback. Mr. Anikis made a motion to adopt the PUD setback modification policy with the amendment to the wording of Item C from 20 % to a maximum of two (2) feet. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS:

-SUBDIVISIONS:

Braeburn West - Final Plat Mr. Lung presented the Final Subdivision Plat for Braeburn West. The property is located south of 1-70, at the Route 66 interchange, north of Beaver Creek Road, along the west side of Maryland Route 66. The back property line is bordered by Beaver Creek Church Road and by Route 66 on the front property line. The property contains approximately 60 acres and is zoned Agricultural. The proposed subdivision contains 24 singie-family lots. The Planning Commission previously approved the Preliminary Plat. Lot sizes range from 1 acre to 6.5 acres. Several new public streets built by the deveioper and dedicated to the County will serve the lots. A single access will be provided onto Route 66. Individual wells and septics will serve each lot. Stormwater management will be addressed by a pond located on an out parcel and also by on-lot stormwater management per the new regulations. Forest Conservation will be addressed by a combination of on-site retention, on-site planting and off-site retention. The Forest Conservation areas will provide buffers along Beaver Creek Church Road and Maryiand 66. The off-site retention area was previously approved in a sensitive area off Black Rock Road. There is a note on the Final Plat regarding recommended use of Urban Best Management Practices to protect the watershed. All agencies have approved the Final Plat except for the State Highway Administration who will issue their approvai when a deed of easement is recorded for a right-of­ way necessary for a bypass lane off of Beaver Creek County Club property. Mr. Young is in the process of recording the deed of easement. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Final Plat subdivision approval contingent upon the request by the State Highway Administration regarding the recording of the deed of easement. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Vote was unanimous. So ordered .

• SITE PLANS:

Grace Reformed Fellowship Church Ms. Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Grace Reformed Fellowship Church. The subject site is located along the north side of the Leitersburg Pike. The property is zoned 9'0

Residential Suburban. Proposed for development is a church with basement. A future phase 2 will include an addition as shown on the site plan. Total parcel area is 2.92 acres. A single access point will be off of the Leitersburg Pike. Individual septic and City water will serve the site. 60 parking spaces are required, 97 spaces will be provided. Solid waste will be stored inside and removed by a private hauler. The height of the building is 35 feet to the roof peak and 80 feet to the top of the steeple. The signage will be located on the right side of the entrance. Pole­ mounted lighting will be added throughout the parking area. Hours of operation are Sundays and Wednesday evenings. The church will employ a full-time minister. The stormwater management pond is to the rear of the property. Landscaping will surround the building and the parking lot area, which will include pear trees, maple trees and green luster holly. The properly is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements. All approvals have been received except from the Health Department. Mr. Iseminger questioned if there would be any problems with headlight glare and how close was the site to the sewer line. The consultant, Mr. Frederick stated there would be no problems with headlight glare due to the slope of the property and that the pole­ mounted lighting is directional. He also stated that he had discussed the sewer service with Jim Bishop of the Water and Sewer Department and there is no sewer available on the north side of Leitersburg Pike and the property is not located in the service area. Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon the approval from the Health Department. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Dave Hoffman - Lots 8·13 Ms. Baker presented for review and comment the concept plan for Dave Hoffman. The subject site is along Broadfording Road and Gossard Mill Road. The proposed six lots will be approximately 1 acre in size and served by on-site well and septic. All accesses will be off of Broadfording Road, which is classified as a minor collector. Staff recommended that the driveways be shared where possible. During the preliminary consultation, the consultant, Mr. Frederick agreed that wherever posslbie they would share the driveway entrances. No additionai agency comments were received other than those as outlined In the summary. A discussion followed regarding the adjacent farm, the potential for future deveiopment and the stripping of the road frontage. Mr. Frederick agreed to add a note that the lots are adjacent to an active farm. He further explained the majority of the farm would active. He aiso explained the reason why the cul­ de-sac design was not feasible was due to the steep slope area and thus the need for stripping of the road frontage and the proposed lots are currently a pasture field and not an active part of the farm. No action reqUired.

Pleasant View Heights - Section E Mr. Lung presented a concept plan for Pleasant View Heights, Section E. Eighteen additional single-family lots are proposed for the 45.2 acres of the remaining lands of Pleasant View Heights. The development is located off of the Downsville Pike, outside of the Urban Growth Area. He stated there was one additional item to add to the summary regarding Engineering's comment on Claymont Drive. The Engineering Department initially commented that the road should extend into the new part of the development with a cul-de-sac to eliminate the existing dead-end condition on Claymont Drive, however, that would create at least one double frontage lot, which is not permitted by the subdivision regulations. After the consultation, Mr. Lung reviewed this matter further with the Engineering Department. Mr. McGee provided a final determination today with the understanding that Claymont Drive currently does not extend to the property line, however, the pavement ends beyond the intersection of Pleasant View Drive. The Engineering Department will not require the road to be extended as long as the developer remove the current stub end on Claymont Drive and re-contour to create a curve instead of a 'T' type intersection. The remaining undeveloped, unused right-of-way would be conveyed to the adjoining property owners. Discussion followed regarding the adjacent landlocked property, the right-of-way to Claymont Drive and that only one access point serves the entire development. No action required.

OTHER BUSINESS:

RZ·01·009, Paul N. Crampton. Jr. Ms. Pietro stated that she had nothing further to add to her staff report. She reported that the Engineering Department's comments were attached to the staff report. Mr. Anikis stated that he found no justification for the commercial area in the proposed PUD. He further stated that he found nothing particularly unique to the layout of the streets in the PUD and he only foresees more traffic problems and that neither the residents of this area, nor the County would benefit from this proposed PUD. Mr. Clopper stated he had no problems with the proposed development. Mr. Ardinger stated that he was not opposed to the PUD and that this area is already being surrounded by development and the PUD offers diversity in the Urban Growth area. He further explained that, if the density was maximized by building duplexes rather than the proposed PUD plan, more units would be built at four per acre. Ms. Lampton agreed with Mr. Anikis comments regarding no justification for the commercial area and she also agreed with Mr. Ardinger on the diversity the PUD offered. Traffic study is continuing and the schools will be examined at the Final Development stage. Mr. Clopper made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the PUD application of RZ-01-009 is consistent with the 91

Comprehensive Plan as presented including the commercial site. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Clopper and Mr. Ardinger voted aye and Ms. Lampton and Mr. Anikis voted no and Mr. Henry, Mr. Ernst and Mr. Iseminger abstaining. The motion died. Discussion continued regarding the aspects of the commercial area, the compatibility of the PUD and the overall density. Members also discussed that if the 9 acres that was originally designated as commercial was removed, and re-designated for residential use, whether if 2.7 per acres should be used. Ms. Lampton made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the residential portion of the PUD as proposed with the density of 2.7 to 3.83 be approved as presented. Aiso, that the commercial area of approximately nine (9) acres as presented be denied and that the commercial area be developed as residential with the density to be determined during the development review process and that the finding in effect by the staff report is also adopted by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Motion carried with Ms. Lampton, Mr. Anikis and Mr. Ardinger, voting aye and Mr. Clopper vote no. Mr. Henry, Mr. Ernst and Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

Forest Conservation Fund Program Mr. Wiebley presented the Forest Conservation Program for FY 2002-2003 for three proposed sites located within Washington County. One site is owned by Michael Sweeney on Fairview Road containing 8 acres of exiting forest along Tom's Run. The Sweeney property has 3.7 acres that will be protected by an easement provided by the USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The proposed property for the Forest Conservation Fund Program is beiow the easement is approximately 8 acres of existing woods along Toms Run in need of protection, which will protect a ionger stretch of Tom's Run. Mr. Jackson's property adjoins Neil Wright's property located in the Beaver Creek area, which would result in 4.3 acres of new plantings and contain 7.6 acres of existing forest. The Soil Conservation District has approved the applications. Mr. Wiebley stated that the cost for the three properties is estimated between $45,000 to $48,000. Funds are provided by the Forest Conservation Fund, which contains fees paid in lieu of planting by developers. Mr. Ciopper made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the three properties as presented for the Forest Conservation Fund Program for FY 2002-2003. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Ernst, seconded by Mr. Iseminger, to adjourn at 8:32 p.m. Unanimously approved. So ordered. paE~a~to~-+n--,-,----,~--- Chairperson 92

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JULY 1, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, July 1, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, Timothy Henry, George Anikis. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; and Office Associate, 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, Ms. Lampton stated that Sunset Creek Estates under Other Business was omitted from the agenda.

MINUTES:

Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of April 1, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of May 6, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS:

-SITE PLANS:

Beaver Creek Quarry Mr. Lung presented for approval a site plan for H.B. Mellott for the southern expansion of the east pit quarry. The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of 1-70 and the Maryland Route 66 interchange. The property is owned by Schneider Partnership of Washington County and the applicant/developer is H.B. Mellott Estate, Inc. per a lease agreement with the owner. The property contains 61.90 acres and is zoned Industrial Mineral. Mr. Lung provided an overview of the history of the Industrial Mineral zoning classification to assist with the progression of the proposed site plan. On April 2, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with a remand of the Court adopted supplemental findings and fact. The additional findings dealt primarily with visual, groundwater, and blasting compatibility. These are the findings on which the Board approved the 1M zoning. Additionally, there were three conditions placed on the rezoning. The conditions were that the Zone of Influence issues be addressed, that additional hydrogeological information be presented based on the County Geologist's comments, and that the property be fenced. The Board of Commissioners also required that the Beaver Creek Fish Hatchery spring be included in the Zone of Influence for the H.B. Mellott Quarry. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has determined and adopted the Zone of Influence for the Beaver Creek Quarry site and the Beaver Creek spring has been included. Concurrent with the County's review of the site plan, the MDE has been reviewing a Mining and Reclamation plan, which outlines the technical aspects of the mining and reclamation process. The MDE has indicated that H.B. Mellott's application is complete. A public hearing was held on June 24, 2002 to take comments on the plan and the record for that hearing will remain open for ten days. After that time, the MDE will take action on the application. At the County's site plan review stage, the development of a quarry is a multi-step project from the initial clearing of the site until the final reclamation. Mr. Lung explained the phases of the quarry process as indicated on the plan. Phase I involves the installation of a fence around the property. The fencing will either be a 6' chain-link fence, or an 8' deer fence. The County has no minimum standards for the fencing of quarry operations. There will also be the installation of a diversion swail channel along the east side of the property, clearing and stripping of the overburden, and the construction of a berm along the east side of the property. The berm will ultimately be 30' to 50' in height and a 2 to 1 slope on the outside. The berm will be capped with topsoil and seeded. As the mining proceeds southward, the overburden berm will be constructed further around the south end of the property at the height of 70' to 80' and wrap around the west end. White pines will be added around the outer bank of the berm. Approximately 573 trees are proposed at 12 to 15' in height in eight staggered rows at 15' apart in the vicinity of 1-70. The existing entrance will continue to be used for hauling material out of the quarry. A secondary entrance will be used for utility vehicles, construction and support equipment. The State Highway Administration approved the use of this entrance and will not requiring any bonding. The current amount of truck traffic will not increase and there are no changes proposed to the current hours of operation. Mr. Lung also explained that as a part of the permitting process, a contingency plan has been adopted to supplement the Beaver Creek spring for a thirty-day period by the establishment of pumps, if for some reason the spring should go dry. Mr. Lung stated that Article 15.4 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines performance standards for the site plan review. Additional setbacks have been noted on the plan to address blasting limits that extend beyond 100' due to neighboring property owners. The MDE and the County Zoning Ordinance establish the 100' blasting limit. The performance standards also require that the dust from the entrance or haul route be minimized. The mining and 93 reclamation plan addresses the dust and states that a water tanker with spray bar will be used to control dust. The performance standards also deals with vibration control, which limits ground vibration at the nearest existing prihcipal building to two inches per second. This limit is also established in the State Mining and Reclamation Plan. Blasting records from the State show that no ground vibration shots greater than one inch per second have occurred on this property over the past five years. Air blast vibrations are not regulated by the County, but are addressed by the State. According to the State, over the past five years, H.B. Mellott had two incidents where air blasts were in the non-compliance range and there was one fly rock incident at this particular quarry. The Washington County Ordinance establishes the 100' setback and MOE requires a 500' setback for the blasting limit from an existing building. In addition to their surface mining permit, H.B. Mellott is required to have several other State permits, inciuding a Water Use and Appropriations Permit, a Water Discharge Permit, and an Air Quality Permit. The Zoning Ordinance states that screened plantings shall be required where mineral extraction and related activities are visible from adjacent residential, commercial, industrial structures, or any pubiic road that is located within 500' of the property line. According to the appiicant's plan, the primary screening method for this operation will be through the use of berms covered with grass along with a white pinEl planting area along the 1-70 portion of the site, however, the plantings will not screen the berm from the road. The applicant has indicated that they will preserve existing vegetation in this area, however, some clearing will be necessary to install the fence and a proposed security road around the perimeter. The applicant has also established a 25' setback off their property line, which is not a requirement of the County. The final phase of the project is the reclamation phase after the mining phase is completed. According to the plan, this is expected to occur within a twenty-five year time period. Approvais have been received from the Health Department, Engineering Department, Soil Conservation District and the State Highway Administration. The Permits Department and the Planning Staff have conducted a joint review of the site plan and have issued comments that mainiy involve ciarification of some notes on the plan. The applicant has responded with a revision, which still needs to be reviewed. A written request was received from Norma Heaton to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Heaton stated that she believed the proposed setbacks are inadequate and requested that the setbacks be increased along the southern boundary to 1,000' for primary and secondary blasting. She further stated that the setback be increased to 750' along the property lines of the Redmond and Papa properties for primary blasting and increased to 1,000' for secondary blasting. Ms. Heaton also commented on the fly rock incident in April 1998 and the visual impact of the quarry and believed the setbacks should be increased and more of the existing trees should be retained. She also commented on the impact of the quarry and ground water connections. Mr. Urner, representing H.B. Mellott Estate, Inc. presented to the Planning Commission a cover letter to the site plan. He stated that the three conditions from the rezoning case have been addressed and met by his client. He further commented on the screening, diversion channel and to the conditioning of the site plan approval on the MOE permit. He added that in regard to Ms. Heaton's comments, that the Zoning Ordinance estabiished the setbacks. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval stating that H.B. Mellott has met the three conditions of rezoning. The Zone of Influence was established to include the spring, a hydrogeologic study provided and reviewed to the satisfaction of MOE, and the entire quarry will be fenced with either a 6' chain-link or 8' deer fence where appropriate. The approval shall be subject to the issuance of a Mining and Reclamation Permit by MOE, Water Use and Appropriations Permit, Water Discharge Permit, Air Quality Permit and that the developer addresses the outstanding technical clarifications with Staff. He further stated that the approval is conditioned upon the requirement that H.B. Mellott notify adjacent property owners in advance of any blasting occurring on the site either by phone or by letter in sufficient time for residents to be forewarned. Mr. Iseminger added for emphasis to his motion that if the flow of the spring is interrupted by unusual circumstances, that mining operations would cease and that H.B. Mellott is responsible for any work to bring the spring back. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Motion carried with Ms. Lampton, Mr. Iseminger, Mr. Clopper, and Mr. Ernst voting "aye" and Mr. Anikis voted "no" and Mr. Henry abstaining. So ordered.

Bowman Sales & Equipment. Inc. Mr. Goodrich presented for approval the site plan for Bowman Sales & Equipment, Inc. The original site plan and Forest Conservation Plan was approved in December 1996 and at that time the use described on the plan was for a storage trailer rental facility with a maintenance shop. Since then, the owner has been cited by the Zoning Administrator because there are additional uses on the site that were not approved on the site plan. The owner has also received approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals for additional uses on the site. The presented site plan is for use of the existing house as office space, the use of the existing barn for storage of maintenance equipment, the yard area outside of the barn to move equipment around and the expansion of the storage area. The site wili aiso be used for storage of sea containers, which are similar to storage trailers but without wheels. There is also additional storage area. The existing berm was designed on the original pian to screen the site. The storage area would be covered with stone and tractor-trailers would transport the containers. The parking area will be watered down on an as needed basis to minimize the dust.

The Health Department approved the site plan and the Engineering Department approved the site plan including expansion of the stormwater management area to accommodate the expanded storage area. The State Highway Administration had approved the existing entrance, however they requested additional information on the hydraulics to determine any effect on 1-81. That review is still pending. The Permits Department had comments that have been addressed 94 regarding signage, landscaping, and the planting on top of the berm area, which it recommended be on 6' centers rather than the 10' proposed. Pending the minor revisions and State Highway Administration review there are no other outstanding issues. Mr. Bowman stated that 99% of the sea containers are empty and are often brought here from the Baltimore and New Jersey Harbors. The containers are leased out from the site and that an average of thirty trips are made to and from the site each day.

The Planning Commission received a written request from a neighboring landowner, Karl Werder, to comment on the site plan. He stated that he was a participant in the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in January 2002. His main interest is that the decision stated that the appellant shall insure that any and all sea containers and similar storage containers are fully screened from view by the surrounding properties and the interstate highway. Mr. Werder stated that he is not convinced that the proposed forsythia will be thick enough to fully screen the view. He added that the forsythia is a deciduous plant and the containers would be visible in the fall and winter. He further commented that the hours of operation were set from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that he has personally seen trucks entering the property prior to 7:00 a.m. and asked that the Planning Commission request that the hours be adhered to. Mr. Anikis questioned if the vegetative screening could be revisited in six months or a year from now to determine if more screening is required. Mr. Arch stated that once the applicant plants the screening in accordance with the site plan, if there is concurrence with all parties as part of the site plan approval, the matter could be revisited in six months to determine if addition screening is needed. Mr. Arch asked if Mr. Bowman would be willing to sit down in the future to discuss what planting would be needed to support that. Mr. Bowman replied "no guarantees." Mrs. Bowman added that the white pines already planted on site need time to grow and wouid eventually become large and that six months would not really make a difference. Mr. Bowman added that the suggestion to plant forsythia was presented to him by the Director of the Permits Department, Mr. Prodonovich.

Mr. Bowman asked to have the matter tabled pending further discussion with Staff. Mr. Iseminger commented that it could be tabled, which would allow time to work out the issue of screening to the satisfaction of all parties. Mr. Anikis questioned the visibility of the containers in the winter months and if it were possible to have the containers parked in areas on the site where they were not visibie. Mr. Bowman explained that the containers are visible now because they are double stacked and if necessary they could be single stacked and not be seen. Mr. Anikis suggested that as a part of Staff discussions, the idea of single stacking in specific areas be reviewed. Mr. Anikis made a motion to table this matter at the request of the applicant until Staff brings the site plan back. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Mr. Henry abstained. So ordered.

Brook Lane Health Services Ms. Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Brook Lane Health Services. The subject site is located along the southwest side of Leitersburg Smithsburg Road. The property owners are proposing to construct an addition to the existing hospital and add additional parking. The total site acreage is 116.9 acres. The site is served by a central water supply and by an on-site sewer collection system. The total number of employees for the hospital is 70 and the total number of employees for the site is 220 over a 24-hour period. No changes are proposed on the number of employees. Freight and delivery will be two to three small delivery trucks per day. Existing parking is 181 spaces and the proposed parking is 219 spaces and 168 spaces are required. No changes are proposed for the signage. Building mounted and pole mounted lights are proposed for the parking area and sidewalks will be added. Shrubs will be located around the new addition. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it was a lot of record prior to 1993. The existing dumpster located at the maintenance area will continue to serve the site. On January 7, 2002, the Planning Commission reduced the stream buffer on the west side of Grove Creek to a width equivalent to the 100-year floodplain. That approval was given with the condition that the water quality treatment be provided to the new improvements as acceptable to the County Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District. All agencies have approved the plan. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Mr. Henry seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Twin Ridge Mr. Lung presented a concept plan for Twin Ridge. The subject site is located off of Reiff Church Road. A subdivision piat was previously approved for 46 single-family lots on the same property that never came to fruition. A different developer is proposing 92 semi-detached dwelling units. Zoning is currently Residential Multi-Family, which provides for a higher density. Under the draft Comprehensive Plan, this area is slated for lOW-density residential development. The developer has requested that this property stay, as multi-family under the revised plan, however, that request was rejected by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lung stated that the Staff recommended sidewalks be prOVided. The developer is proposing open section streets, which makes installation of sidewalks difficLiIt. Use of the shoulder for pedestrians would not be acceptable because there is a high likely hood that cars would be parking on the shoulder due to the proposed houses only haVing a single car garage. The developer, Mr. Alter stated they were considering a carport with an overhang to hold one or two vehicles and to proVide room in the drive for a total of 3 to 4 cars. Staff comments to the developer included the need for pedestrian access internally and to Green Mountain Drive, which is also open section streets, but at a much 95 lower density. Mr. Lung added that there is currently no requirement in the Zoning Ordinance, which would require sidewalks in a single-family development, however, the Planning Commission had asked for sidewalks in the previous pian. Mr. Lung stated that the developer would also have to make improvements to Rieff Church Road to comply with APFO requirements. Mr. Iseminger suggested that with the high density of the proposed subdivision, some clustering could occur, and a tot lot or some type of open space area shouid be added to enhance the quality of life for the homeowners. The developer discussed a proposed tot lot area and agreed that there is a need for internal pedestrian flow within the development and a connection to Green Mount Drive. Mr. Lung stated that comments were received from the Hagerstown Regional Airport in regard to the proximity of this development to the runway protection zone. The developer stated that notes would be added to the plat and subsequent deeds advising the homeowner up front of the noise and traffic associated with the airport. Mr. Iseminger suggested that additional insulation be added in the homes when constructed to assist with the noise level. Ms. Lampton questioned the use of City water. Mr. Alter stated that he received a letter from the City of Hagerstown, which stated the City would serve the deveiopment. No action required.

Theodore & Sharon Lapkoff Mr. Lung presented a concept plan for Theodore and Sharon Lapkoff. The concept plan proposes 14 lots on 57 acres. The property is zoned Conservation. Staff provided comments at the preliminary consultation regarding the design and also recommended some clustering to preserve open space. The developer is preserving the historic structures on the property. There appears to be sufficient on-site forest to address the Forest Conservation requirements. The developer plans to retain the forest to meet that obligation. Mr. Lung clarified that the homes on the lots 1 and 2 will continue to use their existing access onto Gapland Road. Lot 4 will have its own access and lot 3 will access the new street. No action required.

Homer Bivens Ms. Pietro presented a concept plan for Homer Bivens. The developer is proposing four (4) single-family lots. The subject site is located along the west side of Greencastle Pike and is zoned Agricultural. Ms. Pietro stated that she had nothing further to add to the consultation as presented. No action required.

OTHER BUSINESS:

RZ-02-002 - Text Amendment Ms. Pietro stated that she had nothing further to add to her staff report. She further stated that as a part of the recommendation from the Animal Control Board, the definition of "veterinarian practitioner" was added. No comments were received from the community on the proposed recommendation. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they adopt the proposed text amendment based on its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Henry. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

Demolition Permit Shaool (former Black Rock PUD) Mr. Goodrich explained that Mr. Shaool's application for a demolition permit to remove Historic Survey listed structures from the land proposed to be deveioped as the Black Rock PUD has triggered Historic District Commission and Pianning Commission review. The Historic District Commission has performed an initial review and requested more information from Mr. Prodonovich regarding his notice that the building was unsafe. He explained that it is unsafe because It is unsecure and open to the weather not because of structural deficiencies. Mr. Goodrich said he expects the HOC to ultimately be opposed to the demolition. Mr. Anlkls made a motion to recommend that the developer contact the Washington County Historical Trust and seek assistance to find a purchaser for the property within a defined time limit of six months. Mr. Iseminger added to the motion that the Planning Commission agrees with the Historic District Commission in their opposition to the demolition of the structure. Mr. Iseminger seconded the motion. Mr. Henry abstained. So ordered.

Comprehensive Plan Revision - BOCC Mr. Arch stated that Board of County Commissioners took action to present the draft Comprehensive Plan update at a public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kepler Theater at Hagerstown Community College. The Commissioners made one change to the draft and deleted the provision for the additional bonuses in the Agricultural, Preservation and Conservation Policy Areas. Mr. Iseminger suggested that the members should attend the meeting and comment as a group or individually. Mr. Henry made a motion to continue to endorse the original plan as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

A private citizen, Mrs. Hovermale requested that in the future an article or notification be placed in the same location in the newspaper so that people who are interested in attending could locate the meeting information. Mr. Arch commented that there are specific requirements regarding the advertisement of hearings in the classified ad section under legal notices and that for the upcoming public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan, back page ads will also placed. 96

Bowman Warehouse Mr. Arch stated that the developer is requesting a temporary site plan approval for a warehouse and a pad for a second building. The subject site is located off of Hopewell Road. The presented site plan request is on a temporary basis until a formal site plan(s) are submitted and approved. A site plan was previously approved for the use of storage trailers. The use is permitted and there would be no disturbance or alteration of the existing site plan. Mr. Arch stated that the only outstanding issue was the definition of "temporary" in terms of a date. Members discussed and agreed that a six (6) month time limit was a reasonable time for a temporary site plan. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant a six (6) month temporary site plan approval for the purposes as outlined. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Henry abstained. So ordered.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

~~f,,~/V\ Paula A. Lampton "! Chairperson 97

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - August 5, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, August 5, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, and Don Ardinger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner Misty Wagner and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman. Absent were Timothy Henry and George Anikis.

CALL TO ORDER:

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

Before proceeding, Mr. Arch stated that the City of Hagerstown requested that the Planning Commission look at the Urban Growth Area with regard to several properties and the joint sewer service area. Also, the site plan and the Preliminary Plat for 632 Joint Venture will be omitted from the agenda.

MINUTES:

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of June 3, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS:

-SUBDIVISIONS:

Richard and Susan Lohman Mr. Lung presented the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Richard and Susan Lohman. The property is located outside of Sharpsburg, west of Harpers Ferry Road, off of Davidson Drive. The proposed subdivision contains a total of 4.6 acres and is zoned Agricultural. Seven single­ family lots are proposed with lot sizes being over 20,000 square feet each. There will be a short cul-de-sac street constructed by the developer and dedicated to the County. Public water and sewer are available. A 20,000 square foot stormwater management lot will also be dedicated to the County. The plat also includes a 1/3 acre simplified parcel to be added to an adjacent property to the rear for access and possible future subdivision of two lots. The Planning Commission preViously approved use of payment in lieu of to meet Forest Conservation requirements. All agency reviews are completed. The Engineering Department, Permits Department and County Water and Sewer Department had issued technical comments on the plat. Revisions addressing the comments were submitted and final approval is pending. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision plat approval contingent upon the comments from the Engineering, County Water and Sewer Department and the Permits Department being addressed satisfactorily. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Vote Unanimous. So ordered.

Freedom Hills Mr. Goodrich presented the Preliminary Plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Phase I of Freedom Hills. The property is located on the north side of Garden View Drive. The developer is proposing a total of 115 lots on 63 acres. Phase I will consist of lots 1 through 25 for single-family homes. The property is zoned Rural Residential. A network of internal streets is proposed for the subdivision. Public water and sewer are to be used. The developer is proposing to meet the obligations of the Forest Conservation Ordinance by planting approximately half the required mitigation of 9.48 acres on the site and paying the fee in lieu of planting for the other half, which will require approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Iseminger stated that there was a need for the additional screening from the planing mill and the railroad track and the 50' buffer does meet the definition of forest. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Vote was unanimous. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant approval of the Forest Conservation Plan as presented. Mr. Ernst seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Trinity Church of God Mr. Goodrich presented a subdivision plat and site plan for Trinity Church of God. The property is located on the west side of Orebank Road, off the south side of U.S. 40. The property is 3.05 acres in size and is zoned Conservation. The developer is proposing a 60' x 120' church and a future addition. Thirty-six parking spaces are provided. Mr. Goodrich stated that approximately 1.8 acres is already wooded. There will be some clearing for the proposed development and the stormwater management area. An 80' stream buffer is also provided. There will be one access onto Orebank Road. The access and stormwater management approval is pending by the Engineering Department and should be forthcoming. The Health Department has approved the plan. Mr. Ernst made a motion for Preliminary and Final Plat approval subject to all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Vote Unanimous. So ordered. Mr. Clopper made a 98

motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon receipt of outstanding agency approvals, Mr, Ernst seconded the motion, Vote was unanimous, So ordered,

632 Joint Venture - Off-Site Forest Retention Request Mr. Goodrich presented a request from 632 Joint Venture to use off-site existing forest retention as the means to meet the Forest Conservation obligation, The developer is proposing a seven lot commercial subdivision adjacent to the Maryland Route 632 interchange, Some existing forest on-site will serve as a buffer on-site per an agreement with Town Oak Village residents during the rezoning, The obligatiqn is approximately 5.43 acres of forest to be planted on'site or off-site, The proposed off-site retention area is located on Orchard Ridge Road near Hancock, Staff has concerns about the proposed retention area, Even though it is good forest, it is 6,900' from the public road and there is no path or road which would make it difficult to verify and inspect the site, Mr, Goodrich stated that the payment in lieu of option would be approximateiy $20,000, The payment in lieu of option is low on the preference list and must have the Planning Commission's approval. Members discussed the distance of the off-site retention and payment in lieu of option, Mr. Goodrich stated that currently the Ordinance does not have guidelines regarding the proximity other than it should be in the same County, Mr. Iseminger made a motion to deny the request to use the proposed site for off-site forest retention, Mr. Clopper seconded the motion, Vote was unanimous, So ordered,

- SITE PLANS:

Buckley Rees Ms, Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Buckley Rees, The subject site is located along the east side of the Sharpsburg Pike, The property is zoned Agricultural. Mr. Rees is proposing to construct a building for welding, auto repair, restoration and construction, and farm equipment repair for the general public, There will be one employee. The hours of operation are Monday through Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. A sign will be attached to the building and will have to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Three parking spaces are provided. There are no sanitary facilities on-site because the employee is also the owner of the dwelling next door and at such time that this building is sold to someone who does not live on-site, then facilities would have to be installed as noted on the site plan. Lights will be bUilding mounted. An existing dumpster will dispose of solid waste. No commercial deliveries are proposed. The Board of Zoning Appeals allowed for the reduction of the northern building restriction line from 33.5' to 15' for the construction of the 8,500' building. Six Leland cypresses will be planted along the northern property line. All approvals have been received. Mr. Iseminger said that it does not appear that six trees would provide sufficient buffering to adjacent properties. Mr. Rees stated that he had previously planted trees in this area and the adjacent property owners choose to remove the trees. Ms. Pietro suggested that this matter could be discussed with the neighboring property owner and they could provide their position in writing. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon Mr. Rees approaching the adjacent property owner and providing them with the benefit of trees planted by Mr. Rees on their property If declined, the site plan is approved as presented. Mr. Iseminger added to the motion for clarification that the plantings would be consistent with the type shown on the plan and that Mr. Rees would do the plantings and the property owner would be responsible for the maintenance of the plantings. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Valentine Electric - Warehouse Ms. Wagner presented for approval a site plan for Valentine Electric Warehouse located off Western Maryland Parkway. The property is zoned Industrial General. Total property area is 2.5 acres. The developer is proposing a 12,650 square foot warehouse to be located behind the existing business along with a new asphalt area around the warehouse, which will increase the imperVious area to 80%. The height of the warehouse will be 24'. Lighting would be provided by existing poles and building mounted lights on the warehouse. An on-site dumpster will dispose of trash and recycled materials. Hours of operation for Valentine Electric will be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. The existing access will be used and no new signage is proposed. There are 54 existing parking spaces and 16 spaces are required. Water and sewer is provided by the City of Hagerstown and will be extended to the warehouse. Stormwater management will be handled in the existing regional stormwater management pond. The consultant, Greg Barnes stated that a stormwater quality channel was added on the east side of the parking lot to conform to the new regulations to address water quality on-site and some modifications are proposed for the existing stormwater management pond. No new landscaping is proposed and the site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Mr. Iseminger seconded the motion. Mr. Ernst abstained. So ordered.

Valley Grace Brethren Church Ms. Wagner presented for approval a site plan for Valley Grace Brethren Church. The subject site is located on the north side of Gay Street, west of Decker Avenue. The property is zoned Residential Urban. The developer is proposing a 258' walkway entrance and a 28 x 60' classroom building, which would be a doublewide trailer. The classroom will be used for Sunday school and youth group meetings on Sunday nights. The existing access will be used and the existing parking is adequate for this development. Public water and sewer serves the site, but will not serve the classroom. The site is exempt from stormwater management and the Forest 99

Conservation Ordinance. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Nursery Mews Ms. Pietro provided an overview of the preliminary consultation held on June 26, 2002 to discuss a concept plan for Nursery Mews. The site is located at the intersection of Nursery Road and Evergreen Drive, north of Virginia Avenue. The developer is proposing 29 duplex lots with minimum lot sizes of 10,000'. The total site acreage is 11.85 acres and the property is zoned Residential Urban. Ms. Pietro clarified that the State Highway Administration requested a traffic study only for Nursery Road and not Lexington Avenue. Public water and sewer is available. The Infrastructure will need to be upgraded to provide the sewer service to the proposed development. The forest areas will be located on the individual lots. Staff advised that a note would need to be added to the plat advising the property owners of their responsibilities. Staff also recommended that fencing be added along the railroad track for safety purposes. The development must also comply with the County's new stormwater management regulations. No action required.

FOREST CONSERVATION:

Twin Ridge Concept Plan Mr. Lung stated that the Planning Commission previously reviewed a preliminary consultation for Twin Ridge. The developer is proposing 92 semi-detached dwelling units on 16.17 acres north of Maugansville, off of Reiff Church Road. There are no existing forest areas or any priority areas on the site. A subdivision plat was previously approved for 46 single-family lots and payment in lieu of was also approved. This plat was never recorded and the approval has expired. During its review of the previous development proposal, the Planning Commission requested screen planting from the proposed development and the adjacent apartments. The Forest Conservation requirement would be 3.23 acres and the payment in lieu amount would be $14,069.88. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the request for payment in lieu of. Seconded by Mr. Iseminger. Discussion followed re9arding vegetative screen planting and members agreed to discuss some type of screening at the subdivision phase for the new proposal. Mr. Ernst abstained. So ordered.

Wildflower Meadows - Lots 18-20 Ms. Pietro presented a request for payment in lieu of for Wildflower Meadows at the intersection of Fairview Road and St. Paul's Road. The owners, Michael and Andrea Rankin have requested to meet the Forest Conservation obligation by payment in lieu of. There are no existing forest areas or priority areas on the site. The payment in lieu of fee would be $6,272.64 for approximately 1.4 acres. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant the request for payment in lieu of. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

OTHER BUSINESS:

RZ- 02-003. William & Sylvia Martin. Map Amendment, Staff Report and Recommendation Mr. Lung stated that he did not have anylhing furlher to add to the staff report. Members discussed the previous rezoning process from Conservation to Business General. Based on the County's Attorney's opinion, the property cannot go back to the original zoning classification of Conservation since the rezoning was viewed as a mistake. Discussion followed as to smaller lot sizes permitted in Residential Suburban zoning and the availability of water and sewer. Further discussion continued on the potential development if left at the current zoning, the Rural Village aspects and the considerable amount of public testimony at the hearing and correspondence following the hearing. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to deny the rezoning request from the current BG zoning to RS and by virtue of the fact that the property is in an area of the County that seems to be the driving force of that community and not that it meets either the criteria of mistake or change. He further stated that he believes that the people in this area have spoken and he respects their wishes and with the condition that it is in and also in light of the fact that it could turn out to be something much worse under Residential and that it could be overturned in Court based on what their wishes were. He further stated that it hasn't been proven to him that there needs to be a change nor does he believe there was a mistake in zoning and the current zoning has been established and it could be overturned in court as well. Motion died for lack of a second. Discussion followed as to whether Residential Suburban would be the proper rezoning. Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they deny the rezoning request based upon the fact that Residential Suburban would not be the proper and appropriate classification for the subject property. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered. 100

Black Rock-PUD - Revised Concept Plan Mr. Lung stated that Mr. Shaool withdrew his previous request for a PUD classification on the subject property, located off of Mt. Aetna Road. Mr. Shaool has filed a new request, which will begin the process over again. The new request will be heard at the public hearing on September 23, 2002. The revised concept plan is proposing 599 units at a density of 2.71 dwelling units per acre on a total of 220.77 acres. The basic layout of the development is similar to the previous plan except for the relocation of the townhouse units on the outer perimeter of the condominiums. Forest Conservation will be addressed on-site. The consultant, Mr. Weikert proVided an overview of the changes on the new concept plan that resulted in the reduction of the number of units by 40%. He also discussed some the issues and concerns from the previous public hearing such as the school population and traffic concerns. Mr. Shaool also commented on the new concept plan and stated that the PUO is designed for years to come and that his proposal is good for the County and provides a variety of quality housing. He further stated that currently his build out on his adjacent development is an average of eight (8) units per year. Mr. Ardinger pointed out that after the PUO is approved that the property could be sold to another developer. Mr. Shaool also stated that he would go to Court to insure that the property would remain in his family and would not be sold in the future to another developer. Mr. Iseminger had some general comments that addressed pedestrian access via sidewalks, the need for a secondary access point in the vicinity of Kieffer Funk Road, adequate bUffering between the adjacent Agricultural land, and the maintenance of the recreation areas. Mr. Shaool stated that the Homeowners Association would maintain the open space. Mr. Clopper added that the developer may want to follow the property line for the second access route and keep the single-family houses to the south of the road. He further stated that he appreciated the extra buffering from the adjacent farms. No action required.

Town of Clear Spring - Water and Sewer Plan Amendment Revision Mr. Lung stated that the Planning Commission approved an administrative amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan to designate a portion of a water transmission line associated with the Clear Spring water system as "restricted use." The Smart Growth Coordinating Committee informed the MOE that the wording of the amendment was not acceptable. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the amendment to replace the designation of "restricted use" with the wording "denied access" and provide a brief definition stating that no one would be able to hook onto the line except those who already are connected onto that line. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the revised designation. Seconded by Mr. Iseminger. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

City of Hagerstown - Joint Sewer Service Mr. Arch stated that the City of Hagerstown is in the process of amending the Joint Service Agreement. As a part of that process, the City requested concurrence from the Planning Commission regarding properties for inclusion in the joint sewer service area and clarification as to whether the properties were within the Urban Growth Area as outlined on a map provided by the City. Members discussed parcel #3 - Wintergreen Subdivision and the question was whether the adjacent horse farm should be included within the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend that the properties of #4 - Freedom Hills, #6 - Paradise, and #7 - Paradise Heights be associated within the Urban Growth Area and that #3 - Wintergreen would be associated outside of the Urban Growth Area due to the topography of that area. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion and added that the basis of the motion was due to the topography, which would require a pumping station. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Comprehensive Plan Revision BOCC Mr. Arch stated that discussions continue with the Board of County Commissioners on the draft Comprehensive Plan. There are specific requests that will be addressed on August 20, 2002 and further discussion will continue on the density issues.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion made by Mr. Ernst, seconded by Mr. Clopper, to adjourn at 9:32 p.m. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

~ J) 1CLv}i-- ;f U'~f---v., Paula A. Lampton " Chairperson 101

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - September 9, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its reguiar meeting on Monday, September 9, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, Don Ardinger, Timothy Henry and George Anikis. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planner, Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman. Staff Director, Robert Arch was absent.

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

NEW BUSINESS:

-SUBDIVISIONS:

North Village Section 2: Ms. Pietro presented for approvai a Preliminary Plat and Forest Conservation Plan for North Village - Section 2. The subject site is located on the north side of Longmeadow Road, aiong Pulaski, Cambridge and Essex Drive. The property is zoned Residential Suburban. The developer is proposing 85 single-family lots on minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet on 32.5 acres. Pubiic water and sewer will serve all lots. A special exception for a 0.2 acre lot for the location of a pump station will be applied for prior to finai approval of the plat. The consuitant is working with the County Water and Sewer Department as to the location of the pumping station. Pulaski Drive will extend into the proposed adjacent development of Paradise Heights. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by planting 5.8 acres of forest adjacent to the site. All approvals have been received. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant approval of the Forest Conservation Plan as submilted. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Preliminary Plat approval giving Staff the authority for Final Plat approval contingent upon the Board of Zoning Appeals action with regard to the pump station. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Shirley Sears-Phillipson - Lots 1-4 Ms. Pietro presented for approval the Subdivision Plat for Shirley Sears-Phillipson-Lots 1-4. The subject site is located along the southside of Dellinger Road, east of the intersection with Neck Road. The property is zoned Conservation. The developer is proposing to create 4 single-family lots ranging in size from 3 to 9 acres. Total area of the site is 18.7 acres. All lots will be served by wells and septic and will have frontage on Dellinger Road. Lot 4 has a panhandle and lots 3 and 4 will share the existing farm lane access. A portion of the lot 4 panhandle is a perpetual easement that was conveyed to the Younkers for their use. A note will be added to the plat stating that lot 3 will have a right-of-way over the panhandle. Lots 1 and 2 will have their own access points. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by retaining existing forest on a portion of lot 4, which is also a high priority area due to its close proximity to the Potomac River and existing steep slopes. A total of 3.45 acres of existing forest will be retained. Ms. Pietro stated that the Heaith Department approved the proposed subdivision and stated that the perc tests were in soils that were more than adequate and that the required distances have been met per State regulations. The Engineering Department is currently reviewing a road-widening plan that will widen Dellinger Road out to Neck Road. The developer will need to post a bond for the widening plan or complete the widening project prior to final approval by the Engineering Department. Stormwater management will be required and must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building and entrance permit, which is also noted on the plat. Ms. Pietro provided the Planning Commission Members with a copy of a lelter received from the adjacent property owner, Mr. Younker. She proceeded to provide an overview of the concerns outlined in the lelter presented. One of the concerns raised by Mr. Younker is the access to lots 3 and 4 and the close proximity to his well. He further indicated that he did not want the panhandle to be paved or any of the ground disturbed around the area of his well. He also requested that the brush and trees that provide a buffer from his property on the western property line between lots 3 & 4 be retained. Ms. Pietro noted that the developer has agreed to this request and a note. has been added to the plat. Another concern cited was the location of the perc tests and septic areas on the proposed lots in relationship to his well and spring. He also had concerns about his well being contaminated from the proposed location of the new wells.

A written request was received from the Younkers to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Pembroke, representing the Younkers addressed the Planning Commission and highlighted his client's concerns. The easement in question was obtained by the Younkers through a court action to provide access to tOOir barn. Mr. Pembroke referred to photographs provided by Mr. Younker depicting the runoff that occurred several years ago since the property is located in the watershed of the Potomac River. He further stated that when flooding occurs it can be severe and his client is concerned about the adequacy of the drainage system. He further stated that according to the plat, there are two entrances planned off the driveway easement. Historically, this lane has been used for farm equipment and is located less than 10' from the Younkers well and it not designed for heavy traffic. The Younker's concern is if the lane is paved and the traffic 102 load significantly increases that there is a possibility of damage or contamination of their well. They were also concerned that with the current drought situation the per tests compieted may possibly contaminate their well and spring. The Younkers have requested that the buffer zone located on lot 3 be retained. They have also requested that the septic system located next to the easement driveway be relocated to an area away from the well to reduce the risk of possible problems with contamination. They also requested that the buffer area and fencerow remain on lot 3 as it currently exists. The Younkers requested that the driveway not be paved and requested assurance that the drainage system is adequate for handling any runoff issues.

Gary Rohrer, Public Works Director, stated that he was very familiar with the subject property and with the past flooding conditions. He explained that the flooding is predominateiy from properties north of Dellinger Road. He further stated that he assured the Younkers that he did not believe the location of the subdivision would be detrimental to their property. He also explained to them that the maximum grading would be 5,000 square feet for residential construction before a grading permit and plan was needed. The new stormwater management regulations are very stringent, however, with the proposed four lots the developer would be entitled to credits with the understanding that there would not be any major disturbances. Mr. Rohrer recommended that the buffer area on lot 3 be retained, which would assist with the reduction of runoff. He further stated that he supports the road widening of Dellinger Road and thanked the Planning Commission for their support of road widening plans. He also stated that the Younkers had justified concerns regarding their well and that he is unable to alleviate their concerns and he would defer to the Health Department on those issues given the karst topography of the area and the current drought conditions. Discussion continued regarding the number of pending issues and the concerns expressed by the Younkers. Mr. Iseminger made a motion that the Planning Commission members visit the site with the appropriate agencies to discuss the pending issues and that the subdivision be placed on next month's agenda. Mr. Rohrer stated that he would also like to attend the site visit. Mr. Anikis seconded the motion. Unanimously approved.

632 Joint Venture, Preliminary Plat-Lots 2-9, Off-Site Forest Retention: Mr. Goodrich presented the Preliminary Plat for lots 2 -9. The subject site is located in the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Maryland Route 632 and 1-70 interchange. The former Moose Lodge located on lot 2 is being remodeled. There are no proposed uses for the other lots. Public water and sewer will serve all lots. Five new fire hydrants will be installed to serve the proposed area. The existing entrance will be widened and converted to a public road that will serve all lots. The Downsville Pike will be modified to provide dedicated right and left turn lanes into the site.

An agreement was made with the residents of Town Oak Village, represented by Mr. Bartles, President of the Homeowner's Association and the developer to provide certain landscaped buffers. The buffer between lot 2 and Town Oak Village would include a double row of Leland cypress on a berm along the property line. On the plan the cypress trees are provided, but there is not sufficient space to construct the berm. Mr. Ardinger suggested that the developer and Homeowner's Association discuss and agree upon an addendum to the agreement.

The existing forest between lots 6-9 and Town Oak Village will have to be removed to plant the three rows of Leland cypress required by the agreement and only scattered existing trees will remain. The agreement does not indicate a minimum amount of existing forest to be retained and only states that the buffer needs to be 50' and planted with Leland cypress.

Mr. Goodrich stated that during the August meeting, the Planning Commission denied the request for off-site retention located off of Orchard Ridge Road, which was inaccessible by Staff. The developer is now offering a different retention area located on the same parcel, along Mill Run Circle Road. Mr. Goodrich has visited the site, which is adjacent to the road. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant the Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval contingent on an amendment to the agreement with the Town Oak Village Homeowner's Association regarding the berm area and giving Staff the authority for Final Plat approval, if that condition is met. Mr. Henry seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the off-site forest retention area as proposed. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

• SITE PLANS:

632 Joint Venture Mr. Goodrich presented the site plan for the existing building, which was the former Moose Club located on lot 2. The existing building will be modified for office space. No additional lighting will be provided in the parking areas since there are no night hours proposed. The proposed landscaping will provide a visible barrier from the Town Oak Village residents and would address any headlight glare. Additional landscaping is proposed along the stormwater management edge to shield headlight glare from interstate traffic. The parking area will also be modified to provide extensive landscaping in front of the building and also to provide an additional parking lot. 96 parking spaces are provided on the plan. Water and sewer is already provided to the site. The stormwater management proposed for the entire development will also address any management for this site plan. There are outstanding responses pending from the Engineering Department and the Water Department. The plan has been modified to address their concerns. Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the site plan for lot 2 subject to comments from the Engineering 103

Department and the Water Department. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Ronald & Colleen Toothman Ms. Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Ronald and Colleen Toothman. The subject site is located on the north west side of Edgewood Drive. The property is zoned Business Local. The owner is proposing the expansion to the existing dental office. The existing access will be used and an existing pole will provide sight lighting and building mounted lights will be added. Trash will be disposed of in an on-site dumpster. Hours of operation are Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. A new building mounted sign is proposed and the existing free mounted sign along Edgewood Drive will remain. Public water and sewer serve the site. There will be 13 employees and 25 parking spaces are provided. The owner obtained a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to reduce the right-of-way lines and setback lines for the purpose of constructing the addition. Landscaping is proposed around the new addition. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since it is a single lot of record. All approvals have been received and the approval from Water Pollution Control should be forthcoming. Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the site plan as presented subject to approval from the Water Pollution Control. Mr. Clopper seconded. Unanimously approved.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Paradise Heights Ms. Baker presented for review and comment the concept plan for Paradise Heights. The subject site is located on the west side of Paradise Church Road, north of Longmeadow Road. The developer is proposing a 128 single-family lot subdivision. The property is located within the newly adopted Urban Growth Area. The property was rezoned in 1993 to Residential Suburban, which allows 10,000 square foot lots. Lots 1 through 5 were not included within the rezoning and are zoned RR, which allows for 15,000 square foot lots. Ms. Baker noted that this proposed subdivision is adjacent to the North Village subdivision and will be connected by Pulaski Drive. Mr. Bishop of the County Water and Sewer Department explained at the consultation that even if a pump station was built in North Village it would be abandoned and that this development would house the main pump station for the area. It was recommended that developers of both projects discuss this matter to avoid any unnecessary costs with the installation of the pump station. The Forest Conservation Plan provides a buffer from the existing farms in the area. Ms. Baker explained that the developer has also proposed small strips of forest to buffer the right-of-way for high-tension power lines. Staff does not believe this would be a beneficial buffer or that it is good design for the proposed subdivision. Staff suggested that another area on the site should be considered or the developer could add to the payment in lieu of, which may be more practical and beneficial to the County. Members agreed that the small strips of forest should be removed and the obligation be met by payment in lieu of. Paradise Church Road will be widened and APFO requirements will be addressed at the Preliminary Plat phase. State Highway Administration and the County Engineering Department will require a traffic study. Members further discussed the Forest Conservation areas, traffic calming measures and sidewalks for the proposed development. Mr. Iseminger suggested that a presentation should be scheduled with the area consultants to discuss new designs and to encourage innovative ideas.

J. Maurice Carlisle Ms. Baker presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation of J. Maurice Carlisle. The subject site is located along Stottlemyer Road, north of National Pike. The developer is proposing 54 single-family lots on 117 acres on both sides of Stottlemyer Road. Both Staff and the Engineering Department commented at the consultation that a secondary access point was needed. There is a permanent preservation easement located to the south of the subject property. State Highway Administration and the County Engineering Department will require a traffic study. Afforestation on-site and a small retention area will address the Forest Conservation requirements. Mr. Iseminger suggested that the afforestation be placed along the permanent easement as a buffer. Ms. Baker stated that with the problems of perc testing and wells in this area, the Health Department will consider the entire subject property within the restricted soil season and will require test wells on the site. Perc testing will not commence until adequate precipitation is received per the State guidelines. Staff recommended that a hydrogeologic study be completed concerning the test wells. Ms. Baker also recommended that the existing vegetative be retained and evergreen trees be added along the property line adjacent to 1-70 to help buffer the traffic noise. No action required.

Glen Erin· #2 Mr. Goodrich presented for review and comment the concept plan of Glen Erin #2. A consultation was previously held for Glen Erin #1, which consisted 9 lots. A Preliminary and Final Plat was brought before the Planning Commission and conditional approval was granted pending resolution of floodplain and stormwater management issues. Subsequently, adjacent property owner, John Urner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals that ruled that the subdivision was on hold until the pending issues were resolved. The concept plan for Glen Erin #2 shows the entire parcel in order to show the relationship of previously approved section 1 and the new lots proposed on the remainder of the parcel. Mr. Urner believes that the preliminary consultation for Glen Erin #2 is a furtherance of Glen Erin #1 and a violation of the Board of Zoning Appeals ruling. Staff did not agree with that opinion. 104

A written summary has not been completed on the consultation, however, written responses have been received. Mr. Goodrich stated that Glen Erin #1 has been withdrawn. Glen Erin #2 proposes 78 iots on 145 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural. The same problems that existed in Glen Erin #1 will resurface and will need to be addressed again in the future. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County Attorney had not commented on the proposal. The developer submitted a request to the County Commissioners as a part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan, that the subject property be considered within the Urban Growth Area, however, that request was not approved. The 9 lots of Glen Erin #1 are within the Urban Growth boundary line and the remainder of the property is outside of that boundary. However, there is a pre-existing modification to the General Service Agreement between the City and the County regarding public sewer service to this specific property. Staff stated there were concerns regarding the stormwater management, floodplain area and the wetlands. Staff also commented that the Forest Conservation should be addressed by planting and retaining existing forest on site. Members agreed with Staff that the Forest Conservation shouid be addressed on site and that joint sewer agreement with the City will need to be researched further. Ms. Lampton stated that she also had concerns regarding only one access point serving the proposed number of iots. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Engineering Department commented that they would not require a second access since it would require making a second crossing of the floodplain. There may be future access options to the east toward the Leitersburg Pike.

FUTURE MEETINGS: Ms. Lampton advised a joint rezoning hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Courthouse.

Members discussed the scheduling of workshop sessions in October to discuss APFO issues and future zoning changes required by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.

Members agreed to meet at the Planning Commission office on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 12:00 p.m. to visit the proposed subdivision of Shiriey Sears-Phillipson.

Mr. Ardinger left the meeting at 8:57 p.m.

Ms. Lampton discussed a letter received from Carolyn Motz of the Hagerstown Regional Airport regarding the concept plan for Paradise Heights.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Ernst, seconded by Mr. Clopper, to adjourn at 9:10p.m. Unanimously approved. ~j'~A- ~f-- Paula A. Lampton . Chairperson 105

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - October 7, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 7, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, Don Ardinger, and George Anikis. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill Baker and Misty Wagner and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

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

Before proceeding with Old Business, Ms. Lampton advised the Planning Commission members that Timothy Henry had submitted a letter of resignation from the Commission due to time constraints and family situations. The Board of County Commissioners will select a replacement for Mr. Henry.

OLD BUSINESS

Shirley Sears-Phillipson, Lots 1-4 Ms. Pietro stated that Planning Commission Members visited the proposed subdivision site on September 18, 2002. A revision was submitted addressing the comments discussed during the site visit. The revised plan shows the proposed driveway for lot 3 relocated further to the south. Notes were also added to the plat that future owners of lots 3 and 4 should maintain the fence and a 10' wide buffer of natural vegetation along the west side of the existing gravel lane and the lane should remain gravel except for a paved apron, as required by County standards. All agencies have approved the plan except for the Engineering Department. The National Park Service submitted a request that the C & 0 Canal easement be shown on all construction and subdivision plats. Discussion followed on the watershed area and the water appropriation permitting process. Mr. Iseminger confirmed with the Younkers that their concerns have been addressed with the exception of the well, which the Planning Commission is unabie to address over and above what the Health Department has approved. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat contingent upon final approval from the Engineering Department on the road-widening plan, and that the watershed area and National Park Service easement be shown on the plat. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Vote was unanimous. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the regeneration area of the Forest Conservation Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS

-SUBDIVISIONS:

SI. James Village North, Phases 5 & 6 Ms. Pietro presented for preliminary approval the final phases of St. James Village North. The subject site is located northwest of Sharpsburg Pike and College Road. The developer is proposing 60 single-family lots on 24.7 acres for Phases 5 & 6. Minimum lot size is .24 acres. Public water and sewer will serve the lots. The Homeowner's Association will maintain the open space areas. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance since the PUD was submitted prior to 1993. All approvals have been received except from the Engineering Department and the Water & Sewer Department. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval for Phases 5 & 6. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

BOCC, 100 K Warehouse - Preliminary Final & Site Plan Ms. Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat and site plan for 100 K Warehouse. The Board of County Commissioners currently owns the land and the contract purchaser is Dick McCleary. The subject site is located along the south side of Western Maryland Parkway on 16.8 acres. The property is zoned IG-Industrial General. An auto service station is proposed for lot 1. There will be 8 employees, hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. tD 7:00 p.m. A wholesale parts business is proposed for lot 2. There will be four empioyees, hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. A warehouse is proposed for lot 3 consisting of 10.5 acres. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. A bio-retention pDnd will provide stormwater management for the site. Building mounted lights are proposed for the structures. Parking spaces proposed for the lots exceed the required spaces. Solid waste will be collected inside and removed by a private hauler. The forest conservation obligation will be met by retaining .99 acres of existing forest on-site and 6.19 acres off-site Dn Mr. McCleary's farm located off of CDllege RDad. Ms. Pietro stated that neither a forest stand delineatiDn nor a conservatiDn plan was submitted fDr the 6.19 acres of off­ site forest. Approvals from the Water Pollution CDntrol and the Permits Department are pending on the preliminary/final plat and site plan. Staff recommended additional landscaping for the site. 106

Planning Commissioners discussed the layout of the site and agreed that landscape screening along the truck parking area would soften the view from the interstate. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the prellminary/finai plat and site plan contingent upon approval from the Permits Department and Water Pollution Control, and Staff's approval of a landscaping plan that is consistent with past commercial developments. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Vote was unanimous. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant off-site forest retention of 6.19 acres contingent upon a Forest Stand Delineation study and Staff's approval. Mr. Ernst seconded. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Allegheny Power - Phase 1, Lots 1-4 Mr. Lung presented the preliminary plat for Allegheny Energy, Phase 1. The subject site is located along the east side of Downsville Pike, south of 1-70 and bounded on the left by Rench Road. The site consists of approximately 145 acres and is currently zoned Planned Industrial and Agricultural. The owner is creating four lots for future development. Lot 1 is 40.29 acres, lot 2 is 24.60, lot 3 is approximately 15 acres, and lot 4 is 18.56 acres. The remaining twenty acres includes a historic dwelling, which the owner intends to retain. A new street will be built to County standards and dedicated to the County to access the four lots. The consultant stated that lot 4 would be served either through lot 1 or by the current Allegheny Energy access off of Downsville Pike and would not access Rench Road. The submitted plat meets all requirements of the Agricultural and Planned Industrial districts, however, it is anticipated that the proposed Office, Research and Technology (ORT) zoning district will be applied to this property. Public water and sewer will serve the site. All agencies have reviewed the plat and issued either approvals or comments. The consultant has addressed the agency comments and a revision has been forwarded to the Engineering Department, Washington County Soil Conservation District, State Highway Administration and Permits Department. Forest conservation obligations will be addressed by on-site planting in the stream buffer area. The PI portion is exempt from forest conservation requirements. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval contingent upon agency approvals. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. So ordered.

Bruce Hoffman & Sons, Lots 8-13 - Preliminarv Final Ms. Baker presented for approval the preliminary/final plat for Bruce Hoffman & Sons. The property is located on the north side of Broadfording Road at the intersection with Gossard Mill Road. The developer is proposing a six lot subdivision on property zoned AgricUltural. Ms. Baker stated that Staff recommended shared driveways where possible. The developer has complied with that request by sharing the driveways for lots 8 & 9 and 10 &11. The forest conservation requirements will be addressed on the remaining lands located along the 1DO-year floodplain in an area delineated as an endangered species habitat. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Anikis questioned when a Water Appropriations Permit is necessary, and if it was based on a cumulative effect. Ms. Baker advised she would investigate the guidelines of the policy and provide a response. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Ernst abstained. So ordered.

- SITE PLANS:

Save-A-Lot Parking Addition Ms. Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Save-A-Lot parking. The subject site is located along the east side of Prosperity Lane near Route 68 and east of Governor Lane Boulevard. The property is zoned PI. The total area of the site is 2.13 acres. The subject site is being developed for trailer parking and a stormwater management area. The daily operations facility is located across Prosperity Lane. Lighting will be pole-mounted and placed in a manner to eliminate glare onto the streets. A bio-retention pond will provide stormwater management. No signage or employees are proposed. The operations facility operates 24 hours a day with 38 day employees and 15 night employees. Deliveries will be 55 tractor-trailers per day. A dumpster is provided at the daily operations site. Landscaping to assist with headlight glare will be located along the southern property line and will include red cloud cherry, white pine, forsythia, and green mountain maple trees. Approvals are pending from the Water & Sewer Department and the Permits Department. No water or sewer will be provided to the site. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. So ordered.

- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Riverwood Subdivision Ms. Pietro stated she had no additional information to add to the preliminary consultation summary. The owner is proposing 11 single-family lots on 21.25 acres. She further stated the main discussion point at the consultation was the 108.55 acres of remaining lands, which is severed by a strip of land owned by a different property owner. The consultant, Mr. Frederick explained that the owner plans to retain lot 17, which provides a right-of-way to the remaining lands. The owner has no plans to develop the remaining lands and plans to retain forest on the remaining lands close to the Potomac River to preserve the buffer area along the C & 0 Canal. No action required.

Mike & Kim Capone, Lots 5-9 Ms. Wagner presented for review and comments the concept plan for lots 5 through 9 for Mike and Kim Capone. The subject site is located along the south side of Shaffer Road in Sharpsburg. 107

The property is zoned Agricultural. The total acreage for lots 5 through 9 is 12.59 acres with 35.32 acres of remaining lands. A Forest Stand Delineation has been approved. Ms. Wagner stated she had no additional information to add to the summary of the consultation. The consultant, Fred Frederick explained the layout of the lots, the road-widening plan and the owner's desire to retain the 35.32 of remaining lands. No action required.

Sunset Meadows Ms. Baker presented for review and comment the concept plan of Sunset Meadows. The subject site is iocated on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hicksville and SI. Paul's Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. The original plan indicated 62 lots for the proposed subdivision. Since the consultation, the developer submitted a revised plan for 59 lots with the interior street crossing the floodplain area. Forest conservation obligations will be met on-site and Staff recommends that all forest mitigation be done on-site due to the fioodplain area. Lots 1 through 4 have been submitted for approval and are currently being reviewed. Ms. Baker explained that the owner plans to retain the existing farmhouse on an 8-acre parcel. There is a potential wetland area that has been delineated that correlates with an existing farm pond. Staff recommends that a wetland delineation be completed and submitted to determine the extent of the wetland area. Staff also supports the recommendation made by the Health Department that a hydrogeologic study be completed to determine whether there is adequate support for the proposed wells. Ms. Baker provided to the Planning Commission Members a copy of a map depicting the surrounding permanent agricultural easements and the 10 year agricultural districts, several which will become permanent easements by the end of the year, and their relationship to the submitted concept plan. She further explained the subject site is in the core of the County's agricultural preservation area. Mr. Anikis expressed his concerns regarding the inadequacy of Hicksville Road and the posted speed of Maryland Route 67. The consultant, Mr. Cump explained that a road-widening plan has been prepared for lots 1 through 4 out to Hicksville Road and the State Highway Administration has approved the site distance. The Engineering Department requested a turning movement study to determine the number of trips on Hicksville Road. If the number of trips exceeds the APFO requirements, Hicksville Road will need to be upgraded. Mr. Arch stated that the upgrades will primarily be based upon safety issues and not capacity issues. Mr. Anikis discussed concerns regarding compatibility with the existing land uses in the area. Ms. Lampton said that she was concerned about the water availability in this area. Ms. Baker stated that the Health Department has required four test wells and a Hydrogeologic Study for the property. Mr. Arch confirmed that the submission of a preliminary/final plat for approval would not be accepted unless a Hydrogeologic Study is attached. Mr. Clopper stated that he believed the proposed subdivision was incompatible with the size of the subdivision and the surrounding agricultural community and the necessity of buffers. Mr. Iseminger stated that he would encourage Mr. Shaool to consider the option for purchasing the development rights through the Ag Preservation Program. He also suggested having Eric Seifarth, Farmland Preservation Administrator, contact Mr. Shaool regarding pursuing Ag preservation. The owner, Mr. Shaool stated that he was open for suggestions. The consultant, Mr. Cump stated that the number of lots might be reduced depending on the outcome of the perc test and the Hydrogeologic Study. Ms. Lampton stated that Mr. Seifarth would contact Mr. Shaool to discuss the details of the Ag preservation program.

OTHER BUSINESS

William Sipes Waiver Request from Immediate Family Member Clause Ms. Baker explained Mr. Sipes' request for a waiver from the 10-year immediate family member clause imposed on a plat of subdivision in accordance with the APFO. Three years remain on the immediate famiiy member clause stipulation. She further explained that on November 16, 1985, a two-lot subdivision was approved for Robert Divel. In order for the plat to gain approval, Mr. Divel was required to meet the requirements of the APFO. At the time of subdivision, Old Deneen Road was found to be inadequate. However, under Section 4.1.2 Mr. Divel had the opportunity to gain an exemption to the APFO by first widening the road in front of the property and then by adding a statement to the plat stipuiating that the property must remain in the ownership of an immediate family member for a period of ten years. Since the time of that approval, the property has been conveyed twice. First, from Mr. Divel to his daughter, Jackie Sipes and then from Jackie Sipes to her ex-husband, William Sipes. Ms. Baker stated that the definition of an immediate family member includes father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, brother, sister, stepson, stepdaughter, or grandchild. The Ordinance does not include son-in-law even though the property was legally transferred to Mr. Sipes. Mr. Iseminger stated according to the County's Zoning Ordinance, the party who prepared the title search should have noted the stipulation and that the transfer to Mr. Sipes should not have occurred. According to the APFO, if the property was to be sold to someone outside of the immediate family, that the road would need to be widened the entire length to the next adequate road. Ms. Baker further explained Article 4.1.2 of the APFO states that the Commission may exempt from the terms of this Article the subdivision of land used for agricultural purposes solely for the transfer to a member of the immediate family of the originaj tract provided that the road width in front of the lots be subdivided is no less than sixteen feet and that a statement on the plat be signed by the owner certifying that the land be only transferred to an immediate family member and that no conveyance of the lot will be made to anyone not a member of the immediate family for a period of ten years, except as may be required to satisfy a mortgagee in case of loan foreclosure. If the Commission finds the information provided by Mr. Sipes adequate to release him from the immediate family member clause, the stipulation would still remain that the road would have to be widened. Mr. Sipes' L08

information does indicate delinquency on loan payments, however no documentation was provided on foreclosure proceedings. Ms. Baker stated that Mr. Sipes is currently leasing the property on a rent to own basis to maintain ownership of the property and resolve the delinquent payments. Ms. Ernst explained that the Zoning Ordinance statement regarding the 10-year immediate family member clause gives the lending institution the right, if they chose to foreclose, to proceed with foreclosure without impeding their ability to transfer ownership of the property. Several family members presented written requests to testify. Ms. Lampton explained that testimony from family members would not be heard because their concerns were based on the ownership of the property and not on the immediate family member clause. Mr. Anikis made a motion to deny the waiver request from the immediate family member clause based on the fact that foreclosure of the property has not occurred. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. So ordered.

Fountain View PUD - Request for Additional Signage Mr. Lung stated that David Shaool, developer for the garden apartments and townhouse units of the Fountain View PUD, has requested two additional 4' permanent identification signs. Staff believes that the overall size of the PUD warrants some additional identification. Currently, the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance does not address signage. Therefore, Staff must refer to other sections of the Ordinance regarding subdivision identification signs, which states that signs are limited to one sign at the primary subdivision entrance. Since this development is a PUD, Planning Commission has the authority in this matter. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the request for additional signs for the Fountainview PUD. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. So ordered.

RZ-02-004, The Potomac Edison Company, Text Amendment, Rezoning Recommendation Mr. Lung stated that Staff and the applicant have addressed several issues discussed at the public hearing regarding the proposed Office, Research and Technology (ORT) zoning classification. The first comment was concerning radio and television stations being considered as a principle and permitted use and there being some implication that towers associated with these uses would automatically be permitted. Staffs interpretation of the Ordinance is that a tower associated with a radio or television station would be the same as a commercial communications tower that is already regulated in the Ordinance and has already been listed as a special exception use, which would require a public hearing. Another concern was the maximum building height of 150' being excessive when adjacent to a residential area. The current Zoning Ordinance states the maximum building height in any district is 75', there is an exception, which is noted for public and quasi-public buildings, which allow heights of 120'. The applicant is not opposed to a reduction of the height to 100'. The next issue raised at the public hearing was that a 50' setback is not sufficient when it is adjacent to a residential area. Potomac Edison has proposed that the setback could be increased to 100' for a building that exceeds 50' in height. This would apply when the adjacent lot was occupied by a dwelling or is in a residential zoning district. Staff questioned whether the additional setback should apply when there is road between ORT zoned property and residential property. The applicant and Staff would encourage the establishment of fixed numbers for setback requirements. The next item of discussion was the proposed 80% maximum impervious area. The applicant indicated that their proposed plan would not approach the 80% impervious area. Staff recommends that the proposed maximum impervious area not be significantly reduced and recommended an amount not below 70%. The last item of discussion was regarding the additional reguiatory requirements and concerns about several of the uses listed as principally permitted, particularly laboratories and research institutions and if some of the uses should require a special exception because they may deal with hazardous materials. Mr. Lung explained there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.12 under the site plan review process, which requires that all emissions, dust, odors, radiation, etc. be addressed. This local requirement in addition to any State or Federal regulation regarding the review of uses that might create hazardous materials or emissions would address this concern. Mr. Lung stated that it would be difficult to extract certain uses from specific types of laboratories or research institutions for the special exception category. A discussion followed regarding the comments and concerns raised at the public hearing. Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the text amendment to create a new Zoning District of Office, Research and Technology "ORT" with the following changes: proposed structure height be reduced from 150' to 75'; setbacks for buildings greater than 50' in height that are located adjacent to residential districts or residential dwellings be increased from 50' to 100'; the imperious area be reduced from 80% to 70%; hotels/motels would be listed as special exceptions instead of principle permitted use. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

RZ-02-007, The Potomac Edison Company. Map Amendment, Rezoning Recommendation Mr. Lung stated he had nothing further to add to the Staff report. Discussion followed regarding the consistency of the integrity of the development and the high quality of building materials used from beginning to end by way of an architectural review committee. The Ordinance does not create an architectural review board at the county level. Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the proposed map amendment with support of the applicant's definition of a neighborhood, as presented, and the change in the character of the neighborhood, and by the acceptance of the findings of fact as presented in the Staff report and that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered. 109

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Board of County Commissioners Agenda Mr. Arch stated that several amendments to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance regarding the Counly schools would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, October 8, 2002. The first amendment would eliminate the exemption for single-family and two­ family units inside the Urban Growth Area. The second amendment would change the current provision, as part of the subdivision review process, of evaluating the June and December enrollment data to the use of the most current monthly data to determine any capacity issues. Other amendments to the APFO will also be discussed.

BOCC Public Hearing on the Proposed Moratorium for Development The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing on October 17, 2002 on the proposed moratorium for development. The moratorium would address major subdivision development outside of the Urban Growth Area.

Planning Commission Workshops Mr. Arch stated that the first workshop would be conducted on Monday, October 21, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex. Terry McGee, Chief Engineer of the Washington County Engineering Department, will address the Planning Commission.

Mr. Arch stated that the Planning Staff is continuing their efforts in updating the Zoning Ordinance.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Anikis, seconded by Mr. Ernst, to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

._~~~ II (/MriJf". Paula A. Lampton C] Chairperson ill

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - October 21, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, October 21,2002 in the County Administrative Annex conference room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, and George Anikis. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman. Also present, Terry McGee, Chief Engineer-Washington County Engineering Department. Robert Ernst II and Don Ardinger were absent.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 5:00 p.m.

Ms. Lampton stated that the purpose of the workshop meeting was to provide an opportunity for an informal discussion between Terry McGee, Chief Engineer of the Washington County Engineering Department and the Planning Commission members on several issues requiring additional information or clarification.

PRESENTATION BY TERRY McGEE, CHIEF ENGINEER

• Mini-Roundabouts:

Mr. McGee explained that a mini-roundabout is a smaller version of the larger roundabout and is used as a traffic calming measure. They are approximately 20' to 22' in diameter and are used at intersections to force traffic to slow down. The concept of roundabouts originated in Europe. At several recent preliminary consultations, the Engineering Department has suggested mini­ roundabouts to slow vehicular traffic where a long, continuous stretch of road is proposed. Mr. McGee further explained that the placement of stop signs at intersections on long stretches of road to solely to slow traffic only adds additional problems because there is a tendency for motorists to ignore the signs. Placement of mini-roundabouts at existing intersections would require altering the curb area to provide adequate room for placement. The County Highway Department has voiced their concerns regarding the safety of their personnel maintaining roundabouts with grass centers. Engineering has asked that a low maintenance, aesthetic type of material such as brick pavers, or solid concrete with etched paver pattern be used. The mini-roundabouts are mountable so the occasional large vehicle such as a fire truck, moving van, etc. can cross, if necessary. The area consultants were asked to be innovative and use their own ideas on utilizing mini-roundabouts and some have expressed an interest in the concept. Mr. McGee stated that the Fieldstone Acres project is utilizing a method that stabilizes the earth shoulder, which gives the perspective that the road is smaller, which helps to slow traffic and provides environmental benefits. Other developers are looking at hilly, curvy, narrower roads, while some developers want to use tighter radiuses as opposed to normal standards. The Engineering Department is anxious to see the mini-roundabout concept used in the county for the opportunity to evaluate whether local contractors can complete the concept without a lot of problems or costs. No final construction plans have been received on developments that have proposed mini-roundabouts. Mr. McGee stated that the mini-roundabout concept would is difficult to implement since they are not included in our standards. We can only suggest their use. Mr. Iseminger suggested that perhaps personnel from other jurisdictions could be invited to Washington County to discuss with our development community their experiences with the mini-roundabout concept and to support their use. Mr. Iseminger also suggested that the Engineering Department emphasize the need for mini-roundabouts and then the Planning Commission could determine, if the concept is justified, and reiterate Engineering's comment on the proposed deveiopment. Mr. McGee stated that revisions to the Engineering Department standards are currently being addressed, particulariy on road classifications and road widths.

• Sidewalks: Mr. McGee stated that there are no current standards for sidewalks and that the Engineering Department cannot require them. Typically, at the preliminary consultation stage, if the Planning Staff requires sidewalks, Engineering examines how the sidewalks will impact the drainage system and the driveway accesses. There are two types of roads in the county that have sidewalks. One type has a ciosed storm drainage system utilizing curbs and gutters with sidewalks inside of the right-of-way. The other type has an open drainage system, ditches with sidewalks located outside. The Engineering Department prefers the curb and gutter approach, but there is no standard to enforce this method. if sidewalks are required, they can be located inside the right-of-way, but the county will not own or maintain them. The adjoining property owner would be fully responsible and notes are required on the construction plans, the final plat, and the homeowner's association documents. Mr. Iseminger stated that the Planning Commission has taken a common sense approach in requiring sidewalks by reviewing the density of the development and the access required to the common areas, bus stop area, tot lots or to adjacent developments. Mr. Arch stated that the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies streets that should have sidewalks. 112

• Stormwater Fencing: Mr. McGee stated that in 1991, a technical memo was issued as a result of some safety concerns and tort liability cases that had occurred in other jurisdictions. There were concerns about large stormwater management structures in the county that could hold a significant amount of water during certain storm events. The standard stated that if an owner had more than 4' of water at anytime in their pond, that a 4' safety fence, basically a chain-link fence was required. As an option, the Engineering Department would consider other fencing options and offered the option to flatten and bench the pond slopes, which would allow a person to waik out of the pond. Mr. McGee explained that the local development community felt that flattened siopes required more area and that they would rather pay for the fencing and deal with the aesthetics than the loss of lot space. Under the new reguiations, the ponds will look and function differently. The new ponds will hold water for much longer periods of time and some of the ponds will have a permanent pool of water, an adjacent pond, or storage above the wet pool that will hold water for a short period of time. Certain types of wetland vegetation will be added for water quality issues. Mr. McGee further stated that there are developments in Howard and Carroll counties where the pond is placed in the middle as a landscaped centerpiece and the homes close to the pond are the premium homes in those developments. Ms. Lampton voiced concerned about the ponds attracting mosquitoes and the potential spread of the West Nile virus. Mr, McGee explained that 99% of our ponds are "dry ponds" and if they are working properly and built properly, they would be dry within 24 hours or less and not enough standing water would exist to breed mosquitoes. Under the new Ordinance, the new "wet ponds" will have a permanent pool of water. If the new ponds are designed correctly, there will be enough water depth that the ponds will sustain an ecosystem that will house natural predators to the mosquitoes. Mr. McGee stated that the stormwater management requirements are state regulatory driven. Discussion followed on the aesthetics and maintenance of the pond areas. Mr. Iseminger stated that regional stormwater facilities should be considered in some areas and that developers should be encouraged to negotiate with their neighbors. Mr. McGee added that a regional facility, generally larger, provides increased flexibility on how to handle stormwater. The Engineering Department is hoping to work with a developer that is willing to show creativity in incorporating their stormwater management devices into the community in an acceptable manner as opposed to the placement of a chain-linked fence. Mr. McGee reminded the members that some of the ponds would ultimately be the maintenance burden of the county. Planning Commission members made a recommendation to incorporate the ponds into the development communities as an amenity and the last option to the developer would be fencing.

• Road Widening: Mr. McGee stated that the Road Adequacy Policy and the Adequate Public Facility Ordinance has not changed since the early 1990's. Currently, developments of 1 to 4 lots require roads at 16' width, 4 to 25 lots at 18' width, and more than 25 lots the width and sight distance criteria are both considered. Over the past several months, the county has experienced a significant increase in road widening plans associated with relatively small developments of less than 25 lots. A revised widening detail was issued on October 1, 2002. Previously, the County required that the widened portion had to be at least 18" wide to achieve the 16' width. That method had mixed success as to the durability of the 18" strip. The revised plan tightened the standards and the county now requires a 24" strip, and an overlay to seal the joint and knit the entire surface together. Mr. Arch stated that road widening outside of the Urban Growth Area is primarily for safety reasons to address horizontal and vertical curves and the widening inside of the Urban Growth Area is primarily based upon capacity issues.

Mr. Anikis questioned the method of preserving one-lane historic bridges and stressed this was a sensitive subject with the local historic groups. McGee stated It is their intent to rehabilitate and restore historic one-lane bridges to their original condition as much as possible. However, there are some bridges in the county that have simply outlived their materials, such as the bridge on Clopper Road, and there is simply no way to save them. The Maryland Historic Trust requires the county to convince them that there is no way to rehabilitate or save the structure. Federal law requires and tort liability strongly encourages that when a major repair or rehabilitation, as opposed to regular maintenance, is proposed to anything along the roadway, whether it be a bridge, guardrail or road surface, that the appropriate safety features be brought up to modern day standards. Mr. McGee stated that the Board of County Commissioners formally adopted AASHTO and the State Highway Administration standards, which recognize two-lane bridges as the nationalized standard. Some other counties have justified one-lane bridges based upon historical considerations, however, this option may eliminate federal and state funding. Standards to maintain one-lane bridges could be developed, but they must pass the test on any legal challenge by showing a systematic way of developing and approving the standards. Discussion followed on the replacement details of Clopper Road Bridge and the need for a general presentation to the Historic District Commission and Washington County Historic Trust on the evaluation, inspection and steps for repair and replacements of bridges within the county. Mr. McGee stated that the county is required to do an inventory on its bridges, including a structural inspection every two years and a yearly inspection on some of the bridges. Mr. Iseminger suggested that the inventory of the bridges slated for repair, as listed in the annual CIP, could be provided on a yearly basis to the historical groups. Mr. McGee stated that a general PowerPoint presentation could be made and the slides made available as a handout.

• Second "Redundant" Entrance: Mr. McGee stated that redundant access points in any development is good sound planning and management of the infrastructure. It spreads out the traffic thereby reducing congestion and improves 113

safety. However, there is no magic number on the number of access points verses the number of lots and we have no standard to enforce redundant accesses. The Engineering Department has made its position known at the preliminary consultation stage, if we believe a secondary access point is appropriate and base it on the number of lots, and if there is ample road frontage. Mr. McGee also stressed that the Engineering Department is very sensitive in preventing a shortcut situation when determining a secondary access point. Mr. Arch stated that Mr. Ardinger's concerns relate to the inconsistency of the Engineering Department in requiring a second access and feasibility of providing the developer ahead of time the cost factor before he proceeds into the design phase. Members were in favor of creating a standard so the developer will know up front the redundant access points and asked Mr. McGee to provide some ideas in creating a standard. Mr. Arch stated that it would be possible to write a standard through the Subdivision Ordinance and that some additional research wouid be needed to determine the number of homes to be served by one access point.

ADJOURMENT Members agreed to meet in November for another workshop session. The workshop meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. ~~ A.~~ Paula A. Lampton l.J Chairperson 114

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - November 4, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 4, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Bert Iseminger, Don Ardinger, and George Anikis. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planners, Jill L. Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

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

MINUTES: Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of July 1, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of August 5, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of September 9, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Before proceeding with New Business, Ms. Lampton advised that a site plan for the Hagerstown ATM wouid be added the agenda.

Ms. Baker reported to the Planning Commission members, in response to their discussion and inquiry at the regular meeting in October, on the requirements of a Water Appropriations Permit. She stated that a deveioper is required to obtain a Water Appropriations Permit for 10 lots or more and the requirement of a permit is not based on a cumulative effect.

NEW BUSINESS

-SUBDIVISIONS:

Crown America, Lot 7 Final Plat Ms. Baker presented for approval the Final Plat for Crown America, lot 7 situated on 2.11 acres. The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Cole Road and Massey Boulevard at the Valley Mall complex. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Planning Commission approval is required because the property is being subdivided without public road frontage. This property is unique in the fact that it does have access via existing internal streets, which serve the Valley Mall complex. The developer has a right-of-way over the interior streets for the purpose of ingress/egress. All agencies have approved the plan except the Permits Department who is currently reviewing a revision on setback requirements. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant Final Subdivision Plat approval of lot 7 for Crown American, with the understanding that the variance for creating a lot without public road frontage is a part of the approval, and it is subject to final approval by the Permits Department. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Meadows Green - Preliminary Plat and Off-Site Forest Retention Ms. Baker presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat for Meadows Green, lots 1 through 48. The subject site is located off Maryland Route 66 (Mapleville Road), approximately one-half mile south of U.S. Route 40. The property is zoned Agricultural. A consultation was held in September of 2001. Since that time, the ownership has changed, but the overall design remains the same. The open space was eliminated and absorbed into other lots due to perc test issues. The owner is proposing landscaping for the open space areas located at the entrance of the subdivision, with a landscape berm of 40'. Mini-roundabouts with landscaped centers are also proposed for this development. Due to the topography of the site, five stormwater management ponds are proposed to meet the new regulations for water quality and quantity. The developer agreed with Mr. Iseminger's suggestion that no further subdivision would occur on the two remaining larger lots. A hydrogeologic study has been completed and is currently In review by the Health Department. Four new cul-de-sacs will serve the property and 911/Fire & Rescue Services have approved all street names. To meet the forest conservation requirements, the developer plans to use a combination of 11.4 acres of on-site forest and 7.5 acres of off-site retention located off of Crystal Falls Drive. The proposed off-site forest is surrounded by DNR property and the owner plans to donate this portion to the State. A Forest Stand Delineation has been approved. Discussion followed on the noise impact from the Mason/Dixon Dragway. Mr. Haugh stated that with the topography of the land and the proposed landscaped berm, noises associated with the drag strip should be buffered to a faint hum. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon approval of the Hydrogeologic Study by the Health Department, finalization and review by the County Attorney of the Home Owner's Association, and that no further subdivision would occur on the large rear lots. Mr. Clopper seconded the U5 motion. Unanimously approved. Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan as presented to include the donation of the off-site portion to the State of Maryland. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Seneca Ridge - Preliminary Plat, Site Plan & Request for Fee in Lieu of Mr. Goodrich presented for approval the Preliminary Plat and site plan for Seneca Ridge. As a part of the forest conservation obligation, the developer is requesting approval to pay the fee in lieu of planting and approval of the bond amount. A variance is alsp required to permit the townhouse section without public road frontage. The subject site is located at the north side of Maugans Avenue, west of the 1-81 interchange. The parcel is 52 acres and is zoned Highway Interchange 2. Approximately 25.5 acres is proposed for 73 single-family dwellings on lots that range in size from 7,800 square feet to .5 acres, which is 2.6 units per acre for the gross density in the single-family portion. This section is adjacent to the existing single-famiiy development on Sunrise Avenue. A total of 12.2 acres will be used for 93 townhouse units. The gross density is approximately 7.6 units per acre, which is below the maximum amount permitted. The townhouses will consist of three-story units with one-car garages, driveways and parking along the street. Mr. Goodrich explained that the on-street parking areas are 22' deep angled spaces with a 20' travel lane, which meets the design standards. The two-lane road through the townhouse section will be a private road and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The Homeowner's Association Agreement documents have been submitted and will be forwarded to the County Attorney for review. The developer is planning extensive landscaping throughout the townhouse area between the units and the parking islands. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires recreational areas in the townhouse area. A revision to scatter the recreational areas throughout this section is currently in review and is the only outstanding item. The remaining 12 acres will be reserved for future apartment units and is not a part of this approval. Public water and sewer will serve the site through connection to existing lines. As a part of the Water & Sewer Department's approval, the developer will contribute $50,000 to provide needed improvements to the pumping station at Maugansville Road and Garden View Drive. Roads in the single-family section will be built to County standards and would be turned over to the County. Seneca Ridge Drive will connect to Maugans Avenue and would ultimately have a new signal and dedicated right and left turn lanes. The developer is purchasing several parcels along Maugans Avenue to provide the adequate spacing needed to construct a three-lane road, which will be compatible with future widening from the interstate to the development. Sidewalks will be provided in the development along the outside of the loop road in the townhouse section, from the access point of the future apartments out to Maugans Avenue, along Garnette Avenue, and along the frontage of Maugans Avenue. The projected buildout of the development is 2006. The school adequacy test will occur at the Final Plat stage. Two bus waiting areas have been established at each entrance into the townhouse section. Forest conservation requirements will be met in a variety of ways. The developer plans to remove 2.5 acres of the existing 4 acres of on-site forest. The developer's obligation is to plant approximately 8.8 acres of new forest on the site for a total of 10.3 acres of forest, which includes the retained portion of 1.5 acres. The developer is requesting payment in lieu of for the remaining obligation of 1.9 acres of forest.

Another prominent feature of the development is the stormwater management areas, which will address the stormwater problems in the general community of Maugansville by channeling the water from the interstate and surrounding areas through a series of pipes. The stormwater management ponds cover approximately 3 acres. The ponds will have depths of 8 to 14 feet, will be fenced, and ultimately be owned and maintained by the County. Mr. Anikis suggested that buffering be added between the proposed dwellings and the lower pond area to soften the view of the 4' chain-link fence. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the variance for the townhouse lots without road frontage. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat and site plan subject to Planning Staff's approval of the recreational area requirements in the townhouse area, added landscaping at the lower pond, and approval of the Homeowner's Association Agreement. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the forest bond amount of $30,056.40 and the payment in lieu of for 1.9 acres at approximately $9,000.00. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS:

Hagerstown ATM Ms. Pietro presented for approvai a site plan for Hagerstown ATM. The subject site is located in the southeast corner of east Oak Ridge Drive and Sharpsburg Pike. The deveioper is proposing to construct an ATM kiosk with drive aisle on the existing 1.49 acre parcel, which will revert the site back to its original use. The other existing development on-site is an Allstate Claims Office and a single-family residence. Due to the nature of the addition to the site, there will be no employees, no waste disposal; or need for public facilities. Hours of operation will be 24 hours a day. The new paved area will be 1,735 square feet. The existing entrance off of East Oak Ridge Drive will be utilized and no entrance will be provided onto Sharpsburg Pike. The kiosk will be an 8'x 8' x 9' on a 9' x 10' concrete pad. A 32 square foot panel sign has been approved for the site and will be located at the northwest corner. The proposed ATM entrance sign will be located off of Oak Ridge Drive. A pole light is also proposed for the kiosk. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. All approvals have been received except from the 116

Permits Department. A variance is required from the Planning Commission because the access lane encroaches within the 25' buffer area to approximately 15' to 10' within the buffer area along the southern property line, The Permits Department had requested additional trees and a revised plan reflects the addition of ten 8' white pines and the retention of five existing pine trees along this buffer area. Mr. Ernst suggested adding one additional tree on the front corner to prevent headlight glare. Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the variance for the setback and the site plan subject to additional buffering at the front corner of the property. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

RZ-02-005, Bowman Farms, Map Amendment. Rezoning Recommendation Mr. Goodrich stated that he had nothing further to add to the Staff Report and no additional written correspondence was received following the public hearing. The owners have submitted an application for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, which is one of the eleven criteria offered in the Zoning Ordinance. Several of the other criteria, as outlined in the Staff Report, were also met. Mr. Anikis recommended approval of the request for the Historic Preservation Overlay to the Board of County Commissioners, as it is logical, appropriate and consistent to the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Mr. Iseminger abstained. Unanimously approved.

RZ-02-006, Fox & Assoc.. for Manny Shaool. Map Amendment. Rezoning Recommendation Mr. Lung stated he had nothing further to add to the Staff Report. He further stated that he was unable to attend the public hearing, and that the written report is based upon a review of the taped proceedings. Mr. Lung stated that there was discussion on the estimated number of units or yield that this property could have under its existing zoning, however, there was no documentation supplied to support that argument. He stated that, generally speaking, a developer is likely to lose 20 to 30% of the site for infrastructure. An appropriate number of units for a development may be based on that determination. He provided a general illustration of this particular PUD case of 220 acres, if 30% was used for infrastructure and taking into consideration the Potomac Edison easement of approximately 5 acres, the amount of area available for lots would be reduced to 149 acres. Under the Agricultural zoning, the developer could obtain four units per acre, which would yield 596 units. The proposal for the PUD is for 595 units.

Mr. Anikis stated that he appreciated the fact that the units were reduced on the revised plan and the developer's willingness to save the second historic dwelling. However, he was not comfortable with the townhouses and apartments abutting the edge of the Urban Growth Area with the density of approximately 10 homes per acre on a 30 acre parcel. He further stated that he believed more information was needed on the impact on the traffic and area schools before a commitment was made to a development. He would also like a better definition and schedule of the road improvements in this area and the costs involved to the developer, the County and the State. Mr. Anikis stated that he was also concerned for the new residents in this area and the impact of construction equipment, dirt and dust over the next 10 to 20 years while the PUD is being developed. Current traffic problems already exist at the U.S. 40 and Robinwood Drive intersection. He further stated that the traffic flow cannot be predicted for those traveling different directions to work, but everyone traveling to the grocery store will use the same intersection. He further stated that he believed a PUD is more attractive with a confined local commercial area accessible to the PUD residents by biking or walking. Mr. Clopper stated that he agreed with Mr. Anikis comments on traffic issues, but he believed that there would be an opportunity to address the traffic issues at each stage of the PUD process. Ms. Lampton stated that the developer had addressed several issues on the revised plan, however, she was still concerned with the traffic issues and with the compatibility of the PUD to the adjacent farmland. Mr. Ardinger stated that he also had concerns with the proposed high-density housing and the compatibility with the adjoining farmland at the Urban Growth Area boundary and the visual impact along Mt. Aetna Road. Mr. Arch stated that the overall density from a consistency meets the criteria, however, the density is compacting in one area at the fringe of the boundary. Mr. Ardinger stated that he was not as concerned with the traffic issues or the school issues and believed they would be worked out in the future. He is concerned about the potential of a greater APFO impact in terms of the developer's contribution and without knowing the final buildout implications. He further stated that the developer does not know what his contribution will be and it would not be fair for this developer to shoulder the burden of solving the problems created by multiple developers in this corridor, but with the magnitude of a development it obviously has to solve several of the traffic problems. Ms. Lampton commented to Mr. Shaool that the Planning Commission's main concern is the high-density portion of the PUD. Mr. Shaool responded that the reason the high-density was placed to the east is because he did not want to put the high-density portion next to the adjacent PUD, but he would move the high-density area, if all chances were lost. He further stated that 85% of the PUD is less than two units per acre. Mr. Arch noted that members who were unable to attend the public hearing or listen to the transcription of the hearing would not be able to vote on the recommendation. Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the PUD be denied based on the serious questions of the costs involved to improve the roads, impact on the schools, and the concern of the high-density residential units adjacent to the farmland located at the edge of the Urban Growth Area. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. The motion carried with the voting members, Mr. Anikis, Ms. Lampton 117 and Mr. Ardinger voting "aye." Mr. Clopper and Mr. Ernst did not attend the public hearing and could not cast their vote on the recommendation. Mr. Iseminger "abstained." So ordered.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Joint Hearing on APFO Text Amendments Mr. Arch stated that a joint hearing on two APFO text amendments would be held on November 18, 2002. Discussion followed on whether there was adequate time to adopt the amendments prior to onset of the new Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Arch will discuss this matter with the County Administrator and will advise the members whether the joint hearing would be held.

Planning Commission Workshops Mr. Arch stated that a workshop session would be conducted on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex. APFO matters will be the topic of the workshop. Ms. Lampton suggested that it would be helpful to have additional information on Homeowner Associations.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Clopper, seconded by Ms. Lampton, to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Unanimously approved. So ordered. pauk:;m~ot'?f:..L~----- Chairperson 118 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - NOVEMBER 18, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Annex conference room.

Members present were: Chairperson, Paula Lampton; Vice Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Ciopper, Don Ardinger, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bert Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Senior Planner, Timothy A. Lung and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 4:00 p.m.

ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Mr. Arch stated that a joint public hearing was held on November 12, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., in the County Commissioners' Meeting Room, to consider two text amendments to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as proposed by the Washington County Planning Department.

Article V• Schools

1) Section 5.1, Exemptions, is amended by deleting paragraph (c) Currently, the single-family and duplex homes located inside the Urban Growth Area are exempted by definition from consideration for impacts on schools. The proposed text would eliminate the exemption so that all proposed units would be subjected to testing for adequacy of schools, with the exception of dwelling units to elderly persons.

2) Section 5.3.1, Residential Building Permit Approval Currently, the adequacy of schools is based on the data from the school enrollment figures collected in June and December. The amendment would base the adequacy of schools on the most current, monthly school capacity report submitted by the Board of Education to the Planning Department.

(Ms. Lampton arrived at 4:15 p.m.)

DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED APFO AMENDMENTS Discussion followed on the proposed amendments and the ability to project school capacity. Mr. Arch explained that the City of Hagerstown and municipalities throughout the County do not have an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, therefore, the amendments would not effect these areas. The proposed amendments would effect development within the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Ernst stated that, from an economic standpoint, one of the benefits to develop within the Urban Growth Area, was the fact that the developer did not have to address schools capacity issues, and that the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan discourages growth outside of the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Iseminger stated that the proposed amendments would not have an effect in the short term, other than to encourage some developers to annex into the City. He further stated that the County would come to a point that schools will have to be built and the residents will need to pay their fair share, and if there is a school capacity problem, the APFO will become a factor. The funds to help build new schools is generated by the taxpayers of the County and the bulk of those funds goes toward operating expenses. Mr. Arch explained that under the current APFO and Zoning Ordinance it is an all or nothing process. The developer's obligation is determined when tested and the developer is only tested for that particular phase and it would not matter how many students that phase generates and there is no retroactivity to previous phases. Mr. Iseminger stated that future APFO amendments would address the cumulative effect of the students generated by a deveiopment. Discussion followed on a recent lead article in The Washington Post. Mr. Anikis stated that the article stated that the local, low-income housing program was soliciting people from Montgomery County to come to Hagerstown for cheaper, low-income housing and that there was a 50% difference in low-Income housing costs. He further stated that individuals with several children are moving here In small numbers for lower income housing and commuting back to their jobs in Frederick and Montgomery County. Mr. Arch stated that current statistics provided by the Board of Education indicated that the biggest growth in student numbers is occurring within the corporate limits of the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance amendments to Section 5.1 regarding "Exemptions", and Section 5.3.1 regarding the timeframe for capacity testing and that the amendments are logical, appropriate and consistent to the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Iseminger abstained. So ordered.

DISCUSSION ON FUTURE APFO AMENDMENTS

Mr. Arch stated that future discussions would center on future APFO amendments and the approach taken to address the amendments. He presented to the members the following options for consideration:

• Queue Some municipalities utilize the "queue" option after a certain adequacy testing is performed and a determination is made as to whetRer or not space is available by examining the number of proposed additional units and other key aspects. If space if not available, the proposed development would go into a "queue" and remain at that status until capacity is available. The developer can advance the process by building the necessary capacity.

• Fees (Impact or Excise) Another option would be to have the developer pay a pre-determined amount. The amount would be an impact fee or excise tax so that the developer could move forward with his development. The Impact fee would be imposed at the subdivision stage and the excise tax would follow the permit process timeframe. 119

• Restrict the Number of Building Permits The third option would restrict the number of building permits issued per year, based upon six-year Capital Plan. The total amount of capacity and space wouid be calculated within the entire system to determine the basis for establishing a reserve amount.

Mr. Arch explained that the municipalities within the County do not govern the "queue" or the "restriction" options. However, under the Smart Growth legisiation, the impact fee option would be collected by the municipalities and submitted to the County, or the County would collect for the municipalities. Mr. Arch further expiained that impact fees have to be utilized toward capacity issues and that the legislation is already in place to permit the County to enforce an impact fee. Discussion foliowed on impact fees versus a transfer tax. Mr. Arch stated that transfer tax and excise funds could be used for school repairs (capital expenses), which would replace monies currently used from the general funds for capital expenses and free monies that could be used toward other avenues such as teacher salaries. Mr. Iseminger stated that the excise fee would be collected at the permit stage and it becomes difficult to do planning when a project is built-out over a 10-year timeframe. The transfer tax would be collected up front, which will allow time to plan the infrastructure and improvements needed and also provide the necessary funds to do so. Mr. Anikis questioned if there was a way to obtain the pros and cons on the various fee options and estimate what the various fees would have to be in order to bring a certain amount of money to the County based on a one-year projection. Mr. Arch stated that different studies on impact fees have been conducted and the studies show that its not the homeowners that necessarily pay the impact fees, but the existing property owner who sells his property to the developer. In many cases, the only way funds can really be generated is if there is an active market like Frederick or Loudon County areas where the activity is so enormous the fees are directly passed on. Member discussed the difficulty of being able to calculate a developers fair share of improvements and to determine when, where, and the costs for needed improvements.

Over the next six months, the Planning Commission will conduct workshops to determine recommendations for amendments to the APFO to present to the Board of County Commissioners by the middle of 2003. Mr. Arch stated that he would forward to the Planning Commission members some . literature on transfer tax, impact fees and excise tax. Members agreed to resume the workshop meetings in January 2003.

ADJOURMENT The workshop meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

-1~yf~~ Paula A. Lampton U Chairperson 12b WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - December 2, 2002

The Washington County Planning Commission held Its regular meeting on Monday, December 2, 2002 in the County Administrative Annex Conference Room.

Members present were: Paula Lampton, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Robert Ernst II, R. Ben Clopper, Don Ardinger, George Anikis and Ex-Officio, Bert Iseminger. Staff: Director, Robert C. Arch; Chief Senior Planner, Stephen T. Goodrich; Senior Planners, Timothy A. Lung and Lisa K. Pietro; Associate Planner, Jill L. Baker and Office Associate, Sandy Coffman.

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

Before proceeding, Ms. Lampton advised those in attendance that Bert Iseminger was participating in his last meeting as the Ex-Officio member of the Planning Commission. Ms. Lampton thanked Mr. Iseminger for his years of service to the Planning Commission. Mr. Iseminger stated that he became a member of the Planning Commission sixteen years ago in County Government and it is appropriate that this is his last official meeting. Mr. Iseminger commended the Planning Commission members, the Planning Staff, and all the staff across County government.

Ms. Lampton introduced James F. Kercheval who was recently elected to serve as a County Commissioner. Mr. Kercheval will also serve on the Planning Commission Board as the Ex­ Officio member.

MINUTES Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the workshop meeting of October 21, 2002, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of November 4, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes from the Comprehensive Plan workshop meetings from August 27, 2001 - April 1, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of October 7, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

NEW BUSINESS

- VARIANCES:

James and Kimberly Shriver Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a variance request for James and Kimberly Shriver. The Shriver's request is to create a new lot (lot #2) with a panhandle length of approximately 925 feet, which would create a panhandle to the remaining lands of approximately 1,685 feet and permit three separate entrances. Ms. Baker stated that the responding fire and rescue agencies received a copy of the variance request for their review and comments and to date, no return response was received. Ms. Baker stated she has visited the site and that the first 900' of the panhandle would require some grading for a driveway and beyond 900' the slope did noticeably increase. She further stated that the proposed lots would be approximately three acres in size, which is the requirement in Conservation zoning, however, they will not meet the lot widths requirements. The owners will need to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the lot widths. Members discussed the variance request and the letter from the owner, Ms. Shriver. Mr. Iseminger stated that the owners would have the option to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the lot width variance and then if they wished to pursue the matter further, they could request a variance for two lots with a shortened panhandle. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to deny the variance request based on the fact that there is no demonstrated hardship and that the topography of the lots would indicate that panhandles of these lengths are not appropriate. Seconded by Mr. Ardinger. Unanimously denied.

-SUBDIVISIONS:

Sunset Creek Estates - Preliminary Plat Ms. Pietro presented for approval the preliminary plat for Sunset Creek Estates lots 5 though 17. The subject site is located along the south side of Broadfording Road. The property is zoned Agricultural. Lots 1 through 4 were previously approved, in house, in May 2002. The developer is proposing 13 lots on 24 acres with the lot sizes ranging from 1.0 to 2.7 acres. All lots, including the existing dwelling on lot 2, will access the new public street of Creek View Drive. Individual wells and septic systems will serve the lots. A Forest Conservation Plan was previously approved during the lots 1- 4 phase. 7.2 acres of existing forest will be retained to meet the Forest Conservation requirements. All agency approvals have been received. The development 121 was submitted prior to the imposed moratorium. The consultant, Mr. Witter confirmed that the development would comply with the new stormwater management regulations. He further stated that no stormwater fencing is required due to the low depths of the ponds and no screening is planned due to the design of the swallow ponds. Landscape grasses will be planted in the pond areas. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval for Sunset Creek Estates, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Ernst abstained. So ordered.

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Preliminary/Final Plat Ms. Pietro presented for approval the preliminary/final Plat for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. The subject site is located along with west side of Hump Road and is zoned 1M. The developer is proposing to create a 22.8 acre lot, which includes the Hagerstown Block Company. The lot will be served by individual well and septic system. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation regulations because it is a real-estate transfer and there is no change in land use. The site consists of several existing metal buildings and the brick building of Hagerstown Block Company. All agency approvals have been received. The consultant, Mr. Townsley explained that Hagerstown Block had a lease with Martin Marietta Materials, who is now conveying the property to Hagerstown Block. The quarry is on the remaining lands owned by Martin Marietta. Mr. Iseminger questioned if the owner had approached the City of Hagerstown with the option to use the quarry area as a reservoir. The owner of Martin Marietta, Mr. Earl Smith confirmed that he had spoken with the City of Hagerstown on this matter. Mr. Anikis made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat for Martin Marietta, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

Pemberton, Section D Preliminary Plat & Forest Conservation Plan Mr. Lung presented for approval the preliminary plat for the final section of Pemberton, Section D. The property is located at the northeast corner of White Hall Road and Beaver Creek Road. The original concept for the development was approved in 1992 for 42 lots. A subdivision plat for 23 lots was approved in 1994. Since then, some of the lots have been modified by replats resulting in three of the lots being eliminated. The proposed plat is for the remaining 22 acres from the original parcel. The plan was submitted prior to the imposed moratorium. Section D consists of sixteen lots, ranging in size from 1.0 to 1.8 acres. Section D involves the extension of Pembrook Drive and the construction of a new street, Trout Drive, which will access White Hall Road and will create a secondary access to the entire subdivision. The streets will be built by the developer and dedicated to the County for maintenance and ownership. The lots will be served with individual wells and on-site septic systems. The Health Department has approved all perc sites. The existing stormwater management pond will handle the runoff for Section D, but will require some modifications to comply with the new stormwater regulations. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requires 4.14 acres of forest as mitigation. The Forest Stand Delineation indicated that there is no existing forest on the site, therefore, the developer is proposing to plant a 60' strip for a total of 1.14 acres of afforestation along the north and east edge of the property where it abuts an active farm and will serve as a buffer. The developer is proposing to use the payment in lieu of option to address the remaining 3 acre requirement. Mr. Lung stated that the developer must prove that on-site mitigation is not possible before payment in lieu of can be approved. The consultant, Mr. Taylor expiained that the planting area is within the minimum building setback line and that the lots are rather smali so the developer would prefer the payment in lieu of option. He also explained that the break in the forest, as shown on the plat at lot 5, is due to an existing well area. All agencies have reviewed the plat and have issued their comments, which were technical in nature. The consultant has addressed the comments and submitted a revised plat. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon the outstanding agency approvals. Mr. Clopper seconded the motion. Mr. Ernst abstained. Unanimously approved. Discussion followed on directing developers to pursue off-site planting on adjacent properties and give the adjacent property owners the option to do so. Mr. Arch stated that an approval could not be conditioned upon whether a developer pursues planting on adjacent properties, but it could be utilized as a suggestion to the developer. Mr. Ardinger suggested that the forest conservation options should be a topic for a future Planning Commission workshop. Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the payment in iieu of, as requested. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Mr. Ernst abstained. So ordered.

• SITE PLANS:

Pavestone Company. Inc. Ms. Pietro presented for approval a site plan for Pavestone Company, Inc. The subject site is located on the east side of Hopewell Road, west of 1-81. The property is zoned Industrial General. The owners are proposing a paved storage yard for additional space to store pavers immediately south of the existing paver building. The storage yard will be approximately two acres. The owner is proposing to extend white pines to the edge of the storage yard area. All other data, as listed on the original site plan, will remain the same. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were met when the original plan was approved in 2000. All agencies approvals have been received. Mr. Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved.

Salem Reform Church Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for expansion of the Salem Reform Church for the purpose of a social hall. The church is located on 5.2 acres and is zoned Agricultural. The pastor is the sole employee and no new employees are proposed for the expansion. The hours of operation will be Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The church is providing a total of 71 total parking spaces, 40 spaces are required. The church and social hall 122

will be served by an on-site well and septic. An on-site stormwater management pond will be built in compliance with the new County standards for water quality and water quantity. No new signage is proposed. New landscaping will consist of various shrubs and Bradford Pear trees in the parking islands and shrubs will also be added in the bio-retention area as a part of the new stormwater regulations. Ms. Baker stated that the Permits Department is the only outstanding agency and she did not foresee any problems with receiving their approval. Mr. Shank, a representative of the Salem Reform Church, stated that the church and social hall would also be used twice a month on Sunday evenings and for other occasions. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval subject to approval from the Permits Department. Seconded by Mr. Clopper. Unanimously approved.

Hagerstown Model Railroad Museum Mr. Goodrich presented for approval a site plan for the Hagerstown Modei Railroad Museum. The subject site is located at the northwest side of Maryland Route 34, and on the west end of Sharpsburg. The property is zoned Conservation and is also within the Antietam Overlay zone, which extends 1,000 feet from the centerline of the highway. The parcel is approximately 13,000 square feet in size, and was subdivided from a larger parcel owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad. The subdivided parcel was turned over to the County, who then turned the parcel over to the Town of Sharpsburg. The museum has a long term lease with the Town of Sharpsburg. The existing building was the former Antietam Railroad Station and will be used as the Model Railroad Club Museum. The building will be rehabilitated to its original appearance by using original architectural drawings. A platform will be added to the front and one side to mimic the former loading platform. Concrete walkways wili be added to address handicap accessibility. A fence to prevent the use of a former entrance will enclose the property. Most of the parking is located on an adjacent parcel that will remain railroad property. The parking was the subject of a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing held approximateiy two weeks ago, at which time they approved the arrangement and permitted parking on the adjacent property. Eight graveled spaces are provided, and one paved handicap space. Ms. Troxell, representative of the Model Railroad Museum explained that the lease with the railroad requires the parking area to remain gravel. She further explained that the site is a part of the Civil War Trails Program with the State of Maryland and the program strongly urges the use of gravel to maintain the historic integrity. The restroom facility will be located in a separate building in an attempt to maintain as much of the original historicai integrity as possible inside the station. The restroom facility will be designed to resemble a privy from original railroad architectural drawings. The restroom facility was also the SUbject of a Board of Zoning Appeais hearing requesting the reduction of the rear setback, which was approved. Public water and sewer will serve the site. As a part of the landscaping, some white pines that provided little to no screening will be removed and some shrubbery and trees will replace the pines and some landscaping will be added in front of the building. The exterior changes to the structure are subject to the Historic District Commission's approval due to the Antietam Overlay Zone. The HOC has reviewed and approved the exterior appearance of the station and also approved the site plan of the property. The building was also SUbject to the Maryland Historical Trust's approval since the building is under easement to the Trust in return for previous grant funding. Ms. Troxell further explained that the station is under interior, exterior and archeological easements with the Maryland Historic Trust. All agencies have approved the site plan. Mr. Jones, President of the Model Railroad Museum explained that, years ago, after passenger service had ceased the new owner used a farm tractor and dump truck to drag the train station around and thus the reason for its location today. The Model Railroad Club is a historical group that originated in Hagerstown and the ciub has hosted Christmas shows at the Hagerstown Fairgrounds. The club plans to open the museum on the weekends, renew the Christmas shows, and be open by appointment during the week for school groups and other organizations. Certified members of the club will teach the railroad safety program at the museum to various groups. Ms. Troxeli stated that concerns were raised at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting regarding the parking capacity during events such as the Christmas show and the Sharpsburg Heritage Festival. The Sharpsburg Elementary School principal has agreed to allow the club to use their parking lot to provide a shuttle service to the museum, which will address the parking concerns. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval for the Hagerstown Model Railroad Museum, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.

SIP Inn Ms. Baker presented for review and approval a site plan for BIP Inn. The subject site is located at the Valley Mall complex. The property is zoned PB. The proposed hotel will be five stories with 82 rooms and will offer a swimming pool amenity for its guests. There will be eight employees and the hotel will operate 24 hours a day year-round. Ninety-three parking spaces are provided. Public water and sewer will serve the hotel. An on-site dumpster will be screened on either side by a total of 8 Leyland Cypress trees. Stormwater management will be located on-site and to the rear of the hotel. The stormwater pond will be shallow with vegetative plantings and wili meet the water quality and quantity requirements. Landscaping plans for the hotel meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements, which includes different types of shrubbery throughout the site, several large trees and plantings of annual fiowers. The property owner plans to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the property by adding a fountain at the front of the hotel. All agencies have approved the site plan except the City of Hagerstown Water Department, County Water & Sewer Department and the Permits Department who have submitted their comments for some minor revisions. Mr. Iseminger questioned the height limitation for the zoning classification of this area. Ms. Baker stated that the limitation is 50 feet, but the owner is proposing a height of 62 feet. The Permits Department and the consultant for the project are discussing the height issue and appropriate measures wiil be taken to ensure compliance. Mr. Ciopper made a motion to grant 123 site plan approval contingent upon approval from the Permits Department, County Water & Sewer Department and the City Water Department. Seconded by Mr. Iseminger. Unanimously approved.

Mountainside Teleport Mr. Lung explained that the site plan for Mountainside Teleport is the first phase of the Friendship Technology Park. The recently adopted new zoning classification of Office, Research and Technology "ORT" applies to this parcel. The presented site plan is for the development of a satellite communication facility consisting of a satellite dish farm, and a building to house a data center and a backup energy plant. The project will be located on lots 1 and 2 in Friendship Technology Park located south of 1-70, east of Downsville Pike, and north of Rench Road. A preliminary subdivision plat was previously approved for the proposed development at the regular October meeting. Mr. Lung noted that final subdivision plat approval is also being sought. The proposed satellite dish farm will be located on lot 1, which contains 40.3 acres. The dish farm will consist of four, 9 meter (approximately 27 feet in diameter) dishes and eight, 19 meter (54 feet in diameter) dishes. The larger dishes will be located on the southern portion of the property with their total height being approximately 70 feet. There will also be six 10' x 30' x 10' concrete equipment shelters. One shelter will be designated per every two dishes. A gravel road will provide access to service the dishes. The area around the dishes will remain grass. The total impervious area of lot 1 is 3%, 70% is the maximum amount allowed. Stormwater management for lots 1 and 2 will be addressed on lot 1 via the creation of a wetland area. Screen planting, per the requirements of the ORT zoning, will be addressed by buffering the adjoining residence. Lot 2 will contain a 257' x 154' one-story building that will house a data center and energy plant. Mr. Lung stated that, as a part of the ORT zoning district, the idea was to promote a higher level of design and attractiveness to the office portion that would be addressed at the site plan review. The proposed office building is to be faced with sandblasted, pre-cast panels with two different finish patterns in a cream colored concrete, and darkened windows will be installed at the operations office area. The entry will have a slightly protruding horizontal canopy. The project will employee 50 and the site will be manned 24 hours per day, seven days a week in five shifts of eight employees, seven administrative personnel and three maintenance employees. Thirty parking spaces including two handicap spaces are required and provided. Building and pole­ mounted lights will be utilized to illuminate the parking area and the area around the building. A small address identification sign will be located near the entrance to the new street of Technology Boulevard, no additional signs are proposed. A new street, Technology Boulevard, will be built to serve this development. In the meantime, a private access road will be constructed to temporarily serve the project that connects to Allegheny Energy's existing loop road. There will be no outside storage of materials on the site. A screened dumpster pad will be provided adjacent to the building. Public water and sewer will serve the building on lot 2 and no service will be necessary for lot 1. The entire site will be fenced. A Forest Conservation Plan will address the Ordinance requirements for the entire subdivision. Mr. Lung explained that only the previously agriCUlturally zoned portion of the site falls under the requirements for forest conservation and the previously Planned Industrial zoned area would be exempt. The developer plans to address the forest conservation requirements by planting two areas of forest on the property. The areas of forest will be a linear planting area 75' wide located along the property line between lot 1 and lot 4. Though not required, the developer plans to create a screen along Rench Road, which will also serve as a filter from interference for the satellite dishes. The screening will be planted with nursery stock, which will become an established forest more rapidly. The second planting area will be located along Technology Boulevard. The planting areas wili almost create a complete screening of the dish farm. All reviewing agencies have either approved or issued comments on the site plan. Revisions have been submitted to address comments by the Engineering Department, Washington County Soil Conservation District, Planning Department and the Permits & Inspections Department comments. The City of Hagerstown Water Department is currently reviewing an agreement executed in 1966 with Allegheny Energy to serve the site with public water and how it relates to the City's policy for the provision of water. The consultant, Mr. Reichenbaugh stated that the owner might have to sign an agreement to annex into the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Reichenbaugh explained that there would be minimal landscaping around the building and after two or three more phases are added to the building, an ultimate landscape plan will be developed for the entire facility, which will be shown on the plan. Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant preliminary/final site plan approval and the Forest Conservation Plan approval as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ernst. Unanimously approved. Mr. Iseminger made a motion to approve the final subdivision plat contingent upon all agency approvals. Mr. Ernst seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

·PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:

Emerald Pointe PUD (revised) Ms. Pietro presented for review and comment a revised concept plan for Emerald Pointe PUD. The original preliminary consultation was held in October 2001, and a public hearing was held on March 10, 2000. The subject site is located at the intersection of Leitersburg Pike and Marsh Pike. The total tract area is 97.15 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural. The developer is proposing a combination of single-family homes, townhouses, duplex units and the addition of the retirement living center in place of the previously proposed commercial area. Comments received from the responding agencies are similar to the comments on the original plan. The Engineering Department commented that the proposed development must comply with the new stormwater management regUlations. The Engineering Department recommended that the large stormwater pond be incorporated into the development and the developer has agreed with the suggestion. Excel/decel and bypass lanes will be required at all entrances. Mini-roundabouts are proposed 124 as a traffic calming measure. Engineering had some concerns with parking along the street due to the road widths being narrower than previously proposed. The developer is considering using wider streets and plans to address this matter in later stages of the development. State Highway Department comments included no access points onto Leitersburg Pike, and a traffic impact study inclUding a signal warrant analysis will be required. The City of Hagerstown issued their standard comments on the proposed PUD regarding the availability of water and sewer that is subject to the City's Annexation Policy. The County Water and Sewer Department confirmed the proposed PUD is within their service boundary. Ms. Pietro stated that staff's comments on the original concept plan were addressed on the new plan. The developer has removed the commercial area and replaced it with a proposed retirement living center, the existing farmhouse will be retained and incorporated into the development. The developer has also addressed the concerns voiced by residents of Foxleigh Meadows regarding the compatibility of the proposed townhouses along Marsh Pike by replacing them with single-family homes that will abut the single-family homes in Foxleigh Meadows. Staff had questioned the plans for the retirement living center. The developer, Mr. Crampton had stated that the center would consist of one or two bedroom apartments geared toward citizens who cannot physically maintain their homes and yard area. The center will offer a full service kitchen, a large living room, computer room, and activities area. An on-call nurse will be on the premises. The retirement cottages would also be full-service, one-story townhouses, similar to the homes at Homewood. Staff stressed the importance of landscaping in this area. Mr. Crampton stated that a 1O-foot walkway would tie the retirement living center into the development. Mr. Iseminger questioned the comment by the Permits and Inspection Department regarding the open space area. The consultant, Mr. Townsley advised the open space concerns would be addressed and that the overall density is 3.61 % for semi-detached units, 3.19 for singie-family homes, and 5.7 for the townhouse units. He further stated that he plans to finalize and provide the density numbers as a part of the presentation for the rezoning hearing. Mr. Arch questioned the uses planned for the central commercial area. Mr. Crampton explained that the commercial area near the existing farmhouse would consist of approximately four small specialty stores (i.e. deli, dry-cleaners, etc) that wouid serve just that residential area. He further stated that pedestrian access would be provided throughout the PUD to the center and that the proposed sidewalk along Marsh Pike will eventually tie into the North County Park. Ms. Pietro stated that the sidewalk along Marsh Pike would be 4' and iron fencing and plantings will be added along the road to buffer the development. A joint public hearing will be held on January 13, 2003.

OTHER BUSINESS

- Forest Conservation Ordinance Amendments Mr. Goodrich stated that the exact wording of the actual amendment is currently being prepared and will be provided well in advance of the rezoning hearing in January. He provided an overview of the three substantive changes to the Ordinance listed in his memorandum of November 26, 2002. They are needed to bring the County Ordinance into compliance with changes in the State legislation. The first proposed amendment, changes the off-site mitigation requirements to 2 to 1. He further explained that if a developer plans to do the forest mitigation by retaining forest off-site or planting new forest off-site, twice as much mitigation determined from the worksheet formula will be required. The definition of off-site is either the remaining property of the deveiopment or completely off-site. Mr. Goodrich explained that the fee in lieu of is not affected by this amendment, however, the County has the option of making any of the Forest Conservation requirements more stringent, but not less than what the State regulates. The second proposed amendment will be an adjustment to the preferred sequence of techniques of afforestation and reforestation. Landscaping, as a method of mitigation, is now in the middle of the preferred sequence and will be moved to the bottom of the preferred sequence to reflect changes in the State law. Previously, any actiVity on an existing lot of record would have been exempt from the requirements of the Ordinance. The third amendment will amend the Ordinance to state that only residential construction activity, which could include apartment complexes on existing lots of record, will retain that exemption, as long as they do not exceed 40,000 square feet of forest clearing. Any commercial activity on an existing lot of record will now have to comply with the Forest Conservation Ordinance and meet the mitigation requirements. Mr. Goodrich stated that some other minor modifications and clarifications to the language in the Ordinance would also be made. The Forest Conservation Ordinance amendments will be heard at the joint rezoning hearing in January 2003.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

- Joint Rezoning Hearing Mr. Arch stated that a joint rezoning hearing would be held on Monday, January 13, 2003.

MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

- Shirley Sears-Phillipson Subdivision Mr. Anikis stated that he received a phone call from Mr. Younker regarding the Shirley Sears­ Phillipson subdivision. The Planning Commission members approved the preliminary/final plat at the regular meeting in October. According to Mr. Younker, the adjacent property owner, the modified site plan indicates that the driveway is 30' within the buffer zone area and not at the end 125 of the buffer zone as agreed upon. Ms. Lampton stated that Mr. Younker should contact the Permits & Inspections Department.

- Presentation to Mr. Iseminger Chairperson, Ms. Lampton presented Mr. Iseminger a gift on behalf of the Planning Commission members as a token of their appreciation.

ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mr. Iseminger, seconded by Mr. Ernst, to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Unanimously approved. So ordered.

~~~ ,k