101

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 7, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 7, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiiey, Sam Ecker, Bernie Moser and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Jill Baker, Misty Wagner-Grillo and Lisa A. Kelly, Chris Cochrane, Planner, Environmental Planner Bill Stachoviak, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2007 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS Update on US Route 40/Edgewood Drive Intersection and Mt. Aetna Road project Mr. Thompson provided a brief update on the US Route 40/Edgewood Drive intersection project. The revised Memorandum of Understanding will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 for their review and approval. The project will be advertised this month. Construction is scheduled to begin at the end of Aprii, 2008 with a projected completion date of . November, 2009.

Mr. Thompson stated that the Mt. Aetna Road project was delayed through the State Highway Administration permitting process; however, the permits have now been released. The project will be advertised this week. The project is scheduled to begin early in Aprii, 2008 with a projected completion date of September, 2008.

There was a brief discussion with regard to funding issues and the relocation of utility lines. Mr. Anikis requested an update in six months.

NEW BUSINESS - VARIANCES William and Connie Walters S-07·133) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a reduction of the 50-foot agricultural buffer to a 15-foot buffer for a proposed one lot single-family subdivision for an immediate family member. The property is located along the north side of Broadfording Road.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked why the applicant is requesting such a sizable reduction in the buffering requirement. Mr. Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant for the applicant, stated that the Broadfording Bible Brethren Church owns the property to the rear that adjoins the proposed lot and is currently an agricultural field. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that the land could be used for agricultural purposes in the future, which could impact the proposed lot. Mr. Kercheval recommended that a note be added to the plat stating that the Planning Commission granted a variance with the understanding there may be a larger impact from the agricultural operation in the future. Mr. Lung stated that the Planning Department has appropriate language previously used on other plats. He also suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider adding a note that states that the existing tree line on the property shall not be removed. The applicant, Mr. Walters, stated that the tree line is on property currently owned by his parents and would not be removed.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the reduction of the 50-foot agricultural buffer to 15-feet contingent upon a note being added to the plat, as discussed, using appropriate language approved by the Planning staff and contingent upon the tree line remaining on the property. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. The motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Moser voting "aye" and Mr. Ecker voting "nay".

- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Fort Ritchie Redevelopment (PC-07-00?) Mr. Lung presented a brief update and clarification of issues previously discussed by the Planning Commission with regard to the Preliminary Consultation and site plan for the redevelopment of the former Fort Ritchie army base. The Board of Zoning Appeals at their last hearing granted approval of modifications to the parking requirements that were a condition of the Planning Commission's site plan approval on December 3, 2007. 102

The Planning Commission's site plan approval of December 3, 2007 was also contingent upon Staff's approval for adequate lighting on the site. Mr. Lung stated he has made a visit to the site and he believes that the existing lighting will be adequate. He noted that the existing lighting on one building was disconnected at the time of his visit because of demolition work currently being performed on the site. Mr. Lung will follow up with the consultant on the existing lighting on that particular building.

Mr. Lung stated that Hagerstown Community College is moving forward with their plans to locate a satellite campus at Fort Ritchie. They will be using one of the existing buildings that were shown on the site plan that was reviewed in December.

With regard to excise tax requirements, Mr. Lung stated there is a provision in Section 5.c of the Excise Tax Ordinance for replacement construction. Some of the buildings that have been removed or are proposed for removal will be given credits for replacement of existing buildings, particularly on the residential units. Mr. Lung noted that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance does not address replacement structures. However, it would seem reasonable if there were a replacement structure proposed for an existing dwelling that was demolished, the APFO impact would be the same. Therefore, in that regard Staff believes there will be some consideration for replacement structures under the APFO school test.

Comments: Mr. Kercheval stated that when an area has been vacant for several years, the replacement structures for residential units is a different and unusual situation that may require review of the language in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and he is not sure if consideration would be given.. The elementary and middle schools currently have capacity; however, the high school is over capacity. Capacity at the high school may be resolved by the time COPT is ready to construct residential units if a new high school is constructed in the eastern section of the County.

Mr. Lung noted that another issue of concern was the Forest Stand Delineation and if there was a change to the forested area that was previously delineated. Mr. Bill Stachoviak, Environmental Planner for Washington County, and Mr. Lung made a visit to the site. Mr. Lung stated that a small area may have been disturbed since the original FSD was completed and should be shown on an updated FSD. However, Staff does believe that a completely new Forest Stand Delineation is not necessary and that an update to the original FSD should be sufficient.

The final issue of concern as noted at the December Planning Commission meeting is the power substation. Mr. Lung noted that under all zoning districts identified in the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the Special Economic Development zoning district a public utility bUilding or structure not considered essential utility equipment (i.e., a substation) is listed as a special exception or principle permitted use. Staff believes this omission was an oversight and should be addressed by a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. There is currently a substation on the property and a replacement substation may be considered a replacement of an existing non-conforming use. Staff will continue to review this issue until a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is adopted.

Comment: Mr. Moser noted that the new substation is being placed in a different location. Any expansion of the existing substation, under the current zoning regulations, would require a special exception to be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Thompson stated that BZA action may be required.

Mackwest Commercial (PC-07-00S) Mr. Lung presented for review and comments the revised concept plan for Mackwest Commercial. The property is located at the southeast corner of US Route 40 and Mt. Aetna Road. During the October 1, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, members expressed their concern with regard to several issues inclUding the buffer yard next to the adjoining residential property, the type of planting material within the buffer yard, the height of the fence, the location of the proposed dumpster, the location of the order board and the drive-up window for the proposed restaurant, the proposed location of the handicapped parking space and the configuration of the restaurant and the way the drive-up lanes were situated. The following revisions were made to the concept plan: the buffer yard was increased from 15-feet to 25-feet which is consistent with HI-1 standards; the screen planting materials have been changed from 5 gallon container grown arborvitae 15-feet on center to evergreen trees, 7-feet in height, 2" cal., 15-feet on center; the dumpster location has been moved from the southeast corner of the parking lot to the south side of the building; the order board and drive-up window have been moved from the south side to the north side of the building; the handicap parking spaces have been relocated directly adjacent to the building. There has been no change in the height of the 6-foot fence to an 8-foot fence, no additional screening is proposed along the common boundary with the residential property along US Route 40 at the storm water management area and there has been no change to the entrance at Mt. Aetna Road and North Colonial Drive as previously recommended by the Planning Commission.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to spillover lighting issues and noise issues. He believes these issues need to be addressed.

Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with regard to the landscape buffer between the proposed restaurant and the residential property along US Route 40 at the storm water management area.

Mr. Anlkis asked why the height of the fence was not changed. Mr. Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, consultant, stated that the developer has no objection to the 8-foot fence and was an oversight on the 103

revised plan. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern for the safety of pedestrians crossing the drive-thru lane to access the restaurant. He made an inquiry with regard to safety measures that the developer is proposing for pedestrian access. Mr. Mackintosh, developer, stated that cars would approach the drive­ thru lane at a slower speed and there is access to the restaurant to the south and west sides of the building. Mr. Anikis asked if a crosswalk or a sign could be installed to alert drivers. Mr. Mackintosh stated they could provide a cross-hatched area for pedestrians.

Mr. Lung discussed the possible future realignment of the Mt. Aetna Road/US Route 40 intersection. He stated that the site would still be able to function normally if the realignment would occur.

- SUBDIVISIONS Mike and Kim Capone, Lots 10·14 (S·06·098) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the preliminary/final plat for Mike and Kim Capone, Lots 10-14. The property is located along the south side of Shaffer Road, east of Dam #4 Road and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The developer is proposing five single-family lots. Water and sewer service will be provided by well and septic. The property is located in the Fountain Rock Elementary, Springfield Middle and Williamsport High school district. Fire services will be provided by the Fairplay Fire Department and ambulance services will be provided by Williamsport. A new cul-de-sac of 650-feet is proposed. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by retaining 5.98-acres of forest on the remaining 26.42-acres of land.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the Preliminary/Final Plat for Mike and Kim Capone, Lots 10-14 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

• SITE PLANS Wireless Communications Support Facility - Boonsboro (SP·07·049) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a Wireless Communications Support Facility . located along the east side of St. Paul Road in Boonsboro. The applicant is Liberty Towers/Chesapeake Towers, LLC of Rockville, Maryland. The site is located on a 15-acre parcel owned by Matthew and Jennifer Carroll. The area to be leased is .230-acres and is zoned C- Conservation. The applicant is proposing a 160-foot monopole tower with a 4-foot lightning rod. An existing cell tower is located on the site approximately 260-feet away. A 20·foot access will be created to get to the tower. The tower will be 164-feet from the property lines and 364-feet from the required zoning districts. The tower will be designed to accommodate four carriers, which will also include the ability to add local fire and rescue communications. A 7-foot fence will be constructed around the tower. The monopole will be gray in color and will not be lit. There will be two equipment shelters on the site. Emergency identification signs will be located on the fence. No overhead transmission lines will be located near the site. The monopole will be situated within an area of mature vegetation on a plateau. The site is exempt from the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance because the disturbed area will be less than 40,000-square feet. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception to locate the tower on this site in June, 2007. Included in the Planning Commission's file is a photo-simulation, lease agreement and the impact analysis on environmental and historical features. Ms. Kelly distributed a copy of a letter from the Mayor of Boonsboro reiterating the Town's concern with regard to another cell tower in this area which is also included in the Planning Commission's file.

Comments: Mr. Moser stated that the second tower will have a negative impact on the viewshed depending upon the location from which the tower is seen.

Discussion: Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry relative to the language that should be placed on cell tower plats with regard to the use of the tower by the County's Emergency Services Department. Ms. Kelly stated there is no exact language; however, the lease agreement and site plan notes that the cell tower will be available to all users. Mr. Thompson stated he has had conversations with Staff, the Board of Appeals and the County Attorney who works with the Board of Appeals, to make the language part of the standards for approval. Mr. Wiley stated that clarification is needed to determine if the County will be charged for the cell tower space.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

Wireless Communication Support Facility - Lappans (SP·07·050) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a Wireless Communication Support Facility along the northeast side of Lappans Road just east of its intersection with Sharpsburg Pike. The applicant is Liberty Towers of Rockville, Maryland. A 15-foot access road is proposed along property owned by Beverly Shriver. The site is located on a 100-acre parcel owned by Ms. Shriver. The total leased area will be .23 acres and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The proposed lattice tower is 195­ feet with a 4-foot lightning rod. The proposed tower is approximately 199-feet away from the property line in all directions and will be 399·feet away from all existing structures. The proposed tower will be designed to accommodate six carriers. A 7-foot high fence with barbed wire will be constructed around the tower. The tower will have a galvanized finish and will not be lit. There will be two equipment shelters also located on the site. An emergency identification sign will be placed on the fence. There are no transmission lines in close proximity to this site. The tower is situated in an area of mature vegetation and is located in a valley. The site is exempt from the requirements of the Forest Conservation 104

Ordinance because the disturbed area will be less than 40,000-square feet. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a speciai exception to locate the tower on this site in June, 2007. Included in the Planning Commission's file are a photo-simulation, lease agreement and the impact analysis on environmentai and historical features. A letter was received from the Historic District Commission that indicates they are not in favor of the location of this cell tower. However, the Board of Appeals already granted its approval prior to the HDC's review of the project. The HDC expressed their concern for the historic church located west of the intersection at Lappans Road. The Historic District Commission has requested that they review all cell tower appiications prior to the Board of Zoning Appeais hearings.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to the historic structure known as Rockland located north of Lappans off of the Sharpsburg Pike. He commended the applicant for providing the photometric pictures in their application packet. Mr. Thompson noted that the Historic District Commission will be reviewing all cell tower applications prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals hearings. Mr. Anikis also expressed his concern that the Maryland Historical Trust is not reviewing and/or commenting on any of the cell tower applications. Mr. Michael Hoke, representative for Liberty Towers, stated that the Maryland Historical Trust has repeatedly told him that they do not have the Staff available to review all cell tower applications. Mr. Goodrich also noted that the MHT's comments are very limited due to a programmatic agreement with the Federal government with a pre-determined method of reviewing cell tower applications. The MHT is very limited in the comments they can make and how their comments will affect each individual application. The programmatic agreement states that these reviews will only take into consideration currently listed National Register sites or currently eligible National Register sites.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Liberty at Hunter's Green II (SP-07-056) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the designated '1ast-track" site plan for Liberty at Hunter's . Green II, Lot 7. The site is located along the east side of Newgate Boulevard and is zoned HI-1 ­ Highway Interchange I. The total parcel area is 142-acres. The developer, Liberty Property Trust, is proposing to construct two combination warehouse/office buildings. One structure will be 554,OOO-square feet and one structure will be 1, 138,000-square feet and the height of both buildings will be approximately 44-feet. The site will be served with sewer from Washington County and water from the City of Hagerstown. There will be two access points off of Newgate Boulevard and one off of Hopewell Road. The site will be in operation 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. There will be three shifts with approximately 150 employees per shift. There will be approximately 35 to 50 delivery trucks per day. Parking required is 225 spaces and 480 spaces will be provided with an additional 665 tractor trailer parking spaces. The proposed signs will include one 4' x 8' sign at the main entrance, one building mounted sign on each building and directional signs on the interior. Lighting will be building and pole mounted throughout the parking areas. A dumpster will be provided for solid waste as well as a trash compactor. There are three storm water management basins located on the site. The back portion of the site will not be developed because it is within a 1OO-year flood plain. The developer is proposing to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance by payment-in-lieu for 16.97-acres and planting of 10.62-acres. Landscaping will be planted around the building, the perimeter of the parking areas, and at the entrance. Landscaping materials will include Spruce pine, Ash, Oak, and willow trees, various shrubs, and ornamental grasses. Several agency approvals are outstanding.

Discussion: Mr. Fred Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that approvals have been received from several agencies. The City of Hagerstown is working directly with the Fire Engineer to size the meter, which has caused a delay in their approval. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern with regard to screening on the north side of the property. He noted that the property behind the site is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. Mr. Frederick stated that the cut of the grade may eliminate the need for buffering and suggested that Staff could determine if buffering is needed after all the grading is finished. Mr. Kercheval stated that Staff's determination if additional buffering is needed would be acceptable. Mr. Kercheval noted that many developers are using solar power on large rooftops for large distribution centers and there are State funds available.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the sae plan contingent upon all agency approvals and Staff's determination if additional buffering will be needed along the north side of the property between this site and the property zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

** NOTE: Revisions to the site plan were made and submitted by Frederick, Seibert & Associates following all agency reviews and comments. Staff has reviewed the buffering issue and has determined that no additional screening will be necessary due to the elevation of adjoining site which would make any screening useless.

OTHER BUSINESS RZ-07-007 Martin Marietta Materials Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a zoning map amendment for 77.08 acres located along the south side of Maryland 68, 800 feet west of its intersection with Bottom Road. The applicant, Martin Marietta Materials, is requesting that the 1M - Industrial Mineral Overlay zone be applied to property currently owned by Peggy Petre. Throughout the course of this case, discussions have 105

focused on Section 15.3 of the Zoning Ordinance that states, "In its deliberation of an application for an 1M district, the Planning Commission shall consider the purpose of the 1M district, the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan; the compatibility of the proposed district with the adjacent property; and the impact of mineral extraction operations on the public roadways. The evaluation of each criteria shall result in findings of fact as part of a recommendation on the application to the Board of County Commissioners." It is Staff's opinion that the rezoning application can pass easily on three of the four specified items: the purpose of the 1M district, the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and the effects on the roadways. However, the analysis of compatibility with adjacent properties has been inconclusive. Staff recognizes that approving the rezoning would be consistent with the purpose of the district. The purpose of the district is: to allow large-scale mineral extraction in the rural areas; to protect the property from other uses being established on it so they will not conflict with the future mineral extraction on the site; to serve as an early warning to adjacent property owners as to what is going to happen on the property; and to have the mineral extraction operation be compatible with adjacent land uses. Staff recognizes that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The language within the Comp Plan is aimed at the design of the district as a floating zone with protective measures; location guidelines to ensure that the zone is in the rural area and is placed on areas of known mineral resources; and compatibility with adjacent properties and serves that purpose as long as the warning is heeded. Staff recognizes that the facts regarding the effects on public roadways were considered. The applicant has stated that Staff reviewed all previous plans and the current amount of traffic has been documented in the Staff Report and the applicant also stated that there are no plans to increase the amount of traffic. Traffic could increase if the market increases, but the increase would not be directly related to the zoning change of the property. Mr. Goodrich stated he received some information late today with regard to the $200,000 bond to cover maintenance issues on Bottom Road. During the public hearing, Staff was asked if the current bond was sufficient. As part of the routine application review, Staff made an inquiry to the Washington County Engineering Department to determine if the amount of the bond was sufficient to cover their needs and they responded that the bond was sufficient. However, the Director of Public Works recently reviewed the bond and with the effects of inflation determined that the bond will not be sufficient. He has determined that a surety in the amount of $330,000 will be needed at this point in time. Mr. Goodrich noted that there would be an opportunity during the site plan review to . require an increase in the surety.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis asked if the State Highway Administration has any requirements for a surety for maintenance of Maryland Route 68. Mr. Goodrich stated that the State Highway does not require a surety for roadways.

Mr. Kercheval gave clarification with regard to the surety Issue. He stated that he had made a request with regard to the amount of surety prior to the public hearing; however, a response was not received until after the hearing from the Director of Public Works. Mr. Kercheval, after reading the Staff Report Following the Public Hearing, noted that the amount of the surety bond had not changed and he contacted Mr. Goodrich with the appropriate information.

Mr. Goodrich continued his presentation focusing on compatibility with adjacent properties. With the mining operation proposing to expand to the west cioser to existing residential development, staff is not completely convinced that these two uses are compatible and could co-exist without problems based on resident's comments during the hearing. Martin Marietta Materials will comply with all regulations and requirements to operate the quarry; however, the neighbors perceive a conflict between themselves and the quarry.

In conclusion, Staff provided three options that the Planning Commission could consider when making its recommendation on this case. 1) The application could be denied because there is some question about compatibility with adjacent properties and land uses. 2) The application could be denied until issues are resolved, such as the boundary for the zone of influence, ways to address the endangered species on the site, and an opportunity to determine how the residents feel about the conditions of approval offered by Martin Marietta and if the conditions would remove their objections and concerns. 3) Approve the application with all of the conditions that were offered. Some of those conditions would be appiied whether they are offered as conditions or not. For example, site plan review and approval, permits from the State, the surety issue, etc.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis asked for clarification with regard to the Commission's requirements to address the issues in the letter received following the public hearing from the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County does not have regulations they must comply with because the species specified in the DNR's letter is classified as "in need of conservation" rather than threatened or endangered. If the State has regulations to address this issue they would be applied in the State's review of its permit application.

Mr. Reiber asked what kind of complaints have been filed with the quarry in 2007. Mr. Urner, attorney for the applicant, stated that each complaint registered with Martin Marietta and during the public hearing has been addressed. He could not recall the specifics of those two particular cases.

Ms. Parrish expressed her concern that the complaints were not being recorded. She does not believe there is an appropriate process for the residents to register their complaints and have them addressed. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that it is a "buyer beware" situation because the original quarry was at its current iocation prior to residents moving there; however, based on the zone of influence, the residents were not expecting an impact on their residence. The residents at the public hearing are currently experiencing issues in the area proposed for further expansion. Ms. Parrish recommended that the pre- 106

blast survey should be completed ahead of time so there is a record of the condition of the residences. She beiieves that a County department should be the local contact for residents to file their complaints and the complaints need to be followed up to make sure that issues are being resolved. Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to the six additional properties that are being included in the zone of influence. Mr. Goodrich stated that if the rezoning case is approved, the applicant has formally offered to agree to those conditions. Ms. Parrish expressed her desire to see improved communication between the quarry and the residents, the process to make and record complaints, the process to have pre-blast surveys completed ahead of time, etc. Mr. Goodrich noted that it would be beneficial to have one department to handle all complaints; however, there are so any different departments and agencies with varying authority involved in the various steps throughout the process. He recommended that if the Planning Commission is going to recommend approval of this case, the recommendation should be very specific with regard to handiing complaints. Mr. Moser believes that there is confusion within the County who Is responsible for different issues. He also expressed his opinion that the State laws, or lack thereof, are also an Issue. Mr. John Urner, attorney for the applicant, stated that Martin Marietta will inciude the additional six properties within the zone of influence regardless if the State expands the zone or not. Mr. Ecker expressed his concern with regard to the dairy farmers in the area and posed the question, "What would happen to the dairy operation if the farmer's well goes dry?" Mr. Urner stated that the applicant would be responsible to supply the amount of water needed from the time the well goes dry until a new well is estabiished. Mr. Ecker asked what the tlmeframe is to get the water to the farm. Mr. Urner stated that the applicant, by State law, has 24 hours to get water to the farm. Mr. Ecker stated that a dairy farmer cannot wait 24 hours for water. Mr. Urner stated they would try to supply water more quickiy to the farmer and if the State law changes to require a shorter time period, the applicant would adhere to the new regUlations.

Mr. Anikis noted that 3 or 4 dairy farmers were present at the public hearing and he asked if those dairy farms are included in the zone of influence. Mr. Urner stated that the six additional properties include only one dairy farm, the other five properties are residential.

Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that this is the kind of area where mining operations should occur and is 'recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. He would agree with option 3 as presented by Mr. Goodrich.

Mr. Reiber expressed his support for option 3 also.

Mr. Moser wouid also agree with option 3. However, he expressed his opinion that the County's Zoning Ordinance has allowed the approval of residential properties in close proximity to the quarry and then compatibility with the quarry becomes an issue. Mr. Moser aiso expressed his concern with regard to the State applying the laws and ensuring they are adhered to. He also believes the County needs to address the issue of complaints and who will handle these complaints.

Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to complaints about speeding vehicles on Clear Spring Road. He believes that the truck drivers need to be made more aware of the risks involved with the speeding issue on these roads. Mr. Anikis also expressed his concern with regard to complaints about the dirt and dust from the trucks. He recommended that the trucks should be completely covered when they leave the quarry. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to low energy vibrations over a long period of time that may cause structural damage to homes In the area.

Mr. Thompson asked if the conditions stipulated by the applicant could be added to the permit from the State. If they are not part of the State permit, the probiems would then be reported to the County and the County needs a way to address these issues. Mr. Paxton, a Martin Marietta representative, stated they could make the request to the State; however, he does not know if the State would honor the request. Some of the conditions would be shown on the site plan when it is submitted for review and approval. Mr. Urner stated that the six properties to be included in the zone of influence could be added to the State permit. A similar request was made by another quarry to the State and the State did accept the requested zone of influence. He believes that the State is more inclined to add properties to the ZOI rather than to let them out of the ZOI. Mr. Thompson suggested all of the dairy farms within close proximity should be included within the zone of influence. Mr. Anikis suggested that a letter be written to all residents in that area that Includes a phone number to contact with their complaints. Ms. Parrish also suggested that the complaints should also be tracked with regard to the type of. complaint, when the complaint was made, etc.

Mr. Urner noted that the applicant has prepared documentation with regard to the applicant's response if a well is lost. The information includes where the water would come from, the voiume of water to be supplied, how it wouid be trucked to the farm site and from what locations it would be dispersed, Mr. Goodrich stated that a "Water Supply Replacement Plan" was included in the appiication materials. The process is fully disclosed in that document.

Mr. Kercheval suggested that the applicant should work with the farmers to prepare an emergency pian that would be acceptable to everyone. Mr. Urner stated that a specific plan has already been prepared; however, there is a question if it addresses the worst case scenarios for a farm situation. He suggested that the Pianning Commission or SOCC should provide a "worst case scenario" from which to prepare a plan. The case should include requests for the follOWing information: how will water be supplied, how will the water be used once it is on-site; how fast can the water be delivered, etc. Mr. Wiley suggested working with the affected farmers to determine their needs. 107

Mr. Anikis suggested that based on the testimony presented at the public hearing by Mr. Roth a list of farm owners in the area should be compiled. A meeting should then be planned between the farm owners, Mr. Urner and representatives from Martin Marietta to determine who will be included within the zone of influence.

Mr. Anikis asked if there is someone to inspect each truck prior to leaving the quarry to ensure it is covered properly. A representative from Martin Marietta stated there is not one specific person assigned to that task. However, State law requires that all trucks must be covered. Mr. Anikis also asked if there is any interaction between Martin Marietta and the truck drivers to encourage the drivers to obey the speed limits. A representative from Martin Marietta stated that a meeting is held with the truck owners and/or drivers to discuss speed, jake-braking, load covering, conduct on the radio, etc. Signs are also posted for the drivers reminding them to weigh their loads, cover their load, obey the speed limits, etc.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval based on Staff's recommendation #3 as presented and to approve the "1M" zoning overlay contingent upon including the additional farm sites and wells as determined by Staff and that an emergency preparedness plan be prepared and implemented so there will be no loss of livestock on the farm operations. The plan must be finalized prior to final approval. Seconded by Ms. Parrish.

Comment before the vote: Mr. Wiley recommended that the emergency preparedness plan should include the input of farmers that will be directly affected.

Amended Motion: Mr. Reiber amended his motion to include Mr. Wiley's comment. Ms. Parrish concurred for the second. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Ms. Parrish, Mr. Moser and Mr. Wiley voting "Aye" and Mr. Ecker voting "Nay". Mr. Kercheval abstained.

RZ-07-008 - Bowman 2000 LLC Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation a map amendment for property located at 18400 . Precision Place. The applicant, Bowman 2000 LLC, is requesting a change in zoning from IR - Industrial Restricted to HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1 for approximately 17.4-acres of property. A public hearing was held on November 26, 2007. There was no one who spoke in favor of or in opposition to the rezoning request. The applicant is claiming there is a change in the character of the neighborhood and a mistake in the original zoning of this property. With regard to a change in the character of the neighborhood, the applicant must define the neighborhood. The applicant defined the neighborhood as being approximately one mile to the east and west and % of mile to the north and south. After hearing the information provided by the applicant during the hearing, Staff believes there is a broadness to their definition of the neighborhood; however, it is not entirely unreasonable given some of the information provided at the hearing. The applicant is required to define the change and if the change in the neighborhood was substantial. Staff does not believe there has been a case made proving a substantial change. The applicant presented information that they believe that a mistake was made in the original zoning of the property in 1976 and the error was perpetuated in the 1995 highway interchange rezoning. Staff has analyzed this information and believes that the applicant has made a case to prove that a mistake was made in the original zoning.

Discussion: Mr. Moser asked if this property abuts the Mack Truck property and what that property is zoned. Ms. Baker stated that the property does abut the Mack Truck property which is zoned IG ­ Industrial General. Mr. Moser stated his opinion that there was a change in the neighborhood and not a mistake in the original zoning of the property. The property was originally zoned IR at the request of the property owner and the land use was still the same when the highway interchange rezoning was done. He stated his opinion that leaving the zon'lng as it originally was could not be a mistake. Ms. Parrish asked if Staff believes that the original zoning in 1976 was a mistake. Ms. Baker stated that in 1976 the Planning Commission recognized that the use being proposed was allowed under the Highway Interchange zoning so there was no reason to change the zoning. Mr. Moser stated that the Highway Interchange zoning is a more restrictive use and it is the County's desire to attract higher paying jobs to the area. Ms. Baker noted that a determination as to the appropriateness of the current zoning and consistency with the surrounding area should be taken into consideration. Another consideration should be to determine if the zoning meets the goals and objectives that are trying to be accomplished in that region.

Mr. Reiber noted that this property abuts other properties, not just Mack Truck, that are zoned HI-1. Mr. Moser agreed, however, he believes that another fast-food restaurant would locate here rather than a business that would bring higher paying jobs to the area. Mr. Moser stated his opinion that a change in the character of the neighborhood would be a more appropriate reason for the change in zoning.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners based on a change in the character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

FCO-07-001- Amendments to the Forest Conservation Ordinance Mr. Stachoviak presented for review and recommendation 55 separate changes to the text of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The proposed changes were distributed to 18 engineering/surveying firms, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coordinator and the State Forest Conservation Program Coordinator. The proposed changes were presented at a public hearing on November 26, 2007. The following are substantive changes that are proposed to the Ordinance: a) Amendment of the Exemption 108

section to extend the declaration of intent ianguage prohibiting the transfer of a iot to a non-famiiy member from 5 years to 10 years for consistency with the County's Subdivision Ordinance; b) Amendment of the non-compliance fee from 30 cents per square foot to an amount to be established by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners; c) Amendment of the Forest Stand Delineation article to be simplified by stating "Intermediate" delineations are NOT recognized; d) Amendment of the payment-in-lieu of planting amount for administrative efficiency, to an amount that is periodically established by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners; and e) Amendment of the Surety article to require a 15% contingency be added to the surety amount to encourage quality planting and improved maintenance. Mr. Stachoviak noted that the amendment of the family member declaration of intent does not change, limit, or regulate existing subdivision rules regarding residential lots for immediate family members. It only addresses exemption from the Forest Conservation Ordinance of the sale or transfer of residential lots to individuals who are immediate family members. It is also intended to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance which prohibits, for 10 years, conveyance of lots on a private road to non­ famiiy individuals. During the public hearing, Mr. Laird supported the amendment to the Ordinance He stated his opinion that the payment-in-iieu of on-site planting or retention is not consistent with the intent of the State Forest Conservation Act. Mr. Fred Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates commented for the record that street trees should be permitted to be planted for credit under the Ordinance. Mr. Stachoviak noted that all amendments to the County Forest Conservation Ordinance require review and approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Accordingly, Marion Honezcy, the State Forest Conservation Coordinator, reviewed the proposed amendment and stated that the proposed language meets the intent of the Forest Conservation Act. In summary, there was no opposition to the proposed amendments expressed during the hearing. Staff agrees there is merit to allowing credit for planting of street trees as a permissible step in the priority sequence for afforestation or reforestation. Due to a variety of issues including long-term maintenance responsibility, Staff will evaiuate this request upon the Engineering Department completing the update of the County road standards and will present a future text amendment if it is determined such a proposal will not create any conflicts. Staff is of the opinion that the amendment to Article 13.2 Surety for a 15% contingency has merit, since a surety claim, if necessary, will likely occur four or more years after its issuance. The County recently claimed its first surety, originally issued in 2003. We will not know if the amount will be sufficient to complete the project until it is . put out for bid in early 2008. Staff believes that the proposed changes should be adopted as presented. As previously noted, all amendments were reviewed as required by law by the Department of Natural Resources State Forest Conservation Program Coordinator and found to meet the intent of the Maryland Forest Conservation Act.

Discussion: Mr. Kerchevai asked Mr. Weibley, Washington County Soil Conservation District, questions regarding a letter that was submitted by his office for expenses related to the Forest Conservation requirements. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern with regard to the increase from 10 cents per square foot to 30 cents per square for the payment-in-lieu fee. There was a brief discussion with regard to the expenses, fees that should be charged, and maintenance issues.

Mr. Don Spickler, member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, former member of the Planning Commission, and a member of Board of Supervisors for the Soil Conservation District, spoke on behalf of the Soil Conservation District. He believes there are maintenance issues that should be addressed to ensure replacement of trees that do not survive.

There was a brief discussion with regard to the length of time that a surety bond should be held.

There was a brief discussion with regard to the increase from 10 cents per square foot to 30 cents per square foot for the payment-in-lieu fee. Members were spiit in their discussion with regard to how much the fee shouid be; however, Mr. Stachoviak noted that the Board of County Commissioners would be responsible for setting this fee. Mr. Moser believes the increase to 30 cents per square foot is reasonable. He also believes there is merit to giving credit to developers for street trees. Mr. Ecker expressed his opinion that the fee should be 20 cents per square foot and an additional year should be added to the 2-year surety bond. Ms. Parrish and Mr. Wiley expressed their opinions that additional financial information is needed to make a decision on the amount.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

City Annexations Mr. Thompson began a discussion with regard to the annexations requested by the City of Hagerstown. In accordance with House Bill 1141, the Board of County Commissioners must review the annexation requests to determine if "express approval" will be granted to allow a different zoning designation that couid create a greater density than is currently allowed by the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson noted that the BOCC must review and respond to the annexation requests within 30 days of receipt of the request. Articie 66B of the Maryland Annotated Code does not require the Planning Commission's review and recommendation of these requests. Mr. Thompson believes that the Planning Commission should review and comment on these requests; however, due to time constraints it is not always feasible to present these requests to the Planning Commission. He stated he will continue to bring these requests to the Planning Commission as time allows.

At the current time, there are three annexation requests scheduled to go before the BOCC in the near future. The first request is for property located on Haven Road. A previous request to annex this property created an enclave, which is not allowed by the State. Therefore, the City is attempting to 109 correct this issue. The second request is for property located on Salem Avenue/Cearloss Pike. The property is currently zoned HI-1. The City is proposing a Commercial zoning designation, which would be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The third request is for property located at the northeast quadrant of Dual Highway and 1-70. The property is currently zoned HI-1 and the City is proposing their new zoning designation of Business Employment. The developer is proposing to annex the property so that City water and sewer would serve the site. Mr. Thompson noted that depending upon the zoning designation given by the City, it may not be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the proposed is not consistent with the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan Update.

UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, February 4, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted, O~4 d~£; Ge1r!l~iS, Chairman 110

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - February 4, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 4, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Jill Baker, Misty Wagner-Grillo and Lisa A. Kelly, Planner Chris Cochrane, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 7,2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Update of South Pointe PUD

Ms. Kelly presented a brief history with regard to the South Pointe PUD. In November 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Mr. Paul Crampton, developer, to modify the South Pointe PUD. The developer Is proposing to construct 4, 3-story condominium buildings with a total of 120 units. Underground parking with 152 parking spaces and an additional 88 parking spaces above-ground will be . provided. The proposed condominiums will be age-restricted units. During the November 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern with regard to amenities, especially the swimming pool, that were being eliminated from the new plan. The Planning Commission requested that Mr. Crampton meet with the Executive Board of Directors and Homeowner's Association to discuss these issues. A meeting with the Board of Directors was held in November 2007 and a meeting of the HOA was held on January 10, 2008. Homeowners voted against a swimming pool.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis stated that he attended these meetings and it was very clear that the residents do not want a swimming pool. Ms. Parrish clarified that her concern was not only the elimination of the swimming pool but also the change in the design layout and other amenities that were being eliminated. She asked if all of the changes were discussed. Mr. Anikis stated that all changes and the history of the changes since 1990 were discussed. He stated that the residents expressed their concern with regard to traffic issues. Mr. Anikis stated that the proposed plan would decrease the density; therefore, the amount of traffic generated would not be as significant as originally proposed. Ms. Parrish stated that severai people have approached her with concerns that these changes are being made since the time that the pUblic hearing was held and citizens have not been able to make any comments regarding these changes. Mr. Wiley stated that he has no objection to the changes as long as the current residents have no objections. He also believes there wiil be less traffic than there would have been with the original plan. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the new plan proposed less density that the original plan and therefore will be less intensive. Also, if the homeowners are not opposed to fewer amenities, he has no objections. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to traffic issues. Ms. Kelly stated that the Engineering Department would re-evaluate traffic issues at the time a site plan is submitted. Mr. Crampton, the developer, stated that during the last traffic study that was completed, a traffic light was not warranted at the intersection with Oak Ridge Drive. He noted that the County's Engineering Department would not require a traffic light until the intersection is failing. Mr. Crampton also noted that the Homeowner's Association has sent several petitions to the County requesting a new traffic count. Mr. Kercheval stated that the Engineering Department is aware of the traffic issues in this area and they perform regular traffic counts on the intersection. There are standards that must be used to determine the placement of the stop light.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the modifications as presented at the November 5, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES Randy J. Cool, Lots 1-3 (SP-07-055) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval two variance requests from the Subdivision Ordinance for property located along the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue, north of Industry Drive. The first request is for a variance from Section 405.11.G (panhandle length) and the second request is for a variance from Section 405.2.A (access separation). The property contains 7.16 acres and is zoned A - Agriculture and is located within the Urban Growth Area. The property is located in the Airport Overlay zone; however, it is not in the Airport clear zone. The Airport overlay zone restricts multi-family residential development. Mr. Cool, owner, is proposing to subdivide the property into 3 lots with a remainder around the existing dwelling. Previously, Staff administratively denied a request to create 3 lots without public road frontage. 111

The applicant appealed the Planning Staff's decision and the Board of Zoning Appeals overturned the Staff's denial. The BZA approved the request with Lot 1 haVing no public road frontage, Lots 2 and 3 would utilize 25-foot panhandles. The BZA also added the following condition to their approval that states, "All 3 lots shall be restricted to conveyance to immediate family members only for a period of 10 years and there shall be no further subdivision of any of these lots". A plat was submitted to the Planning Department based on the actions by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lot 1 contains 1.63 acres, Lot 2 contains 3.9 acres, Lot 3 contains 1.63-acres and the remaining lands contain .64-acres. There is an easement across Lots 2 and 3 for public road access for Lot 1. Lots 2 and 3 utilize panhandles with a shared driveway with access onto Route 11. Following review ot the submitted plat, Staff discovered that the proposed shared access does not meet the Highway Plan criteria for an arterial highway that requires 500-feet of access separation between access points. The proposed entrance is approximately 150-feet away from the existing driveway to the house iocated on the remaining lands and approximately 90-feet away from an existing driveway on an existing lot to the south. The applicant's explanation of hardship is due to limited frontage along Route 11 as well as many existing driveway access points on US Route 11 which makes compliance virtually impossible. The State Highway Administration has reviewed the applicant's request and has no objection. Mr. Lung noted that in his comments to the Planning Commission, he recommended that a right-ot-way for a future street should be proVided so if the lots are further subdivided, they could be provided public road frontage. With the agricultural zoning on this property and because there is public water and sewer in this area, there is the potential for approximately 10 additional lots. However, the Board of Zoning Appeals put the condition on their approval that there would be no further subdivision of these lots. If after 10 years the lots are sold outside of the immediate family and the new owner would try to further subdivide his/her property, a request to the Board of Zoning Appeais to remove the condition would be required. Additional variances for iots without public road frontage would also be required. Mr. Lung suggested that if the Planning Commission approves the variance, a condition shouid be placed on the approval to provide a revertible easement to be used to construct a future street, if at some time a future property owner would be allowed to subdivide the property for additional lots.

Mr. Lung then began his presentation with regard to the length of the proposed panhandles in excess of - 400-feet. The panhandle for proposed Lot 2 would be 441-feet. The applicant's statement of hardship for the panhandie variance states, "Based on the Board of Zoning Appeals request, the applicant created two lots with 25-foot panhandle frontage. One lot, #2, ended up with a panhandle of 441 feet. Although the subdivision is not yet approved, the corners have been put in place as shown with a 441-foot panhandle." Staff does not have an objection to the request; however, the hardship statement is questionable because a survey pin has already been located on the property. Staff believes the pin could easily be relocated if necessary. The fire department and emergency services had no comments.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry with regard to the width of the access road in case of emergencies. Mr. Lung stated that the County does not have minimum standards for private lanes. Mr. Reiber made an inquiry if the conditions from Staff and the BZA would be noted on the plat. Mr. Lung stated they would be noted on the plat.

Ms. Parrish asked if the property were later sold, would the lane be wide enough to split into three private lanes. Mr. Lung stated that 25-feet is the minimum amount of road frontage. Lots 2 and 3 each have 25­ feet of road frontage; however, Lot 1 goes across Lots 2 and 3 for their access.

Mr. Kercheval asked if there is a shared access maintenance agreement between the property owners for the private lane. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that a shared maintenance agreement could be provided. Mr. Cool's intention is to keep one lot for himself and give the other two lots to his sons.

There was a brief discussion with regard to the 10-year restriction and when that time period begins. Mr. Anikis asked if the 10-year restriction would be noted on the plat. Mr. Lung stated that it wouid be noted on the plat.

Malian and Vole: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the variance requests contingent upon a shared driveway maintenance agreement being prepared and submitted to the Planning Department and contingent upon meeting Staff's recommendation to provide a revertible easement for a future street as discussed. Seconded by Mr. Ecker.

Discussion and Clarification: Mr. Schreiber, consultant, asked for clarification with regard to the provision for a revertible easement from US Route 11 to Lot 1 for the construction of a possible future public street. Mr. Lung stated that it was shown that way on the original concept plan submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Schreiber stated that was to be a right-of-way and not a public street. He noted that a public street would not be possible because the County Engineering Department only allows BOO-feet of public street before you have intersecting public streets. Topographic and alignment issues would not allow the construction of a public street. Mr. Kercheval asked if the right-of-way issues could be addressed if a plan would be submitted later for additional subdivision of the properties. Mr. Lung stated that the right-of-way could be reserved a certain distance for a possible cul-de-sac; however, that would only allow the subdivision of Lot 3. If the right-of-way were extended, both Lots 2 and 3 would have access for a possible future street. Lot 1 could not be subdivided. Mr. Schreiber noted that any variation of the configuration would require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals and other variances would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. 112

Amended Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval amended his motion to approve the variance requests contingent upon a shared driveway maintenance agreement being prepared and submitted to the Planning Department. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

-SITE PLANS Candice Grove (SP-07-055) Ms. Wagner-Griiio presented for review and approval the site plan for Candice Grove for property iocated along the south side of Old Georgetown Road. The property is zoned BL - Business Local. The appiicant is proposing to convert the existing residence into a hair and nail salon on ,42-acre. The existing bUilding is 1,725-square feet and a 1,475-square foot addition is proposed. The retaii floor space will be 1,800-square feet. Building mounted lighting and two bUilding mounted signs are proposed. The signs wiii be 18-square feet and 18-feet in total height (including the building). Eight parking spaces are proposed. The hours of operation are Tuesday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Daily deliveries are expected. The City of Hagerstown will provide public water and Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide pubiic sewer. There is a residential property located to the east of the proposed business and a commercial property located to the west. Both adjacent properties are zoned BL - Business Local. No additional landscaping is proposed. The project is exempt from Forest Conservation and storm water management requirements. Aii agency approvals have been received.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Reiber abstained.

OSI (SP·07-058) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for OSI for property located along the east side of Crayton Bouievard. The property is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. This site plan has been designated as a "fast-track" project by the Washington County EDC. The deveioper is proposing a . two-story office with 5,666-square feet of space on the first floor and 3,738-square feet of space on the second floor and an 18,421-square foot warehouse on 4.63-acres. The building height is 24-feet. The office will be open Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the warehouse will be open Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There are 40 employees proposed for the office and 6 employees for the warehouse. Two accesses from Crayton Boulevard are proposed. Signs wiii be building mounted only and lighting will be pole mounted. Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, is preparing a photometric plan to ensure there is zero light trespass on the surrounding residential properties. Parking required is 64 spaces. The City of Hagerstown will provide public water and the Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide public sewer. A 10-foot wood privacy fence is proposed along the north and east sides of the property to screen the existing residential properties. Upon request by adjoining property owners, the deveioper has agreed to extend the privacy fence to connect to the existing fence on the south border of Mr. Peter Dante's residence. Landscaping wiii be provided aiong the fence and around the building. Forest Conservation requirements were met for this site through a payment-in-Iieu in 2001. Storm water management requirements will be met by using a water quality pond. The Department of Water Quality has approved the site plan. The consultant has revised the storm water management plan to address comments from the County Engineering Department. A pan filter is proposed for the rear of the property and a bio-retention fiiter is proposed for the front of the property. The City Water Department has granted annexation approval. The Washington County Soil Conservation Service and the County Permits Department have requested minor revisions.

Discussion: There was a brief discussion with regard to using a wooden privacy fence rather than a vinyl fence. Mr. Tony Taylor of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that there are trying to match the existing fence on the property. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to several sheds that were being removed from the property. Mr. Thompson stated that the sheds were encroaching on the property from neighboring properties. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the proposed trees along the fence being pi aced on the owner's property and not behind the fence. Mr. Lung stated that several years ago when the original fence was constructed, the neighbors wanted as little disturbance as possibie in that area. Therefore, the fence was set back and OSI agreed not to disturb the vegetation that was already in place. He noted there is also a lot of rock in that area and trees could not be planted.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon aii agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

Fed Ex Freight (SP'07-061) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Fed Ex Freight for property located along the east side of Route 63 (Greencastle Pike). The property is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. This site plan has been designated as a "fast-track" project by the Washington County EDC. The developer is proposing a 142,160-square foot dock with 280 revenue doors, 2 ramps and 2 trash compactors, an 8,000-square foot office and a 14,160-square foot garage with 7 bays and fuel station on 137.1-acres. The building height is 24-feet. The facility is expecting 206 trucks per day. There will be approximately 167 employees per shift. The hours of operation are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Parking required is 194 spaces and 281 regular and 892 truck spaces will be provided. The City of Hagerstown wiii provide public water and the Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide public sewer. Storm water management requirements will be met using an on-site storm water 113

management pond. One 11' x 5' entrance sign, one building sign and several directional signs are proposed. Lighting wlli be building and pole mounted. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by on-site retention and planting. Landscaping will be provided around the parking area. The State Highway Administration offered the following comment: "The problem is a potentially serious sink hole situation along 1-70 in the vicinity of the proposed storm water management facility. SHA is requesting that the proposed storm water management facility be shifted away from 1-70. Accordingly, we are not ready to issue an unconditional approval of the site plan." Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that the consultant has revised the site plan and SHA has approved the revised plan. The County Engineering Department has not received the revision prior to this meeting; therefore, their approval is pending. The State Highway Administration recently received a traffic analysis for this area and they are requesting accel/decel lanes. Other issues to be addressed include: queuing problems when exiting the ramp at 1-70 and weaving issues associated with vehicles existing the ramp and the impact on vehicles on Route 63. The County Engineering Department stated that they will not give their approval until the traffic study is complete and approval of the study has been given by the State Highway Administration. The City Water Department is requiring annexation review before final approval will be given. Other minor revisions are needed per County departments.

Discussion: Mr. Kercheval noted there are stream buffers shown on the site plan. Mr. Mike Hicks of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated there are several stream buffers on the property located outside the 1OO-year floodplain, mainly to the northwest near the storm water management pond. Mr. Anlkis expressed his concem with regard to traffic issues in that area especially with another proposed warehouse. He requested that Staff verify that the State Highway Administration is aware of the additional proposed warehouse.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS . Comprehensive Plan Update - The Six Year Review Mr. Thompson began the discussion stating this is a major project currently being worked on by the Planning Department. The Comprehensive Plan identifies goals, objectives, principies, guidelines, policies, standards, and a growth plan for the orderly development of the community. In 1997, 13 public meetings were held to create the vision of the County, which became the basis of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. The 2008 Update is not a totally new plan but an extension of the 2002 Plan. The Growth Act requires all jurisdictions, at intervals of no more than six years, to review and, if necessary, update the Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan is a long-term plan expected to last 20 years, the six-year update allows continual reflection of the Pian's actual results and determines if the results are satisfactory to the community. The County is actively implementing the recommendations of the 2002 Plan and will continue to do so over the next 20 years. The six-year review Is Intended to keep the 2002 Plan on track. Staff is asking the Planning Commission members for their input for broad concepts that will help accomplish our goals for the County. Staff has discussed the following ideas: goal inventory and evaluation, update the general background data, integrate the new Park and Recreation Plan and the Water and Sewer Plan, update the Airport information to reflect current use and activities, update Town growth areas, update the Hospital Facilities Plan, the Fort Ritchie development plan, update the housing market data, reference the TDR report, update the historic inventory, House Bill 2 (Priority Preservation Area), and House Blli 1141 (Water Resources Element).

Discussion: There was a brief discussion with regard to a Transportation Plan for the County that would be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan and updated periodically. A Transportation Plan would be a valuable tool when new developments are being discussed. No action is necessary at this time. The update of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan will be discussed further during an upcoming workshop.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Priority Preservation Areas Ms. Baker began a discussion with regard to House Bill 2, recently passed by the Maryland General Assembly, and has been named "The Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006". Ms. Baker distributed a packet of information to each Commission member that included the guidelines from the State of Maryland, text that has been drafted by the Staff, and a map. The County sets priorities to effectively spend preservation funds. The ultimate goai is to preserve and protect our agriCUltural and forested lands in Washington County. Staff used the priority ranking system that currently exists within the Agricultural Preservation Program In Washington County as a basis for delineating potential Priority Preservation Areas. There are several criteria listed In the ranking system such as: the types of soil, how close they are to existing easements, sensitive areas, etc. Staff has evaluated the areas they believe would be the best places to focus the funding. There are currently three large areas being built by the priority ranking system: one is northeast of Clear Spring, one toward Smithsburg, and one to the southeast of the County starting around the Downsville area and extending around the Antietam Battlefield. Using all the criteria required by the guidelines and building on the areas previously listed, Staff has established areas they believe would be good target areas for priority preservation areas. The State does not require the County to participate in the program; however, if the County does not participate additional certified funds will not be available to the County. Currently, the County receives 33% of all the ag property taxes for ag preservation. There is an additionai 42% of funds available that the County can apply for if the County is "certified". In an average year, 42% is approximately $400,000. In an exceptional year, such as 2006, 42% is approximately $1 million. This issue will be discussed further during the Planning Commission's Workshop meeting on February 18, 2008. A public hearing will be heid in April with regard to this issue. 114

UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Planning Commission Workshop, Monday, February 18, 2008, 1:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown 2. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, March 3, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ecker made a motion to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted,

Ge~~s:Chairman-'-----(j U' 115

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - February 18,2008

The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, Conference Room #1, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Planning Commission members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Clint Wiley, Terry Reiber, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members present from the Planning Department were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, Senior Planner Jill Baker, Planner Chris Cochrane, Land Preservation Planner Eric Seifarth and Administrative Assistant Debra S. Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.

DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Kirk Downey of the County Attorney's office would not be present at today's meeting; therefore, the Rezoning discussion scheduled for today's meeting will be rescheduled during the Planning Commission's regular meeting in March. Mr. Thompson gave a brief overview of changes in procedures for rezoning hearings. The Planning Commission will hold a public meeting separate from the Board of County Commissioner's public hearing for all rezoning cases. The BOCC has voted to accept rezoning cases on a semi-annual basis with deadlines in January and July.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to semi-annual meetings and the ability to accommodate citizens that may have a need for rezoning. Mr. Thompson stated that the BOCC has the ability to waive the timing of the meetings, if necessary. The Planning Department is in the process of rezoning the urban growth area and recently completed the rural area rezoning. Therefore, the main . reason for rezoning a property would be based on mistake because the change in the neighborhood would be harder to prove based on recent zoning updates.

Mr. Anikis discussed the issue of additional information being received following the Planning Commission's public meeting since the record would still be open. He made an inquiry with regard to the additional information, and asked if the Planning Commission would have the information presented to them prior to making their recommendation to the BOCC. Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission's public meeting would be held prior to the BOCC's public hearing and therefore, its recommendation should be made based on information presented at the public meeting without rebuttal from either side.

The Planning Commission's first public meeting will be held on April 21 st for the purpose of hearing one rezoning case and a Comprehensive Plan amendment for Priority Preservation Areas.

Priority Preservation Areas

Ms. Baker began by giving a brief overview of this project. Guidelines were sent to the County from the Maryiand Department of Planning with regard to the House Bill 2 Act. Staff reviewed these guidelines along with the County's existing Agricultural Preservation goals. Staff then began looking at mapping and identifying potential priority areas. Using the County's GIS system, properties outside the urban and town growth areas were identified that were greater than 20-acres in size with an agricultural land use assessment and contained more than 50% fine agricultural soils or forested land. The County has approximately 105,000-acres of land with these limited criteria. A reasonable and appropriate goal must be established for the amount and type of agricultural resources to be preserved. The County established a long-standing goal that was specified in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan to maintain at least 50 ,ODD-acres of land in agricultural production. According to Staff's latest estimates, the County currently has approximately 21 ,ODD-acres permanently preserved in agricultural land. According to regulations set forth in HB2, the amount of land needed to achieve the County's land preservation goals should be at least 80% of the areas delineated in a PPA. This means that Washington County needs to establish at least 37,500-acres in PPAs. This adjustment helps to factor in limitations such as funding, citizen participation, development pressures, etc. Staff identified three major areas where previous land preservation efforts have already begun to establish large blocks of permanently preserved land. They include areas northeast of Clear Spring, north of Smithsburg, and southwest of the Hagerstown Growth Area boundary in the Downsville area stretching around the Antietam Battlefield. Staff tried to include areas adjacent to existing easements and areas adjacent to agricultural districts. This plan has been presented to the Agricultural Advisory Board. The Ag Board is in consensus with the established areas with the exception of the Rural Legacy areas.

Mr. Seifarth clarified that each county establishes a Rural Legacy area that Is approved by the State. Washington County's Rurai Legacy area has been established around the Antietam Battlefield based on specific parameters. The State established criteria to determine a Rural Legacy area: development rights, agricultural value, environmental features and historic features. They also look for a block of existing preserved farm and open space lands. Ms. Baker stated there is currently 7,865-acres of land delineated as Priority Preservation areas In Rural Legacy areas. Ms. Baker discussed the draft she has prepared to address the State's guidelines in identifying Priority Preservation areas. A map has also been prepared to be included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. 116

Discussions focused on implementation of the new guidelines. Staff recommends adjusting the priority ranking system to include Priority Preservation areas. Mr. Ecker asked what the zoning designations are on the properties designated as Rural Legacy and Priority Preservation areas. Ms. Baker stated she does not have the breakdown; however, the vast majority of the properties are zoned with a 1:5 (1 dwelling unit per 5 acre) designation.

Mr. Kercheval made inquiries with regard to areas around Smithsburg's UGA and the impact of the Priority Preservation areas on the proposed TDR Plan. The area around Fort Frederick were also discussed. Copies of the proposed amendment will be presented to the municipalities.

Comments from citizens: Mr. Gerald Ditto was present at the workshop and made the following comments. He believes that depending upon the language written in the text of the amendment, being in a PPA would limit uses and therefore limit the value of easements. Mr. Ditto believes that establishing a Priority Preservation Area would discriminate against persons living in the PPA that want to sell their easements because they would get less for their easement. Mr. Seifarth expressed his opinion that if the County Commissioners do not limit the uses within the PPA, the easement values should be the same as values outside the PPA.

By consensus, the Planning Commission gave approval for Staff to move forward with the Text Amendment following review of the recommendations as discussed.

Comprehensive Plan Update

Mr. Goodrich distributed copies of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations that have not yet been accomplished and copies of all recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations that have been completed are accompanied with an explanation of how the issue was addressed. Mr. Cochrane stated that most of the goals have been completed, nearing completion or in progress. Approximately one-quarter of the goals have not been addressed in any way. Mr. Cochrane suggested that the Commission focus on the goals that have not been accomplished to determine if the goals need to be changed or removed from the Comp Plan. Mr. Goodrich noted that the goals that have been . accomplished will not be removed from the Comp Plan and would be identified in an appropriate manner. If there are goals that the Commission feels are no longer appropriate, they should be removed from the Comp Plan. Mr. Cochrane stated that the four main goals of the Comp Plan would not be changed.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis noted in Chapter 6 "Mineral Resources" there is a comment about establishing expansion limits for low and moderate mining. He expressed his opinion that the County needs to limit the expansion of quarries and "deep pit" mining. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Comp Plan gives priority to existing mineral extraction operations.

Mr. Anikis expressed concern with regard to Chapter 10 "Historic and Cultural Resources". He believes the County needs to accomplish more of the recommendations listed. Mr. Goodrich stated that there has been a lot of progress when you consider this chapter had many more goals than others.

Mr. Anikis believes that transportation issues need to be addressed. Mr. Goodrich noted there are 29 individual road projects listed in Chapter 5 of the Comp Plan. More than 20 projects including the Widening of Interstates 70 and 81 are currently in planning stages. Mr. Goodrich noted than many of these projects are not under the County's control and are not land use related. Ms. Baker believes that the County could focus on and encourage more pedestrian and transit related communities using appropriate language in the Comp Plan. Mixed use development that includes retail, commercial and business type uses within communities is becoming more popular. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the County should emphasize this type of development.

OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kercheval began a brief discussion with regard to the UGA comprehensive rezoning and economic development areas. He believes there is a lot of retail uses locating in the County because it is an "easy way to make a quick profit". He expressed his concern that if retail uses are not limited, the prime areas around the interstates interchanges could be developed with retail uses. Mr. Kercheval believes that office space should also be considered for areas around the interstate. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Comp Plan guides the County in addressing these types of issues. The Comp Plan directs Staff to re­ evaluate the Highway Interchange 1 district to make it a more highway oriented use zone and to focus the interchanges on particular uses. The Comp Pian also recommends re-evaluation of the Business Local district where a lot of retaii uses are located. Staff will also review the aRT (Office Research Technology) zone. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern in the management of growth and the economic expansion by rezoning. He also expressed his concern for small professional type businesses and their needs being interfaced with a typical business neighborhood. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to annexations and the BOCC's express approval process. He believes that the County needs to be flexible to accommodate and encourage the expansion of economic growth.

ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m. Respectfully subrnitted, Q~£~C' GeorgIlAnik@, Chairman 117 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - March 3, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its reguiar meeting on Monday, February 4, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Pianning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa A. Kelly, Planners Chris Cochrane and Sara Edelman, Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard, and Kirk Downey, County Attorney.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS - AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICATIONS Ms. Edelman presented for review and approval six applications for establishment of property in the 10­ year Agricultural Land Preservation District. The applications were recently approved by the Washington County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board. All properties being considered are located outside of the adopted Urban Growth Area for Washington County. Following is a list of the applicants:

• Myron and Janet Martin - Application #AD-07-002; Yarrowsburg Road; 108.49 acres; Zoned: EC - Environmental Conservation • Windy Willow Farm, Inc. - Application #AD-07-005; 12263 Saint Paul Road, Clear Spring; 144.41-acres; Zoned: A(R) - Agricultural Rural • Jay Richard Miller - Application #AD-07-006; 26606 Shaffer Road, Sharpsburg; 178.23 acres; Zoned: A(R) - Agricultural Rural • Kenneth Thomas - Application #AD-07-007; 19765 Lappans Road, Boonsboro; 130.93-acres; Zoned: A(R) - Agricultural Rural • Kenneth Thomas - Application #AD-07-008; 19523 Mill Point Road, Boonsboro; 80.01-acres; Zoned: A(R) - Agricultural Rural • Jacob Horst - Application #AD-08-002; Lehman's Mill Road; 132.5-acres; Zoned: A(R)­ Agricultural Rural

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the applications for the Agricultural Land Preservation District as presented based on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

- SUBDIVISIONS Bryan Kenworthy, Lot 1 (S-07-135) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary/Final plat for Bryan Kenworthy, Lot 1. The property is located along the eastern side of Robinwood Drive adjacent to the Hagerstown Elks Lodge and is zoned A - Agriculture. The lot is 3.89-acres in size and was originally part of the Elks Lodge tract. There are 14-acres of land remaining on the Elks property. The developer is proposing a commercial lot for the establishment of a funeral home. On January 16, 2008, a special exception was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a funeral home in an Agricultural district. Access to the site will be from a 40-foot shared access easement that includes the existing entrance to the Elks Lodge. Direct access from Robinwood Drive to the site was denied by the County Engineering Department due to the lack of access spacing from the existing intersection with Medical Campus Road. Public water and a private septic system will serve the site. Fifty (50) foot setbacks will be held along the entire property line per requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A site plan must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and will be presented to the Planning Commission prior to final approval for the commercial use. The plat meets the requirements of the "express procedure" as outlined in the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The payment-in-Iieu fee of $3,397.68 will be paid by the developer. All agency approvals have been received.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kercheval made an Inquiry regarding the existing forest that acts as a buffer to the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated the existing forest would remain. Mr. Kercheval also made an inquiry regarding storm water management issues. Mr. Schreiber stated that the developer is proposing to convey the water to an existing storm water management facility owned by the Board of Education. Additional impervious areas will not increase the storage amount necessary. The developer may need to direct the water to the far side of Robinwood Drive closer to Mt. Aetna Road before it crosses the road. There was a brief discussion regarding parking. These issues will be addressed during the site plan phase. Ms. Parrish 118

and Mr. Wiley expressed their concern with regard to screening between the commercial site and residential properties. Mr. Anikis also expressed concern with regard to screening. Mr. Schreiber stated that the site is approximately 10-feet lower than the existing grade. Therefore, only a portion of the roof should be seen from the residential properties. Mr. Anikis stated he is concerned with the glare from vehicular lights and lighting on and around the building. Mr. Reiber asked if there is space to plant additional trees rather than making a 100% payment-in-lieu. Mr. Schreiber stated that the existing trees do not qualify as forest. Mr. Anikis clarified that according to the Forest Conservation Ordinance, if the site qualifies for the "express procedure", approval is not needed from the Planning Commission. Ms. Kelly stated that buffering issues would be addressed during the site plan phase. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the proposed funeral home will have less impact on the neighborhood than many other commercial type development.

Malian and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the Preliminary/Final plat as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS Bobcat of Hagerstown (SP-08-001) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the site plan for Bobcat of Hagerstown located along the southwest side of Salem Avenue near the intersection of 1-81 and is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. The site was formerly known as the Hagerstown Tennis Club. The developer currently has his sales/service center for farm and construction equipment on the subject 17.48-acres. There is currently an existing commercial building, several sheds and outbuildings, a single-family dwelling, and tennis courts on the site. Office floor space is approximately 4,700-square feet. Bobcat currently displays equipment on the front area of the parcel. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance in November 2007 to reduce the required 75-foot buffer yard along the front property line to 10-feet. Neighbors present at the hearing had no opposition to the request and requested that no shrubbery or fencing should be placed along the east property line. There is an existing sign referencing Bobcat at the entrance to Salem Avenue and no additional signs are proposed. Lighting consists of existing pole mounted and building 'mounted lights and no additional lighting is proposed. Solid waste disposal will be handled by the existing dumpster located on the site. The hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. There are 6 employees. Parking spaces required is 16 spaces and 17 spaces are provided. The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements since the area of disturbance is less than 40,000-square feet. All agency approvals have been received. The Zoning Ordinance indicates that the Planning Commission shall determine the type of screening in the buffer yard on HI-1 zoning properties if the site is adjacent to residential development. Ms. Kelly noted that the adjacent property owner testified during the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing that she does not want any trees in the 75­ foot buffer yard.

Discussion and Comments: Members expressed their concern with regard to screening in the 75-foot buffer yard between the commercial and residential properties. The current property owner may not want the screening; however, a new property owner may want screening. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, noted that this area is predominantly zoned HI-1 and this property may be converted to a commercial site in the future. Even if it remains a residence, the new property owners would have the knowledge that the Bobcat facility exists.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Emmanuel Baptist Temple School (SP-07-025) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the site plan for the Emmanuel Baptist Temple School located along the south side of Nationai Pike near Huyetts Crossroads. The property is zoned A­ Agricuiture. A site plan was approved in 2002 for the expansion of the church sanctuary and a new gymnasium. The owner is proposing to use the existing gymnasium as a school for grades K-12 with 99 students and 3 to 5 employees. There are 348 parking spaces proposed. Classes will be held Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Lighting will consist of building and poie-mounted lights throughout the parking area. There are two existing signs at the entrance. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance in December 2007 to allow a reduction from 22.5-acres to 16.9-acres to establish a day care center and private school. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were approved for the site in 2002, which consisted of .46 acres of retention area, 1.12 acres of new plantings and 1.98 acres were mitigated by payment-in-Iieu. All agency approvals have been received with the exception of the City of Hagerstown Water Department.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Wiley.

Clarification before the vote: Mr. Reiber asked if the County has any influence with regard to State Highway Administration road and traffic issues. He believes if issues are not addressed as the church expands, their could be major traffic problems in the future. Mr. Kercheval stated that staff should express their concerns to the SHA.

Vote: Mr. Kercheval's motion passed unanimously. 119

Emmanuel Baptist Temple (SP-OS-002)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the site plan for Emmanuel Baptist Temple located along the south side of National Pike west of Huyetts Crossroads. The owner is proposing a new 26,452-square foot sanctuary. The existing sanctuary will be retained and seating will be reduced from a 400 person seating area to a 250 person seating area to be used for weddings and funerals. The proposed sanctuary will seat 1,187 people, which will include a 100 person choir. Hours for the church will be Sunday mornings and Sunday and Wednesday evenings. The church has approximately 8 employees. The church is also proposing a school and day care facility. The school will be located in the basement of the new sanctuary. The school will accommodate 99 students in grades K-12 and there will be 3-5 employees. Hours of operation for the school will be Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The day care facility will operate from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with 3 to 5 employees and will accommodate 70 children. Public water and an individual septic currently serve the site. Parking spaces required for the sanctuary is 378 spaces and 347 spaces will be provided. The church provides bus transportation for approximately 200 members using six, 60-passenger buses and 2 vans. Therefore, parking requirements are reduced by 44 spaces. The school and day care facility require 159 parking spaces which will be provided by the church parking areas. Landscaping will be provided throughout the parking areas and around the proposed sanctuary, which will include Bradford pear, Holly, boxwoods, spirea and summer sweet. Pole and building mounted lights are proposed. There are two existing signs at the church entrance and no additional signs are proposed. The Board of Zoning Appeals recently granted approval for the school and day care facility on the 16-acre site. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were approved in 2002. The 2002 site plan proposed the sanctuary, which was not built. Approvals are needed from the City of Hagerstown Water Department, the Health Department, and the State Highway Administration. The SHA is requesting a traffic analysis to determine if a left-turn lane and accel lane is warranted.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that the State Highway Administration recently requested a traffic study, which has been provided to them. The SHA expressed concern with regard to the length of accel/decel lanes and if a left-turn lane "going into the site coming from the east will be necessary. He noted that the traffic engineer has already looked at the site and has determined that no changes will be necessary. Mr. Schreiber stated that the church has installed a 12-inch water main from Huyetts to the site and a water vault. He stated that the City of Hagerstown Water Department is reviewing the fire suppression system for the site to make sure everything is sized properly.

Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that a turn-lane would be appropriate with the bus traffic and the number of seats available in the sanctuary. He believes traffic could be a concern. Mr. Ecker asked why the church did not install a sewer line when the water line was installed. Mr. Kercheval stated that sewer is not available in this area. Mr. Wiley asked that if the existing gym is converted into a school prior to the construction of the new sanctuary, would it be converted back into a gymnasium after the school is moved. A church representative stated they intend to convert the gymnasium back once the school is moved. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to parking issues and traffic. There was a brief discussion regarding parking for the buses. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the height of the proposed 70-foot steeple and if it meets with height requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Schreiber stated that steeples are exempt from height requirements. Ms. Kelly asked for clarification on the number of students proposed for the school and day care facility. Mr. Tony Taylor of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a waiver for up to 200 students at the school. The day care facility is calculated separately. Mr. Anikis asked if the septic system would accommodate the maximum number of students. Mr. Taylor stated that the Health Department has approved the septic system for the maximum number of school students (200) and the day care facility. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the secondary access should remain in place. A representative from the church stated they are trying to keep traffic away from the parsonage area where the secondary access is located. The secondary access was inadvertently not shown on the plan; however, it will remain but used only in an emergency. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern with regard to the amount of parking spaces. Mr. Lung stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 5 seats in the sanctuary. Ms. Parrish asked how many services are currently being conducted and how many services are proposed each Sunday morning. A church representative stated they currently conduct two services each Sunday morning; however, they are hoping to conduct only one service each Sunday morning after the new sanctuary is completed. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to parking for special services. A church representative stated that during a special service in December, there were many empty parking spaces in the church's lot.

Comment before the vote: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to ingress and egress on National Pike, traffic issues, and parking issues due to the size of auditorium and the schools. He encourages the State Highway Administration to review and address all traffic issues. Mr. Anikis requested that the State Highway Administration should be informed in writing about the Planning Commission's concerns with regard to traffic issues.

Mr. Kercheval requested that a clearly defined emergency route from the secondary access needs to be shown on the plans. He also ciarified that he supports the church's site pians as long as they meet the parking requirements set forth by the County; however, the church should not allow overflow parking along National Pike. 120

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals and the emergency access being shown on the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS Rezoning Procedures Mr. Thompson began a discussion regarding the new procedures for rezoning cases. The Planning Commission will begin holding Administrative public meetings prior to the formal public hearing that will be held by the Soard of County Commissioners. Witnesses will not be sworn in, the pubiic comment period will begin once a rezoning application has been received by the Planning Department and will remain open until the end of the public hearing before the SOCC. Mr. Thompson noted that all information pertaining to the rezoning request would be submitted with the application and presented to the Planning Commission prior to the public meeting. The SOCC has adopted a semi-annual schedule. Submission dates will be in January and July. Mr. Thompson introduced Mr. Kirk Downey of the County Attorney's office. Mr. Downey noted that the most significant change to the rezoning procedures is the public meeting that will be held by the Planning Commission prior to the formal quasi-judicial proceeding of the SOCC, which is required by law.

Prior to the meeting, a draft of the rezoning procedures was sent to the Planning Commission. Several items of concern were discussed. One item discussed was the amount of time that the Planning Commission should have following their public meeting to make their recommendation to the SOCC. Another concern is information that is received following the public meeting that the Planning Commission has not reviewed, but will be presented to the SOCC. Mr. Downey stated that when applying for a rezoning request, a comprehensive application and information packet would be submitted. If the application does not contain all required information, the Planning Director may reject the application. Sy requiring more information upon submittal, it should streamline the testimony and exhibits presented during the public meeting. Mr. Downey explained that the County is striving to establish a process that will adhere to established State law.

There was a brief discussion with regard to amount of time the record of the Planning Commission's meeting will be left open to receive further comments and information prior to their recommendation. Ms. Parrish stated she would still like to continue to receive copies of the minutes from the Planning Commission's public meeting and Staff Reports following those meetings. She also noted that the draft procedures do not indicate if the meetings will be recorded. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff records all Planning Commission meetings.

Mr. Kercheval requested clarification why citizens and the applicant are not being sworn in during the Planning Commission's hearing. He expressed concern that the County could be challenged if a case would go to court. Mr. Downey stated that a quasi-judicial proceeding (such as the SOCC's public hearing) is governed by law; however, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation as part of the process. He noted that the judicial system recognizes the distinction between administrative proceedings and a quasi-judicial proceeding. Mr. Thompson stated that under Article 66.S of the State of Maryland, the Planning Commission is not required to take any testimony or public input before making their recommendation.

There was a discussion with regard to Staff providing staff reports before and after the Planning Commission's public meeting. Staff explained that it is their intention to prOVide a comprehensive staff report prior to the Planning Commission's public meeting. A second staff report would not be prepared after the meeting; however, any written comments from the public received within the specified time after the public meeting would be forwarded to the Planning Commission members. Staff could address certain questions asked by the Planning Commission during the public meeting. Mr. Thompson stated this procedure is used in other jurisdictions. The original Staff Report would be forwarded with the Planning Commission's recommendation to the County Commissioners prior to their formal public hearing.

Mr. Anikis began a discussion to clarify several issues in the draft procedures. Sy consensus, the Planning Commission members agreed that there will be a ten (10) day period following the Planning Commission's public meeting for additional information to be submitted as part of the record.

Mr. Anikis requested clarification with regard to posting of the subject property. Mr. Thompson stated that staff will furnish the applicant with the appropriate signs to be posted on the rezoning site. A photo will be taken of the posted property and will be retained in the file. Mr. Anikis asked if the owner would notify the adjacent and adjoining property owners prior to their hearing. Mr. Thompson stated that currently Staff would send notification prior to the SOCC's public hearing. Mr. Anikis noted that Staff should consider sending notification prior to the Planning Commission's meeting also. He stated his opinion that it is very important to keep the public informed.

Mr. Anikis noted that the time for the applicant to present their application has been changed from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. He requested clarification for this change. Mr. Thompson stated that the change was made since most of the information should be provided prior to the public meeting. Mr. Anikis believes that the applicant should have 30 minutes to present their case. Individuals will be allowed 3 minutes to testify and a spokesman or legal counsel for a group of individuals will be allowed 10 minutes. 121

Demolition Permit #2008-00325 -19931 Toms Road Mr. Goodrich pres",nted for review and recommendation Demolition Permit #2008-00325 for property located at 19931 Toms Road. The Historic District Commission reviewed the permit during their February 6, 2008 meeting. The HOC was opposed to the demolition of the property and recommended retention, reuse and renovation of the subject property. The owner, Ms. Barbara Hubert hired a contractor to perform an analysis of the dwelling. The contractor, Mr. Tytus Martin, believes the building is not salvageable and should be demolished.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ecker asked the owner why she is choosing to demolish the dwelling. Ms. Hubert stated that the house is not salvageable, there is no functioning septic, well or heating system currently in the dwelling. She stated there are contractors that have agreed to take the salvageable materials and if possible, she plans to retain the stone foundation and construct the new house on it. She also plans to retain the bank barn and restore it. Mr. Anikis asked if she was made aware of available tax credits for restoring historic properties. Ms. Hubert stated she was made aware of the tax credits and will take advantage of those when restoring the barn.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to recommend approval of Demolition Permit #2008-00325. Seconded by Mr. Re·lber. Unanimously approved.

Comprehensive Plan Update: The Six-Year Review Mr. Cochrane began a discussion with regard to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to recommend any changes they believe are necessary to the existing recommendations found in the Comp Plan.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to a time schedule for accomplishing the recommendations in the Comp Plan. He suggested a priority ranking system. Mr. Goodrich stated that a ranking system was established with the previous Comprehensive Plan. During the last update, Staff began working immediately on the Rural Rezoning as directed by the County 'Commissioners and establishing a ranking system was not completed. The goals set by the County Commissioners for the County and the opportunity to accomplish any goal are determining factors in completing the recommendations specified in the Comprehensive Plan.

Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead, Hagerstown Regional Airport Mr. Goodrich stated that a letter was received from the Federal Aviation Administration with regard to the potential removal of buildings known as the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead located at the Hagerstown Regional Airport. The Historic District Commission reviewed the project at their February 6, 2008 meeting. The HOC is opposed to the removal of the buildings on the subject site. They believe that if security is the issue for the potential removal of the building, rehabilitation and occupation of the bUilding should be the preferred course of action.

Discussion and Comment: Mr. Anikis stated that he recently attended a meeting with Carolyn Motz, the Airport Manager, along with the Chairman of the Historic Advisory Committee (Ralph Young) and members of the Historic District Commission (Sandy Izer, Rob Bowman and Chip Stewart). He noted that the FAA has not mandated the demolition of the dwelling. Ms. Motz expressed her concern of security issues and the limited acreage available for expansion of Airport facilities. The group discussed funding for a fence and security cameras to help with security issues. Ms. Motz expressed her desire not to have the building restored to a residential use. The group suggested restoring the exterior of the building and using the interior to house a business. The group has scheduled a meeting with Brian Poffenberger of the Maryland Historic Trust to pursue funding for a fence. They are also looking for a developer to restore the outside of the building and making office space inside. The property could then be leased for office/commercial use.

Consensus: By consensus, the Planning Commission agreed to respond to the FAA referencing the recent meetings between the Airport Manager and individuals and groups interested in historic preservation and requesting a brief time period (until June 30, 2008) for the group to explore the rehabilitation of the exterior of the building and the possibility of using the interior for a commercial use.

UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, April 7, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown 2. Planning Commission Administrative Rezoning Meeting, Monday, April 21, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, Room #1,95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cj~ ~'~, George Ani(3s, Chairman 122

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - April 7, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, April 7, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker, and Ex-Oflicio James F. Kercheval. Stall members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chiel Planner Tim Lung, Senior Pianners Lisa Kelly and Misty Wagner-Grillo and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes 01 the February 18, 2008 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Ms. Parrish abstained.

Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes 01 the March 3, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

- VARIANCES Dale Hamilton. Lot 1 (SV-08-004) 'Ms. Kelly presented lor review and approval a variance Irom Section 403 01 the Subdivision Ordinance, which requires that all plats conlorm to the right-ol-way width as specilied in the County Highway Plan, lor Dale Hamilton, Lot 1. The property is located along the east side 01 San Mar Road and is zoned RV ­ Rural Village. San Mar Road is a local road, which requires a luture dedicated right-ol-way lrom center line of 25-leet. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the luture right-aI-way Irom 25-leet to 12.5-leet. The applicant indicates that the reduction would allow the septic reserve area to be moved lorward to allow the proposed dwelling to be located closer to the road and would eliminate the need lor a sewage pumping system. The Washington County Engineering Department has reviewed the variance request. They expressed their opposition to the request by providing the lollowing written comments: "1) The site is directly opposite the Greenbrier Elementary School entrance, which increases the probability of needing additional right-ol-way in the luture; 2) Any luture deveiopment greater than live lots would require the road to be widened to 18-leet plus drainage considerations which would be greatly impacted by this approval; 3) They believe the site can be developed without impacting the right-ol-way requirements considering the building size and location; 4) The existing right-ol-way is 25-leet. The proposal to dedicate 12.5-leet yields no additional right-ol-way; and 5) Placing a septic reserve this close to the roadway would only encumber the County's ability to obtain right-aI-way in the luture." The Washington County Health Department stated that the applicant is encumbered because 01 the distance required between existing septic reserve areas and the well locations 01 adjoining properties; however, Mr. Hamilton could rearrange the location 01 the proposed house on the lot.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ecker asked il the elevation 01 the house could be raised to avoid using the sewage pumping system. Mr. Hamilton stated that the location 01 the house needs to remain as shown in order to alleviate the need lor the septic pumping system. The septic reserve area needs to be extended approximately 12.5-leet, which allows lor the shortening 01 the width 01 the septic reserve area. This would allow an additional 1.5 leet in elevation and would thereby allow lor the use 01 a gravity Ilow septic system. Mr. Hamilton expressed his opinion that the County owns property on the opposite side 01 the road that could be used to widen the road, il necessary.

Mr. Anikis asked il there are setback requirements Irom the property line to the septic reserve area. Ms. Kelly stated that the reserve area must be 10-leet Irom the property line. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that a precedent should not be set to allow a waiver lrom the required right-ol-way. He believes a waiver should be requested Irom the Health Department to reduce the setbacks Irom the septic reserve area to the property line. Mr. Wiley also expressed his opinion that a precedent should not be set to allow this type 01 variance.

(Commissioner Jim Kercheval arrived at 7:22 p.m.)

Mr. Kercheval expressed his opposition to the request and believes there are other options to be considered belore the County gives up any right-ol-way lor luture use. Mr. Anikis concurred. Mr. Kercheval stated he wouid discuss the plat and septic reserve area issues with Mr. Stoner 01 the Health Department to try to resolve the issue 01 the septic reserve area setback requirements.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to deny the variance request. Seconded by Mr. Wiley.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber recommended that the Planning Commission should encourage the Health Department to consider a waiver 01 the septic reserve area setback requirements. 123

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker amended his motion to include Mr. Reiber's recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Wiiey. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Anikis recommended that Mr. Hamilton investigate the costs involved with the sewage pumping system and contact the Health Department with that information.

-SITE PLANS

Shepherd's Spring (Heifer Global Village) (SP-08-008)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the site plan for Shepherd's Spring (Heifer Global Village) located south of Taylor's Landing Road. The property is approximateiy 219-acres in size and is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. Shepherd's Spring is a church-related outdoor ministry center with existing improvements that include a swimming pool, camping village, trails and greenhouse. The proposed expansion consists of a village (which is "an educational experience designed to acquaint visitors with living conditions in other countries"). Proposed villages will represent the following countries: Guatemala, Appalachia, Mozambique, Kenya, Thailand, and ChinalTibet. There is a future site planned that would include a community center. The Heifer Village will be 4.1-acres in size. The proposed use was determined to be non-conforming and the Board of Zoning Appeals granted an expansion of the non­ conforming use on January 11, 2008. The camp will have individual wells and septic. No additional private facilities are proposed for the Heifer Village. The existing sign is located at the entrance to the camp and no new signs are proposed. The developer is proposing no lighting for this area because they want to keep the villages as natural as possible. The trash collection is provided by an existing dumpster at the maintenance building. There will be inside trash receptacles at the village structures. The hours of operation will be 24 hours/day, 7 days/week during the peak season, which runs from March through October or November. The hours of operation for the lodge office will be 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday during the peak seasons. There will be five full-time and 10 part-time employees. Parking spaces required is 23 spaces and 30 parking spaces exist with one handicapped space proposed. No fencing is proposed. The existing woods will provide the necessary landscaping. Forest Conservation . requirements will be met by establishing an easement consisting of 2.6-acres of forest. All agency approvals have been received.

Discussion and Comments: Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to water serving the village and restrooms. A representative from Shepherd's Spring stated there would be no water in the village and restrooms would consist of two self-composting toilets.

Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the lack of lighting in the village area due to safety issues.

Representatives from Shepherd's Spring provided a brief demonstration to show the type of experiences visitors to the village may be exposed to. Visitors would learn about many different cultures and how they live throughout the world. Representatives also explained there are several different programs available for visitors ranging from a 4-hour to an overnight program.

Mr. Anikis asked how an emergency situation would be handled without lighting in the villages. A representative stated a system already exists whereby the emergency vehicles and personnel are met by employees to guide them to the area where emergency services are needed.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

Redland Brick, Inc., Cushwa Plant (SP-08-007)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the site plan for Redland Brick, Inc., formerly Cushwa Brick, located along the north side of Clear Spring Road. The total parcel area is 267-acres and is currently zoned 1M - Industrial Mineral. The owner is proposing a future mining area that encompasses approximately 31 acres. Mining operations will be to obtain materials for manufacturing brick. The basic timetable for the proposed 31 acres would begin in the northern portion of the property in the next 1 to 3 years and Phase 2 (lower portion of the property) would begin in 3 to 6 years. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which are hours that are specified in the Zoning Ordinance for mining operations. The total number of employees is 150. There will be no new lighting or signage proposed. No quarrying will take place within 100-feet of Route 68, 100-feet of the exterior property line along the Conococheague Creek and will be 200-feet from all residences. Hauling from the pit and excavation in the pit shall be restricted to daylight hours and will not be conducted on Sundays, which is a requirement of the 1M zoning district. The maximum area to be mined without vegetation or forest shall be approximately 15-acres and strip overburden will be used for reclamation afterwards. All traffic movements will be on-site and will not involve the use of Route 68. There is no blasting proposed; however, if blasting does occur, the company must file a permit and plans must be submitted to meet MOE requirements. An eight-foot high security fence will be placed along the portion of the mining area adjacent to Route 68. The owner is proposing to plant 6-foot high pines along the entire length of the fence. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements due to the mining area. Redland Brick has provided all required Information to MOE. MOE has reviewed the information and has no objection to the approval because it is a continuation of a single mining operation. All agency approvals have been received. 124

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kercheval asked about the stockpiling of trees for wildlife refuge. Mr. Barry Miller, a representative from Redland Brick, stated that MDE recommended the stockpiling of trees disturbed during the mining operation to help protect wildlife. Mr. Kercheval also asked about the replanting of trees and vegetation in the reclamation area after the mining operation is completed. Mr. Miller stated that a substantial bond is posted with the State of Maryland for reclamation. After the mining operation is completed, the company will bring in topsoil and plant grasses and the trees will return naturally after a few years due to the large number of trees around the site. Approximately 30,000 trees have been planted throughout the years for buffering purposes. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with the stream buffer shown on the plat. Mr. Holmes, representative of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, stated that the stream is dry, but it is shown on the plat as a requirement of the Soil Conservation District based on the type of soils in the area.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Milton Stamper (SP-07-057)

Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Milton Stamper located along the east side of Dual Highway, south of Day Road. The property consists of approximately 0.952-acres and is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. The developer is proposing a retail and office building. Public water and sewer services would be proVided by the City of Hagerstown. Storm water management requirements would be met by the use of a bio-retention area and rain garden. Solid waste disposal would be met by use of trash containers and a private hauler. The proposed building will be approximately 8,000-square feet in size, 30-feet in height and will be used for an office, retail and medical facility. The proposed medical use is an optometrist's office and lab. The existing house and accessory use will be removed. Parking required is 22 spaces and 47 spaces will be provided. A freestanding sign 1.5-feet deep x 25-feet high and 10-feet long is proposed. The proposed lighting will be five pole­ mounted lights and 4 wall mounted lights. A photometric plan was provided, which shows 0 light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. The hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. 'to 8:00 p.m. A 25-foot buffer yard is required to the west and southwest, which will be planted with Colorado Spruce, Norway Maple and other evergreens. Additional landscaping is proposed around the bUilding. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met using the "express procedure" and the owner will make a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $1,761.20. Ms. Wagner-Grillo noted that the owner has applied for annexation into the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Steve Bockmiller of the City of Hagerstown has requested that the County continue their review of the project. He requested that the developer revise the plan to include a sidewalk and street trees. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Bockmilier stated that the City requires street trees in the right-of-way (1 tree every 40-feet). The City also requested the installation of the sidewalk in case the City applies for grants from the State Highway Administration to construct sidewalks, which are required by the SHA.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the type of trees the developer is proposing to use as a buffer. He expressed his concern with regard to how long it will take the trees to grow to make a screen. After a brief discussion, members believe the 7-foot trees will be adequate.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon the developer constructing the sidewalk and planting the street trees as requested by the City of Hagerstown. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

1. Planning Commission Public Meeting, Monday, April 21, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room 1, Hagerstown 2. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, May 5, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted, (}~LL-' GeetgeArgkis, Chairman 125

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING April 21, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held a rezoning public meeting on Monday, April 21,2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room #1, Hagerstown, Maryland.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were: George Anikis, Clint Wiley, Linda Parrish, Sam Ecker and BOCC Ex-Officio James Kercheval (arrived at 7:20 p.m.). Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael Thompson, Senior Planner Jill Baker, Planner Chris Cochrane, Eric Seifarth, Land Preservation Planner, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

RZ-08-001 - Bowman Cavetown, LLC

• Staff Presentation Ms. Baker presented a brief summation of the proposed rezoning request from Bowman Cavetown, LLC for property located at 11840 Mapleville Road. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from RR ­ Rural Residential to BL - Business Local on a parcel of land approximately .76-acres in size and is currently improved with a single-family home and attached garage. The prepared Staff Report and Recommendations were presented as part of the record for the Planning Commission's review. Ms. Baker stated that the property was previously zoned BL - Business Local in 1973 and has not been a part of a comprehensive rezoning effort by the local legislative body (Board of County Commissioners) since that time. As part of the case, the applicant must prove a change in the neighborhood or mistake in the original zoning of the subject property. The BOCC is required to make findings of fact on at least six different criteria, which include: 1) population change; 2) the availability of public facilities; 3) present and . future transportation patterns; 4) compatibility with existing and proposed development for the area; 5) the relationship of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and 6) the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Staff has evaluated the application and information provided by the applicant in this case. Ms. Baker noted that the rezoning application was received under old rezoning procedures; however, new procedures have been adopted and the request is being reviewed under the new procedures adopted in Article 27 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. Staff has provided the Planning Commission with a compiete Staff Report and Analysis prior to the public meeting. The applicant is proposing that the requested amendment should be approved based on their belief that there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning based on a general lack of information to prove that there has been a change in the neighborhood.

Ms. Baker noted that a letter from the AC&T Corporation has been received by Staff in opposition of the proposed request.

• Applicant's Presentation Ms. Krista McGowan from Miles & Stockbridge represented the applicant Bowman Cavetown, LLC. Also in attendance representing the applicant were: Mr. Don Bowman, Ms. Cindy Joiner, and Mr. Matt Donegan of the Bowman Group, Brad Reynolds of Triad Engineering, and Tracie Clabaugh of Miles and Stockbridge.

Ms. McGowan began by acknowledging that the request was submitted under old regulations and is being reviewed under new regulations. Therefore, the applicant will be submitting supplemental information within the next 10 days for the Planning Commission's review to address any discrepancies.

Mr. Reynolds presented a map showing the applicant's defined neighborhood. He stated that the subject site is located at the intersection of Maryland Routes 64 and 66. The neighborhood is being defined as approximately Yz-mile east to Crystal Falls Drive and includes part of the Smithsburg town limits at the Breichner treatment plant that was recently annexed into the Town of Smithsburg. The neighborhood limit extends to the south approximately Yz-mile to Republican Avenue, to the west approximately 1-mile and includes the Holiday Acres subdivision and shopping complex and the Beaverbrook subdivision, and to the north approximately .75-mile that includes Whispering Hills subdivision, the Cavetown Planing Mill and Fil-Tec.

Ms. McGowan continued by presenting the findings of fact required by the BOCC to approve a rezoning request. She began with the change in population. The applicant submitted limited data to show an increase in population over the past 8 years both in the Town of Smithsburg and Washington County. However, Staff's more extensive data shows a 55% increase in population in the Smithsburg election district since 1970, which is double the 27% countywide population increase during the same period of time. The appiicant believes this is a significant increase and a significant change in the neighborhood.

The second area addressed is the findings made on public facilities. Schools would not be affected by this request since it is a proposed commercial use. Ms. McGowan noted that the anticipated use of the 126

property would be a low water generator requiring approximately 1,200 gallons of water per day. Water lines are located within close proximity to the site and the City of Hagerstown has indicated there is capacity to serve this property. She also stated there is information available to indicate there is capacity available in the sewage treatment plant for the proposed use, as well as in the sewer force main which was installed in Route 64 to serve the Food Lion property. Emergency services are located approximately 1-mile from the subject property. The property is located at the intersection of two State highways and adjoins property currently owned by the applicant, which is zoned BL. However, the second parcel would be difficult to develop due to its small size, development constraints and anticipated State Highway Administration requirements. The applicant would like to combine the two properties to create a usable commercial site at this intersection. Both Routes 66 and 64 have been improved with accel/decel lanes, turning lanes, and a four-way traffic signal to accommodate increased traffic volumes and growth in the neighborhood. The applicant anticipates that they will be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study as the property develops. Since the property is located on two State highways, it will be subject to State Highway Administration access permit review as well as County review under the APFO as part of the development process.

The third factor Ms. McGowan addressed was the relationship to the County's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property has been within the designated Town Growth Area for Smithsburg since 1971. The applicant believes that commercial development of this property would be compatible with numerous goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McGowan cited the following points to support the applicant's position for rezoning the subject parcel: there is existing infrastructure on the subject property, commercial development of the property would offer an excellent opportunity for meaningful infili development and would enhance economic development opportunities for the Smithsburg community, and the other three quadrants of this intersection are currentiy zoned and used for commercial use; therefore, the applicant believes this wouid be the most practical and appropriate use for this property. She noted that a BL zoning designation on the subject property would be consistent with the 1996 Town of Smithsburg's Comprehensive Plan, which designates the subject property as neighborhood general commercial.

. The fourth factor to be considered is compatibility with existing and proposed development. After further examination of the neighborhood, the applicant has identified 40+ commercial uses. She noted there is a trend of residential uses being converted to commercial uses in the area.

The last factor to be addressed is the change in the character of the neighborhood. The legal standard for change according to Maryland case law, is that the county shouid consider all changes and pertinent facts together in totality. The applicant believes they have submitted significant evidence of change in this neighborhood. Ms. McGowan noted there have been three rezoning requests approved since 1973. The first request was the annexation of the sewage treatment plant into the Town of Smithsburg and its rezoning fromC -Conservation to GC - General Commercial in 2007. The rezoning of the Cavetown Planing Mill from RR - Residential Rural to IG - Industrial General in 1990, which made a non­ conforming industrial use conforming. The Food Lion parcel was rezoned from RR - Rural Residential to BT - Business Transition in 1988 and from BT to BL in 1990. The property has been developed as a shopping center containing a full service grocery store, bank, drug store, two restaurants, a salon and a dry cleaner. Maryland case law states, "a rezoning together with the build out of the property is the most compelling evidence of change in a neighborhood". Maryland law does not require any minimum number of rezonings in the neighborhood and does not suggest that a single rezoning would not be sufficient evidence to prove a substantial change in the neighborhood along with other factors.

Discussion: Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to traffic patterns around Paden Avenue. Ms. McGowan stated that Paden Avenue is a County road. Any traffic issues and/or improvements would be addressed during site pian review and as part of the APFO process.

Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to a letter of support from Kenneth Wivell that was to be included in the application packet. Ms. McGowan stated she would get a copy of the ietter to members of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Anikis asked what criteria was used by the applicant to define the neighborhood. Ms. McGowan stated that the neighborhood was an issue of concern during the previous rezoning application submitted approximately 1 year ago. At that time, it was beiieved that the defined neighborhood was too small. Ms. Baker stated that the previous neighborhood extended further to the east and not as far to the west. The area was more confined and constrained to the Maryland Route 64 corridor. Ms. McGowan noted that they tried to keep the subject property more in the center of the boundaries.

Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the amount of time that change has taken place that would impact the neighborhood. Ms. McGowan stated that the date of the last comprehensive rezoning of the property is to be considered, which in this case was in 1973.

Mr. Anikis asked about the applicant's statement, "the property is effectively unusable for commercial purpose". Mr. Donegan stated that the property is approximately .9-acre; however, with anticipated road improvements that would be required by the State Highway Administration, the developable portion of the land would be reduced and would be very difficult to develop a viable commercial use on the property. Mr. Anikis noted that there are several smaller properties that have commercial uses in the area.

Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the type of commerciai use is being planned for this property. Mr. Donegan stated that a convenience store is being considered. 127

Mr. Anikis asked Ms. Baker for clarification of the following statement from the Smithsburg's Comprehensive Plan that states, "holding the line on commercial strip development along Route 64, concentrating deveiopment at existing commercial cores along this route".

Ms. Parrish asked what the guidelines are for minor arterial roads such as Maryland Route 66 with regard to access spacing. Ms. Baker stated because the roadways are under the jurisdiction of the SHA, the final determination for access spacing would be their decision. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the specific differences compared to the previous rezoning application that was submitted. Ms. McGowan noted that the previous application was not denied, but withdrawn. She believes that the applicant has clearly proven a change in the character of the neighborhood, specifically the Food Lion development.

• Citizen Comments

The following citizens spoke in favor of the rezoning request: Mr. Wayne Lafferty and Mr. Glen Fishack. Mr. Fishack gave a brief summation with regard to sewer capacity issues. He noted there is currently sewer capacity available at the treatment plant and adequate water capacity for this site. Mr. Fishack believes there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Fishack and Mr. Lafferty both believe that a convenience store at this location would be an asset to the community.

The following citizens spoke in opposition of the rezoning request: Mr. David Stockman, Ms. Rhonda Schrader, Mr. Jerome Martin, Mr. George Oswald, Mr. David Wagaman, Jr., Mr. Ken Wivell, Mr. Kevin Lewis, Mr. John Yesacavage, and Ms. Jeanie Thompson. All citizens in opposition expressed their concerns with regard to the following issues: traffic (ingress and egress to the site), the Maryland Route 64 and 66 intersection is very dangerous and there have been numerous accidents at this location; the lack of water pressure in the area; sewer capacity in the future; storm drainage; the depreciation of property values, noise and lighting from the proposed commercial use; and, the negative environmental impact on the rural area. Residents believe there are enough gas stations (3) and convenience stores in . the area (such as the Smithsburg Market, Phil and Jerry's). Mr. Martin specifically addressed comments previously made by Mr. Fishack by noting that the sewer treatment plant is currently running close to its capacity. He stated there are 164 lots of record in Smithsburg that have already been granted allocation and he believes that this proposed convenience store/gas station would have a large impact on sewer capacity and water pressure issues.

• Rebuttal

Mr. Donegan began the rebuttal process by discussing a letter of objection received from the AC&T Corporation prior to the meeting. He noted that safety and traffic issues would be reviewed and resolved during the site plan process by the Maryland State Highway Administration (the authority governing the Route 64 and 66 intersection). Mr. Donegan stated that road improvements are anticipated that will reduce the developable land in size. AC&T addresses retail services consistent with the BL zoning are already available in the area. However, Mr. Donegan noted that the major provider is AC&T and he believes the citizens of Smithsburg "pay dearly for these services and they deserve better". He noted that AC&T charges more for gasoline at their Smithsburg location than at their Hopewell Road location. A statement of support was mentioned in the letter, which Mr. Donegan stated was signed by severai residents of Paden Avenue. Mr. Donegan stated that the Bowman Group wants to work with the community and "do the right thing".

Ms. McGowan reiterated the Bowman Group's willingness to work with the State Highway Administration to assure all traffic concerns and issues will be addressed during the site plan process. Other concerns such as lighting, landscaping and screening would be addressed appropriately.

CP-OB-001 - Priority Preservation Areas

• Staff Presentation

Ms. Baker presented the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments focus on changes in land use planning law passed by the Maryland General Assembly in 2006. House Bill 2, also known as the Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006, was passed in an effort to compel counties in the State of Maryland to evaluate the way they currently spend land preservation funds and to establish goals for the effective and efficient spending of said funds. According to the Act, there are two sets of requirements that must be met to establish these Priority Preservation Areas. First the Priority Preservation Area must contain productive agricultural or forest soils capable of supporting agricUltural and forest industries; 2) it must be governed by local policy that stabilizes the ag and forest land base, support local farms and farming activities, and provide time to achieve State preservation goals before the land is accessibly compromised by development; 3) be large enough to support ag and forest activity in the context of the amount of development permitted within the PPA; and, 4) be accompanied by the County's acreage goal for land to be preserved equal to at least 80% of the remaining undeveloped land in a PPA. The second set of requirements state that the Comprehensive Plan must: 1) establish appropriate goals for the types of land to be preserved in the PPAs; 2) describe the County's priority to support farming and forestry in the context of the amount of development allowed; 3) describe the way in which preservation goals will be accomplished including strategy to protect man from development through zoning, preserve the desired amount of land through permanent easements 128

and maintain a rural environment capable of supporting the kind of production intended; 4) include an evaluation of the ability of the county's zoning and other land use management tools to limit the impact of development, allow time for easement purchase, and achieve the goals of the Maryland Ag Land Preservation program before development undermines this goal; 5) identify short-comings and the ability of the county's zoning and land management tools to identify actions to correct the deficiencies; and 6) describe how the County will concentrate preservation funds and other supporting efforts to achieve the goals of the Maryland Ag Land Preservation program.

Ms. Baker noted that Staff and members of the Planning Commission reviewed the changes at their last workshop meeting. One of the prominent comments made by Planning Commission members was the issue of public comment and trying to gather public input. Staff has mailed letters along with the written amendments and corresponding maps to several government and reviewing agencies as follows: the Maryland Department of Planning, all Washington County municipalities, all Washington County libraries, the Allegany and Frederick County Planning Departments, Franklin County, PA Planning Department, Berkeley County, WV Planning Department, the Farm Bureau, the Homebuilders Association, Western Maryland Tri-County Council, Chamber of Commerce, Greater Hagerstown, Soil Conservation District, Economic Development Commission, League of Women Voters, Agricultural Advisory Board, and the Historic District Commission. The changes were also advertised in the Herald-Mail newspaper for two consecutive weeks.

Ms. Baker noted that a few responses have been received from government and reviewing agencies. She noted that a written response was received from the Economic Development Commission supporting the intent of the PPAs; however, they expressed concern with regard to the proximity of the PPAs to the Urban Growth Area in certain locations. The Antietam National Battlefield also responded to the request and expressed their support of the general concept of the amendments. The Agricultural Advisory Board is in general concurrence with the iocation of the PPAs with the exception of the Rural Legacy Areas. Several verbal responses have been received, which will be followed up by written comments from the Town of Smithsburg Planning Commission. They generally support the concept and intent of the PPAs; however, they did express concern with regard to a small area of PPAs located to the south of Cavehill 'and Old Forge Roads. The major concern is that this area is within the Maryland Route 64 corridor and they believe this is the most logical corridor for development that will eventually connect the two growth area boundaries. Comments were received very recently from the Maryland Department of Planning; however, Staff has not had time to respond to these comments. She noted that the Maryland Department of Planning believes that the revisions proposed should be amended in order to meet all requirements of HB 2. A meeting has been scheduled with their staff to continue discussions with them regarding their comments. Depending upon the outcome of the meeting between Staff and the Maryland Department of Planning, a second public hearing may be necessary if there is an excessive amount of revisions needed. Staff does not anticipate a substantive change in the content; however, clarification may be added. No public comment has been received either in support or opposition of these amendments.

Discussion: Mr. Ecker asked for a breakdown of zoning classifications and acreages that have been delineated in a priority preservation area. Ms. Baker gave the following breakdown by zoning classification, acreage and percentage: A(R) - Agricultural Rural, 25,759 acres, 64.32%; EC ­ Environmental Conservation, 8,766 acres, 21.9%; P- Preservation, 5,507 acres, 13.75%; and RB·E ­ Rural Business Existing, 11.3 acres, .03%.

Mr. Kercheval concurred with comments from the Town of Smithsburg's Planning Commission. Mr. Kercheval also made an inquiry with regard to adjustments to areas around the urban growth area. Ms. Baker stated the only adjustments that have been made are around the Town of Smithsburg. Other adjustments will be made after Staff reviews the comments and map submitted by EDC. Mr. Seifarth stated that the Ag Advisory Board believes the preservation areas should be moved away from the growth areas.

• Public Comment

Mr. Gerald Ditto of 14736 Ditto Road, Clear Spring stated that his property (approXimately 120 acres) is located within a Priority Preservation Area. He stated his opinion that three major actions by the County have affected agricultural land owners or farmers equity and/or land vaiues: 1) the APFO has effectively changed zoning on land location based on County infrastructure availability; 2) the animal husbandry ordinance, which placed additional restrictions on animal livestock operations based on the size of the facility; and, 3) the 2005 rural rezoning, which limited by nearly 70% or more the development potential of any land area. Mr. Ditto stated that the agricultural community has requested additional funding for easements and there have been discussions with regard to a TDR (Transferable Development Rights) program; none of which has materialized.

Mr. Ditto stated that the Priority Preservation Areas is a selective designation; however, individual owners have not been personally notified regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which will have perceived restrictive regulations. He stated his opinion that "these amendments may have a negative impact on appraisals with the Maryland Ag Land Preservation program. These easements are the difference between the highest and best use and the agricultural value. The fact of the matter is easement values may be higher outside the Priority Preservation Areas. There is a discrimination between the land that's in there based on a perceived additional restriction in the future by the appraiser." He also noted '1here is no requirement of any landowner in the PPA to sell an ag easement, just as there is no request for an ag landowner outside the PPA to sell an ag easement." 129

Mr. Ditto expressed his opinion that there has been a significant omission of highly productive agriculturai iand from the PPA area designation, which includes areas to the east and west of the Hagerstown UGA area as it goes north to the Mason-Dixon line and south of the Boonsboro UGA.

Mr. Ditto expressed his opinion that "the Priority Preservation Area does not benefit existing preservation programs as it is written, it does nothing for agricuitural production in the County, and it does nothing for any resident of the County. In fact, it really satisfies a State mandate." He believes that the citizens of the County have no choice but to comply with the State mandate. Mr. Ditto suggested the following proposal. "For PPA areas, for farms that apply to sell easements through the MALPF program, the additional 5 year commitment by the County be eliminated. That it would be a five-year district. By canceling the second 5-year period, you put the farm at the top of the list of the easement ranking. It now becomes a priority. In five years, to be renewed annually." He believes this would make a difference in purchasing easements in these areas and it would send a message that it is a priority.

Discussion: Mr. Seifarth noted that the State is eliminating the ag district on July 1, 2008 and the counties will have the option to allow applicants to apply directly for an easement or to institute their own ag district.

Mr. Donovan Corum of 15953 Riverbend Court spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. Mr. Corum expressed his opinion that the County should be cautious about crossing the lines of the Urban Growth Areas. Staff recognized there is 17,000-acres of land in 10-year temporary easements; however, when identifying the goal of 50,000-acres of preserved land, Staff discounted the 17,000-acres stating that 40,000-acres were still needed. Mr. Corum noted that several of the 10-year preservation areas have become permanent easement areas. He further noted that, "if you took the mean of the temporary easements or an average per year from 1983 until present, you probably come up with a safe number that can be included into that 21 ,OOO-acres for your permanently preserved, thus maybe giving you some more flexibility of reducing these areas back away from the UGA lines".

ADJOURNMENT 'Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, ~U" GeCfrge A.nikis, Chairman 130

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - May 5, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 5, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, and Sam Ecker. Ex-Ofticio James F. Kercheval was absent; however, Commissioner Terry Baker was present in Commissioner Kercheval's absence. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chiet Planners Steve Goodrich and Tim Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes ot the April 7, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS - PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Community Bank (PC-08-001) Ms. Kelly presented for review ilnd comment the Preliminary Consultation for Community Bank located along the east side of Sharpsburg Pike. The proposed bank will be located on approximately 1.03-acres of land with 2.23-acres of remaining land. The property is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. Several . agencies attended the consuitation which was held on March 18, 2008. Mr. Ray Burns of the State Highway Administration stated that the plan was good from an access management standpoint because there is no direct access to Maryland Route 65. Parking will be in front and along the sides of the proposed building with an access to the rear of the property. The proposed bank will share an access with the existing McDonald's. The SHA recommended that the shared access with McDonald's be w'ldened to 40-feet so it can be striped with a 16-foot wide inbound lane and two 12-foot wide outbound lane. Mr. John Wolford of the State Highway Administration stated there would be no traffic study required due to the small size of the site. The Washington County Engineering Department issued comments with regard to storm water management issues. Mr. Ed Norman of the City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department stated that the City is revising their Comprehensive Plan, which will be discouraging or limiting access to water facilities south of the interstate. Ms. Kelly contacted Mr. Norman prior to this evening's meeting and Mr. Norman stated that the developer has applied for an Annexation Agreement, which was approved. Ms. Kelly stated that a preliminary consultation was not needed for this site since the proposed use is allowed in the HI-1 zoning district. A site plan will be required and must comply with all zoning and subdivision regulations as outlined in the Ordinances. Forest Conservation requirements must be addressed. Ms. Kelly noted that the aesthetics of the site with regard to landscaping and signage must be considered. The site plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ecker asked if all the parcels in the immediate area owned by Mr. Bowman will use the same access. Mr. Bowman stated he believes there will be access to the traffic light across from the entrance road to Cracker Barrel. Ms. Parrish asked how the dirt bike track behind this site is accessed. Mr. Bowman stated he did not know there was a dirt bike track. Mr. Anikis asked for clarification of the City's position with regard to their 20-year growth plan, which states that no property will be annexed south of the Maryland 65/1-70 interchange. Mr. Thompson stated the latest Annexation proposal that was adopted following the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan made a provision for any property that had an agreement approved and recorded prior to the adoption of the City's Plan would be annexed into the City's growth area. Ms. Kelly noted that Mr. Norman indicated that several parcels owned by Mr. Bowman were included in the Annexation Agreement. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the intersection at Maryland Route 65 and 1-70 is one of the poorest in the County due to cross-traftic trying to go north and south. He made an inquiry with regard to the County and State requiring a back entrance along the north side of Sharpsburg Pike north of Henry K. Douglas Drive and along the other side of the road. Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission could require a back entrance to be built piece-by-piece as development occurs along the north side of Sharpsburg Pike. However, property would need to be purchased along the other side of the road for a back entrance. Mr. Thompson also stated the Planning Department can forward the Planning Commission's concerns to the State Highway Administration. Mr. Reiber concurred with Mr. Anikis's comments and also commended the State Highway Administration for recommending that the access road between McDonald's and the proposed bank should be widened. Mr. Anikls recommended that the developer plan for egress from the rear of the additional parcels in the future. Mr. Bowman stated that is part of the overall plan.

- SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLANS Williamsport Storage Bins (S-07-070) and Ivy Building (SP-07-048) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary/Final Plat for Williamsport Storage Bins and the Site Plan for the Ivy Building located along the south side of Robinwood Drive. The property is zoned 131

BT - Business Transitional. This site was the subject of a rezoning request several years ago and was previously zoned R- Residential. The developer is proposing to construct a 3-story office building on 4.1-acres. The preliminary/final plat currently shows a 2.3-acre site that will be added to a 1.7-acre site, which will enlarge the property to 4.1-acres. The proposed bUilding will be 60,000-square feet gross and 49-feet high. Access to the site will be from Robinwood Drive with an existing 8-foot driveway that services the existing storage building. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Parking required is 200 spaces and a total of 226 spaces will be provided, including 10 handicapped spaces. A proposed 25-foot high dual sided sign, which is 10-feet by 15-feet, will be pi aced at the entrance. Lighting will be pole­ mounted and building-mounted. Lighting was a concern due to the close proximity of residences; however, a photometric plan showed a very low spillover due to the type of lights being proposed and their position throughout the parking areas. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Deliveries will consist of two trucks per day. Solid waste will be stored in an enclosed dumpster located at the rear of the site. Landscaping is located throughout the site with White Ash, Spruce, Juniper, shrubs, and ground cover of ivy and ornamentai grasses. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by using the payment-in-lieu in the amount of $4,443.12. Health Department approval is outstanding. All other agency approvals have been received.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry with regard to traffic patterns on Robinwood Drive. Mr. Thompson stated that preliminary plans to reconstruct Robinwood Drive would limit access of full movements across Robinwood Drive. Mr. Wiley expressed his concern regarding sufficient bUffering from noise and light pollution between this site and the residences in close proximity. Mr. Mike Hicks of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated there is a difference in elevation between the site and residences and landscaping is proposed to shield the residences from vehicuiar lights. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to property values and the privacy of the residents in the Brightwood Acres subdivision. He would iike the consultant to provide Staff with a calculation of the percentage of the building that will be seen from the residences so appropriate screening is provided. Mr. Snook, developer, stated that a solid vinyl fence is being considered to prevent pedestrian traffic between the residences and the office building.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the Preliminary/Final plat and Site Plan contingent upon approval by the Health Department. Seconded by Ms. Parrish.

Discussion before the vote: Mr. Reiber asked how the Planning Commission can be assured that the screening has been accomplished. Mr. Thompson recommended that the Planning Commission make those contingencies part of their approval. Mr. Reiber recommended that Staff work with the developer to insure that appropriate buffering is provided.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to amend his previous motion to grant Staff the authority to approve appropriate screening on the site. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the payment-in-lieu in the amount of $4,443.12 to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.

Sleep Inn & Suites (PSP-08-001) Mr. Lung (on behalf of Misty Wagner-Grillo) presented for review and approval the Site Plan/Subdivision plat for Sleep Inn & Suites located south of Clear Spring on the east side of Houck Avenue. The developer is proposing a three-story hotel (49,OOO-square feet) with 79 rooms on 3.23-acres. The property is currently zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. The property is currently described in numerous parcels including 3 parcels that contain existing dwellings. The subdivision plat combines several of the parcels on the proposed hotel site to make it all one property. Some adjustment of property lines in the vicinity of the existing dwellings is required to accommodate a widened or relocated right-of­ way for Houck Avenue. Houck Avenue is a public street owned and maintained by the County. Significant improvements will be made to Houck Avenue as part of this development. A property swap was also necessary between the County Commissioners and the developer to adjust the road alignment near the intersection. The corporate boundary for the town of Clear Spring runs through the north side of this property. The Town is not opposed to the development. The Town of Clear Spring provides public water and sewer to the site. Storm water management will be handled through an on-site retention pond on the south side of property. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to increase the size and height of the proposed sign. The Zoning Ordinance allows a 300-square foot maximum area for signs and height restriction of 35-feet. The variance will allow the sign to be increased to 632-square feet at a height of 150-feet. Parking required is 79 spaces and 119 spaces are provided. Exterior lighting will be provided by pole-mounted and bUilding-mounted lights. A photometric plan was submitted and shows zero light trespass on adjoining properties. The Zoning Ordinance requires additional buffering between residential properties and commercial/retail properties. A Twenty-five foot buffer with vegetative screening is required in the HI-1 zoning district. This requirement has been met on the rear of the property. Located on the south side of the property is the storm water management pond, which is approximately 125-feet from the actual edge of the parking lot to the property line, which exceeds the minimum requirement for the buffer yard. However, there is no screening proposed in this area. Mr. Lung recommended that the developer should install a 4-foot to 6-foot fence (more appealing than a chain link fence) in this area. Mr. Lung noted that when there are residences across the street from a commercial use, a 25-foot buffer is required; however, the Planning Commission may waive the required buffer. The developer is proposing to plant Holly along the west side of the property. Staff has no objection to the Planning Commission granting a waiver on this property due to the following reasons: the 132

adjacent properties are owned by the developer and are currently zoned HI-1 (Staff does not believe these properties will be used as residences much longer); in the interim, the Holly trees will be adequate to provide screening from vehicular glare. Additional landscaping is proposed throughout the site. An enclosed dumpster located at the rear of the parking lot will provide solid waste disposal. The site is eligible to use the "express procedure" to meet Forest Conservation requirements since there will be less than 40,000-square feet of disturbed area. Therefore, the developer will meet Forest Conservation requirements using the payment-in-lieu. All agency approvals have been received. The State Highway Administration has granted a conditional approval. State representatives stated, "the SHA concurs with the proposed site plan and has no objection to the inclusion of the proposed Sleep Inn & Suites on the Planning Commission's agenda provided that the applicant receives the required access from the State Highway Administration prior to Washington County's issuance of required building permits". Mr. Lung noted that the SHA is in the process of formulating comments with regard to comments they received from the developer's consultant regarding the sight distance plan and profile and traffic information. The County Engineering Department will approve the plan after the SHA's approval is received.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry with regard to the major concerns of the State Highway Administration. Mr. Thompson stated the SHA has concerns with hydraulics, drainage, adequate sight distance with respect to the ramp for 1-70, etc. Several issues have been resolved and another point-by-point response has been submitted by the developer to the SHA. Ms. Parrish expressed concern with regard to emergency vehicles maneuvering around the site. Mr. Lung stated that no objections or concerns have been received from emergency services. Mr. Hicks of Frederick, Seibert & Associates noted that the roundabout would be a mountable median of stamped concrete. Ms. Parrish ask if there is access to the rear of the building. Mr. Hicks stated there was no way to get access to the rear of the building. There was a brief discussion with regard to the extent of fire equipment available in Clear Spring. A representative from the Town of Clear Spring, Juanita Grimm, stated that the Clear Spring fire and rescue departments have reviewed the plans and expressed no concerns or objections to the site.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the subdivision plat and site plan as presented . contingent upon approval by the State highway Administration and to grant a waiver of the buffer requirement on the west side of the property and the installation of a fence to provide screening along the south side around the storm water management area. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS Bowman Cavetown LLC (RZ-08-001) Mr. Goodrich (on behalf of Jill Baker) presented for review and recommendation the proposed rezoning of .76-acres of property located at 11840 Mapleville Road, southwest corner of Maryland Route 66 and Maryland Route 64. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from RR - Residential Rural to BL ­ Business Local. The request was heard by the Planning Commission at a public meeting held on April 21, 2008. The applicant proposed that the zoning should be changed due to a change in the character of the neighborhood. A total of 11 people spoke at the public meeting (2 in favor of the request and 9 opposed to the request). Those people speaking in favor of the request expressed their views that there is sufficient water and sewer available to serve the site and that the neighborhood could benefit from a convenience store being located at this site. Those people opposed to the request expressed their views with regard to traffic issues, the dangerous intersection, water and sewer issues, storm water management issues, the negative effect on property values, noise, lighting, negative environmental impact, and the general belief there is enough fast food/convenience stores/gas stations in the immediate vicinity. Staff presented its report and recommended denial of the application due to the lack of information initially submitted with the request. Following the public meeting, the record remained open for a period of 10 days. During the 10 day comment period, one letter in opposition to the request was received by Staff and a significant amount of additional information was received from the applicant including a traffic study, information presented at the public meeting and answers to questions that were asked during the meeting.

Mr. Goodrich reminded the Planning Commission members that most of the discussion during the public meeting was based on the proposed use of the site for a Sheetz convenient store and gas station. However, the BL zoning district allows numerous other uses. He noted there was a letter included in the Planning Commission's information packet from Sheetz that offers additional conditions if the property is rezoned. Additional landscaping is proposed along the west side of the property. The developer would limit the driveway on Paden Avenue to a right-turn only when exiting the site. The outside appearance of the building would be red brick. Cut-off lighting is proposed to eliminate spillover onto adjacent properties. The volume of the speakers on the gas islands can be adjusted. A mobile generator could be transported to the site in case of an emergency. Mr. Goodrich briefly summarized the traffic study that was included. Maryland Route 64 and Maryland Route 66 currently operate at level of service "A" , which is the best level. The SHA's traffic data indicates that Maryland Route 64 has experienced a decrease in traffic volume over the last 10 years and Maryland Route 66 has experienced a 2% increase over the last 10 years. Projected traffic from the development site added into the current levels in the neighborhood would still produce a level of service "A" or "B". All traffic studies are predicated on there being no west bound access to Route 64 from the development site. Mr. Thompson noted that the record is still open for public comment. Additional information has been posted to the County's website. Traffic issues will be addressed during the site plan review process.

Discussion and Comments: Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the property is located at a major intersection where commercial development should be placed. The Town of Smithsburg has designated 133 this area for commercial type zoning, which is contradictory to the County's zoning designation. She noted that the property adjoining this site is zoned for commercial use; therefore, the rezoning of this property would just be an extension of the adjoining property's zoning. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the request is incongruous with the intent for this intersection. She stated there are concerns with regard to traffic issues, water pressure, sewer capacity issues, and traffic on Paden Avenue that the County Commissioners need to address when making their decision whether to grant or deny the rezoning request. Ms. Parrish understands the COncerns of citizens not wanting a convenience store in their front yard and she believes there is a reasonabie expectation from those residents not to have the traffic on Paden Avenue.

Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the neighborhood has changed enough to warrant approval of the rezoning request. He expressed cOncerns for the traffic issues On Paden Avenue.

Mr. Reiber was not present at the pUblic meeting and wili abstain from voting on this case. However, he has reviewed the appiication and subsequent information and offers the following comments. Mr. Reiber believes the application warrants consideration. He expressed his opinion that the proposed use will create a better tax base and create tax revenue for future sites. He believes the convenience store would create jobs. Mr. Reiber expressed concern for the residents on Paden Avenue and believes the developer should address their issues.

Mr. Anikis expressed his cOncern for small communities threatened by commercial pressures. He expressed his concerns with regard to noise, additional traffic, dust, fumes, vibrations, etc.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners based on a change in the character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. The motion passed with Mr. Ecker, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Parrish voting "Aye". Mr. Reiber abstained.

Priority Preservation Areas Text Amendment (CP-OB-001)

Mr. Goodrich (on behalf of Jill Baker) presented for review and recommendation the proposed text amendment to Chapters 7 and 8 of the County's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate language and maps to create Priority Preservation Areas to meet the requirements of House Bill 1141 and House Bill 2 adopted by the Maryland legislature in 2006. House Bill 1141 was a requirement to add a Water Resources element in the Comprehensive Plan. House Bill 2, "The Agricultural Stewardship Act", requires that the County establish Priority Preservation areas which are used to target ag preservation funding. The PPA's must be established within the Comp Plan if the County wants to gain or keep the certified status of its Preservation program to keep additionai funding. The text amendment was presented at a pUblic meeting held On April 21, 2008 by the Planning Commission. Chapter 7 (Sensitive Areas) has been amended to state, "the requirement to address agricultural and forest lands will be discussed in Chapter 8. Chapter 8 describes the County's goals and process to designate the Priority Preservation Areas. The amendment proposal included a map and description of the procedures used to identify the preservation areas (generally outside the growth areas and priority funding areas, parcels of 20 acres or more with agricultural assessments, proximity to existing easements or 10-year districts and the soil categories. The Maryland Department of Planning met with Staff to review the text amendment and discuss ways to better clarify the intent and the effect of the amendment. Mr. Goodrich stated that there are additional gUidelines and statutes that Staff has just become aware of which also need to be addressed in the amendment. Mr. Thompson stated that the comments previously received from the Washington County Economic Development Commission and the town of Smithsburg are being reviewed and will be addressed in the amendment.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Priority Preservation Area Text Amendment as amended. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. The motion passed with Ms. Parrish, Mr. Wiley, and Mr. Ecker voting "Aye". Mr. Reiber abstained.

MINUTES

Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the Aprii 21, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimousiyapproved.

Proposed Six Year Capital Improvements Program Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed six-year Capital Improvement Program (2009-2014). He noted that approximateiy $874 million of projects have been submitted for the next six years. Spending is estimated to be $527 million during that time period. The Board of Education will receive approximately $223 million to fund major projects such as the new Eastern Primary School, Antietam Academy, East County High School, replacement for Bester Elementary and improvements to Fountain Rock Elementary. Some of the major road projects included in the CIP wouid be the Edgewood/Route 40 and Massey/Halfway intersections work, improvements to Maugans Avenue, Longmeadow Road/Marsh Pike intersection, and improvements to Robinwood Drive. Major changes to the CIP include the widening of Eastern Boulevard from Jefferson Boulevard to the YMCA, which has been moved up and split into phases. Other projects to be completed include bridges, drainage, water, sewer, solid waste, libraries and Hagerstown Community College. The Board of County Commissioners is trying to keep borrowing as low as possible and anticipate borrowing $12 million. Other issues being 134

considered are public safety, including improvements needed at the detention center and emergency housing units.

Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry with regard to the anticipated $12 million to be borrowed and the amount of anticipated revenue. Mr. Thompson stated that the $12 million is only for the 2009 fiscal year. He noted that the revenue sources portion of the CIP was not included in the packets and he will forward those to the members of the Planning Commission. Members discussed the amount of debt currently owed by the County, where the reserve funds come from, and issues regarding the construction of new schools. Members expressed their discomfort of approving the budget without further information and clarification on several issues, inclUding revenue. They suggested that the Director of Budget and Finance attend the next Planning Commission meeting in order to answer their questions and concerns. Mr. Thompson will contact the Director and make arrangements for her attendance at the June meeting. Mr. Anikis would like a prioritized project list from the various departments, such as Public Works and Board of Education, etc.

Update on the Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove Farmstead

Mr. Anikis stated that the FAA has clarified that the existing farmstead could be rehabilitated and used for Airport (commercial) use. Citizens working to preserve the farmstead have applied for grant money ($50,000) from the Maryland Historical Trust and a commitment from Preservation Maryland in the amount of $5,000 has been secured. The Maryland Historical Trust places a conditional easement on the property where grant money is used, which stipulates that the exterior of the structure must be maintained. Mr. Anikis stated that a restoration contractor has provided an estimate of $35,000 to stabilize the structure, which includes a new roof. He noted that there are no flow pipes off of the downspouts to allow the water to run away from the structure and the windows have not been properiy secured. Mr. Anikis made a recommendation to Commissioner Baker to have approximately $25,000 to $30,000 of additional funds in the upcoming fiscal budget to help stabilize the structure. He expressed his opinion that the County has let the property deteriorate by neglect and he believes there are many commercial uses that could utilize the structure.

New Board/Commission Appointments Procedures

Mr. Thompson stated that the Board of County Commissioners on April 23, 2008 adopted new procedures for appointments and re-appointments for Board and Commission members. He gave a brief summary of the new procedures.

UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, June 2, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference room 1, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted,

~/LL: George Anikis, Chairman 135

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - June 2, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 2, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baitimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryiand.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Tim Lung, Senior Pianners Misty Wagner-Grillo and Lisa Keiiy, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman George Anikis caiied the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained due to his absence at the May 5, 2008 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS Proposed Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan (2008-2014) Mr. Thompson began the discussion noting that the proposed Six-Year Capital Improvement Pian (CIP) was brought before the Commission at the May 5, 2008 meeting. As part of the approval process to adopt the CIP, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed CIP is consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan is required. At the May 5, 2008 meeting, several members of the Commission had questions with regard to the proposed CIP. Mr. Thompson then introduced Ms. Debra Murray, Director of the Budget & Finance Department. Mr. Anikis stated that the Commission members did not believe they had enough knowledge or background to approve the CIP. He expressed his concern that the Planning Commission has not been involved in the priority process for new roads and he would iike to know how the BOCC establishes their priorities. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the funding and the reality of how the $500 million budget will be met and how it will be influenced by various development sites throughout the county. Ms. Murray stated that all departments submit their projects, which are then prioritized, using a ranking system, by the CIP Committee and the BOCC. Projects are coordinated, as much as possible, with the municipalities' projects. Mr. Kercheval stated that the County Commissioners spend many hours prioritizing projects. Mr. Kercheval briefly expiained the process used by the BOCC to prioritize projects and establish the budget. The Planning Commission, in their review of the CIP, should take into consideration if the County is investing in projects inside the Urban Growth Area, which the Comprehensive Plan recommends. Planning Commission members expressed their desire to receive a more detailed report or executive summary showing major changes in years or priorities. Ms. Murray briefly explained the processes to compute the debt capacity, Excise Tax revenue, the permit growth, etc. for the next 6 years. Mr. Thompson stated that the CIP Committee reviews the Comp Plan to see what road projects, school projects, etc. are included on the Master Plan. Mr. Kercheval recommended scheduling a workshop late in the budget season and the summary sheets for the current fiscal year and the next year. Ms. Parrish suggested a summary of new projects or changes and why they are significant.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Six-Year Capital Improvements Program to the Board of County Commissioners based on consistency with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

NEW BUSINESS - FOREST CONSERVATION Joseph and Robert Edelen (S-08-045) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented a Replat and revised Forest Conservation Plan for Lots 1 and 2 for property located on Kaetzel Road in Knoxviiie. The property is zoned P- Preservation. The applicant is requesting payment-in-lieu of planting for 0.56-acres. The original plat was approved for Lots 1 and 2 in Juiy 2006. The Forest Conservation Plan submitted with the plat proposed forest retention of 3.41-acres on site to meet Forest Conservation requirements. Due to construction activity and the adjustment of the septic reserve area for Lot 2, the applicant's consultant has submitted a Replat for the revised Forest Conservation Plan. According to the replat, the applicant is proposing to retain 3.86-acres at the back of Lot 2 and make a payment-in-lieu (PIL) for 0.56-acres in the amount of $2,439.36. The 0.56-acres was cleared during construction activity of the road. The approved plan from 2006 listed procedures which were to be followed prior to beginning any construction activity, such as posting signs and calling the Planning Department for an inspection. The procedures were not foiiowed, thus a portion of the forest was cleared. Since the procedures were not followed and a portion of the retention area was cleared, the subject of non-compliance (referenced in the Forest Conservation Ordinance) must be addressed. The non-compliance fee is $.30 per square foot. The consultant has calculated 16,757-square feet of area in 136

non-compliance which would amount to $5,027.00 for the non-compliance fee. In a letter from the applicant's consultant, it is noted there is no additional area adequate for replanting.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis asked if inspections are performed to make sure that retention areas are marked properly. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that the County relies on the land owners to make sure retention areas are properly marked. Mr. Anikis noted that the Forest Conservation Ordinance states that if a person/business is found in non-compliance, they "shall be assessed" by the County, a non-compliance fee in the amount of $.30 per square foot. Ms. Parrish asked the applicant why the road was not constructed as designed and shown on the plans. Mr. Edelman, applicant, stated that his contractor advised him that road could not be constructed as shown due to "the lay of the land". Mr. Edelman also told Commission members that the contractor dug the foundation for the house in the septic reserve area. Prior to Mr. Edelman purchasing the property, he noted that the previous owner had timber harvested the site and there were several gaping areas prior to construction. Mr. Edelman also noted there are numerous areas of trees on the property; however, they are not large enough to qualify as forest. Mr. Bush, the consultant's representative, believes if the existing trees would qualify as forest, Mr. Edelman would not be required to pay the PIL. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to emergency vehicles being able to access the site. Mr. Edelman stated he has been working closely with the Boonsboro Fire and Rescue regarding their specific requirements.

Members discussed the language in the Ordinance with regard to the non-compliance fee. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to legal ramifications in the future if the regulations are not followed the same for each case. Mr. Wiley believes that each case should be reviewed on its own merits. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the County uses the policy to discourage developers from going against the policy for personal gain. He expressed his opinion that the developer did not personally gain from the clearing and this should be reflected in a lesser fine. In addition, the design of the road is better than the original plan from the perspective of emergency vehicle access.

Motion and Vole: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the payrnent-in-lieu in the amount of $2,439.36 and a $2,000.00 non-compliance fee to be paid for the forest that was cleared. Seconded by Linda . Parrish. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Ms. Parrish, and Mr. Wiley voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval voting "Nay".

- SUBDIVISIONS McC, B, LLC - Parcel A (S-08-038) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary/Final subdivision plat for property located along the east side of Western Maryland Parkway (currently the Parker Plastics site) and is zoned IG ­ Industrial General. In 2005, a simplified plat was approved by the Planning Department that showed the enlargement of a 10.5-acre parcel with an additional 20-acres shown as Parcel A. The total acreage of the site is 30.5-acres. In 2007, a .99-acre forest retention area was cleared on the Parker Plastics' site. The Planning Commission took action and requested that the .99-acres of trees be retained on the 20­ acre parcel. This retention area is shown on the preliminary/final plat now being reviewed. There is a 30­ foot easement for ingress and egress for Lot 2 from Western Maryland Parkway shown on this plat. All approvals have been received.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the Preliminary/Final plat as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS Dick McCleary (SP-08-012) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Site Plan for Parker Plastics located along the east side of Western Maryland Parkway. The property is zoned IG - Industrial General. The developer is proposing to construct a warehouse in two phases. The first phase is to be the construction of 50,000­ square feet and Phase II would be 32,000-square feet. The construction would occur on Parcel A (as previously discussed above). The site is served by public water and public sewer. The hours of operation proposed are 11 :00 p.m. Sunday through Friday, 24 hours per day. Deliveries would include two tractor trailers daily. There are currently 38 employees on the site, no additional employees are anticipated. Lighting will be building mounted. No new signs are proposed. Trash will be collected inside and taken away by a private hauler. Existing parking provided is 28 spaces and required parking after Phase I is completed is 25 parking spaces. After Phase II is completed, 43 parking spaces will be required and 71 total parking spaces are proposed. A gravel dock area will be constructed on the west side of the building and fenced gravel areas of 3-acres and 1.5-acres are proposed. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by a total easement area of 6.93-acres on the remaining lands. All approvals have been received.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan as presented and the forest easement of existing 6.93-acres of forest. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Golden Corral Buffet & Grill (SP-08-017) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Golden Corral Buffet & Grill iocated on an out-parcel at the Valley Mall along the west side of Cole Road. In September 2007, a site plan was submitted for Golden Corral Buffet & Grill; however, it was not given final approval by the Planning Department. The developer has changed the orientation of the building and has submitted a new site 137

plan. The. parcel is 2.26-acres in size and will be leased from the Valley Mall. The new proposal indicates the restaurant facing east toward Firestone rather than north toward the Bon-Ton store. The proposed building will be 11 ,661-square feet in size. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Two access points are proposed and both will connect Into travel lanes of the Valley Mail. There will be no direct access onto Cole Road. Required parking is caiculated using 1 space for every 50-square feet of customer floor space. This equates to 109 parking spaces required and 149 spaces will be provided. Lighting will be provided by pole mounted and building mounted iights. Lights will be designed not to shine any light onto the adjacent lots and street. A photometric plan has been submitted with the site plan and shows no spillover onto surrounding developed areas. Two building mounted and one free­ standing 29-foot high sign is proposed. The hours of operation will be 11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:30 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Freight and delivery will be one tractor-trailer three times per week. The projected usage is 1,000 customers per day. A screened dumpster will provide solid waste disposal.

Ms. Kelly noted that in May 1999, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a variance from the 20-foot setback from public street right-of-way requirements to off-street parking for PB (Planned Business) zoning. In 1998, the BZA granted a variance from all Valley Mall parking spaces from a depth of 20-feet down to 18-feet and for travel lane widths from 25-feet to 24-feet. The Planning Commission previously approved payment-in-lieu for all Valley Mall properties to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Landscaping will include River Birch, Sycamore, Barberry, Holly, Spirea and ornamental grasses. During the previous review in 2007, Staff and the Planning Commission expressed concern with the proposed screening between the parking lot and Cole Road. Staff recommended plantings of 3 to 4 feet in height in order to block headlights from the parking area. The current site plan proposes the use of Inkberry grass and Holly in this location. Ms. Kelly noted that ornamental grass tends to die off in the winter and questions the use of ornamental grass in this area. Approval from the Health Department is pending. All other agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Mr. Kercheval asked if the parking spaces associated with this site plan are all new spaces specifically for the restaurant. Mr. Kerns of All Land Services, consultant, stated the proposed parking is all new parking. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the enclosed dumpster to verify there would be no other trash receptacles outside the screened area. Mr. Kerns stated there would not be any other trash receptacles. Mr. Kercheval concurred with Ms. Kelly's comments regarding the screening along Cole Road. Ms. Kelly suggested that the ornamental grass be eliminated from this area and holly planted in its place. Mr. Anikis recommended that Staff work with the consuitant and the developer to address this issue. Mr. Kerns noted that the parking configuration is common to the Valley Mall area. He also noted that other businesses do not have plantings between their parking lots and the roadways.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approval from the Health Department. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Coca-Cola Parking Expansion (SP-07-0GO)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Site Plan for the Coca Cola parking expansion. The property is located along the south side of Western Maryland Parkway and is zoned IG - Industrial General. The developer is proposing to construct a 20,OOO-square foot warehouse to the rear of the property and two parking lots. Total acreage of the site is 10.8-acres. Parking required for the warehouse is 1 space per main shift employee, which equates to 110 parking spaces. Proposed truck parking is 46 spaces. Public water and sewer will serve the site. No additional signs or lighting are proposed. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 24 hours per day and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Freight and delivery will be 69 tractor-trailers per week from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 89 small vendor trucks from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Landscaping will be located throughout the parking lot and around the perimeter. The developer is proposing to retain existing forest (1.19-acres) on-site and payment-in-lieu for the additional 2.01-acres of forest in the amount of $8,755.56 to meet Forest Conservation requirements. All approvals have been received.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the payment-in-lieu of planting in the amount of $8,755.56. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Professional Office - Leitersburg Pike (SP-07-059)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Site Plan for professional offices located on the north side of Leitersburg Pike. The deveioper is proposing to construct a two-story 13,700-square foot office building with a total office space of 26,900-square feet on 3.12 acres. The property is zoned BL ­ Business Local. Public water and sewer will serve the site. One access point is proposed onto Leitersburg Pike. Parking spaces required is 90 spaces and 103 parking spaces will be provided. Sidewalks will be located along the front and rear of the building. The projected number of employees is 50. The projected hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Building mounted and pole mounted lights are proposed. One 16-foot by 18-foot sign is proposed for the front of the property and adjacent to the parking area. Trash will be placed in a screened dumpster to be located in the north corner of the rear parking area. Landscaping is proposed ali around the bUiiding, throughout the parking area, and along the side property lines. Landscaping plantings will include boxwoods, Leyland cypress, dogwood, holly, juniper, ash, white spruce and various types of ground cover. Forest 138

Conservation requirements were addressed by payment into the Forest Conservation Fund in 2001 with approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat. The total amount paid was $2,570.04. The Department of Water Quality and State Highway Administration approvals are pending. Ali other approvals have been received. Ms. Keliy noted that several comments were received from the State Highway Administration and the consultant, Frederick, Seibert & Associates, has been working ciosely with SHA representatives to address ali outstanding issues.

Discussion: Mr. Zoretich of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, stated that all revIsions have been submitted to the State Highway Administration. The SHA's main concern was a grading easement with the church, located on the adjacent property, to the west. The easement between the church and Mr. Lyles, the deveioper, has been executed.

Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the sight distance issue. Mr. Zoretich stated while sitting at the stop line, drivers must be able to see the required distance for the speed of the cars Therefore, the developer wili be cutting back the bank. Ms. Parrish expressed concern with individual requests for access onto Leitersburg Pike and additional traffic entering the roadway. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to traffic entering and exiting the subdivision across the road. Mr. Zoretich stated that SHA was concerned with cars being able to get around traffic waiting to make a turn. He stated, "we are holding that curb line along the subdivision and we're building a little extra pavement on our side so there is enough room for a car stopped there turning left and another car to go around it on the right-hand side." Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the stockpile area and how long it wili be along Leitersburg Pike. Mr. Zoretich stated it wili be there during construction and until the site is stabilized, an estimated 4 months.

Malian and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon Department of Water Quality approval and State Highway Administration approval. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Anikis called for a break at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.

- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS

Hagerstown Gateway (PC-08-002)

Mr. Lung began his presentation stating that a preliminary consultation was held on April 23, 2008 in the offices of the Washington County Planning Department. He noted that a preliminary consultation is not required for this type of development. It was the developer's request to hold the consultation to receive information from agencies regarding the proposed development. No formal action is required by the Planning Commission at the preliminary consultation stage. The Planning Commission may make comments to the developer regarding the proposed development so they may be incorporated into the official plans. A site plan must be submitted, reviewed and approved by ali applicable agencies as well as the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permits and any construction begins.

Mr. Lung presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Hagerstown Gateway located in the southeast quadrant of the 1-70 and US Route 40 interchange. The site contains approximately 146-acres and is made up of nine separate parcels. The property is located in the adopted Urban Growth Area established in the 1980's and further refined in 2002 as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan Update. According to the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Hagerstown, this property is located within the medium-range growth area for the City. The property is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1, which is a commercial zoning district designed for areas around interstate highway interchanges inside the growth area. In 1973 when zoning was adopted, approximately 2/3 of this site was zoned Highway Interchange and the other 1/3 was zoned agricultural. The original Highway Interchange zoning aliowed both commercial and high density residential development. The "HI" text called for further study and refinement of the "HI" district in the future. This occurred in the early 1990's when the County embarked on a Comprehensive Rezoning of the Highway Interchange areas and a re-write of the text of the Highway Interchange zoning district. This resulted in the HI-1 and HI-2 zoning designations. The HI-1 zoning district aliows commercial uses and the HI-2 zoning district aliow for residential and light office uses. Several public hearings were held to discuss the changes including the property in the 1-70 and US Route 40 interchange area. The first hearing was held in July 1993. After an analysis of the area, Staff recommended the southeast quadrant to be zoned HI-1 and they recommended that a 40-acre tract to the east, that was zoned Agricultural and in the Urban Growth Area, also be zoned HI-1. Also at the hearing in July 1993, Mr. Kent Oliver requested that a 20­ acre parcel that he owned be included in the HI-1 zoning because of its location. In August 1993, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that another public hearing be held to take testimony on Mr. Oliver's request to have the additional 20-acres added to the HI-1 area. The second public hearing was held in December 1993. The new HI-1 zoning was approved and adopted by the BOCC in March 1994 and included the additional areas mentioned. In 2002, the County's updated Comprehensive Plan refined the growth area boundary to be contiguous, whenever possible, to property lines. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan aiso recommended that the HI-1 and HI-2 zoning designations be eliminated and replaced with more definitive designations. The Land Use Plan adopted with the 2002 Comp Plan identifies the subject area as commercial. The Pianning Department's long­ range planning staff is currenliy working on a draft zoning ordinance text and map amendment to implement the recommendations of the 2002 Comprehensive Pian. At this time, no changes are anticipated for this area that would affect the proposed uses on this property. The property adjoining this site is owned by Mr. Oliver and was recenliy subject to a rezoning request; however, it is not part of this 139

project. Mr. Oliver's request is currently on-hold, at the applicant's request, and no action has been taken by the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed development under review will not be affected by the pending rezoning case.

Mr. Lung gave a brief description of the setting of the subject site. There is commercial development to the north of the site known as the 1-70 Auto Mall, which is made up of several car dealerships. Beaver Creek Road is south of the site, which is comprised of scattered commercial and residential development. The subject site is bounded on the southeast side by the Urban Growth Area boundary. On the other side of the boundary, the area is zoned AR - Agricultural Rural, which includes an 85-acre agricultural preservation district. Further to the southeast and north of Beaver Creek Road, there is residential development with a zoning classification of AR. The subject site is primarily undeveloped with a FEMA 100 year floodplain approximateiy 500-feet wide associated with two water sources running north/south through the west side of the property. The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) approved on this property indicates there is approximately 38-acres of trees on the site that qualifies as forest. The remainder of the site is currently being used for agricultural purposes. There are several parcels to the south of Beaver Creek Road that are part of this project that were not referenced in the approved FSD. These properties contain some existing development including one residence and farm bUildings listed on the County's Historic Site Survey. Existing development on the south side of 1-70 is served by individual wells and septic systems; however, because this property is located in the Urban Growth Area, the County's water and sewage plan identifies this site as a "planned service" area for water and sewer (W-5 and S-5).

Mr. Lung stated that the concept plan submitted for the preliminary consultation shows a complex of commercial development including a commercial strip center anchored by a department store, a second commercial strip anchored by a grocery store, a stand-alone wholesale club, a stand-alone home improvement center with a garden center, six stand-alone retail sites scattered throughout the site, a cinema, six restaurant sites, and two hotel sites. All previously mentioned uses are considered principally permitted uses in the Highway Interchange zoning. The concept plan proposes the reconfiguration of the existing intersection with US Route 40 and Auto Place and Beaver Creek Road. The developer is proposing to extend Auto Place around the perimeter of the site and a new road (Merchant Drive) would intersect with another new road (Plaza Drive), which will connect with Auto Place. Existing Beaver Creek Road between Auto Place and Merchant Drive would be abandoned. Beaver Creek Road coming from Beaver Creek would "stub-in" to Merchant Drive at the south end. Sidewalks are proposed along all streets. Parking fields are proposed in front of the retail strips and around the stand-alone sites. Landscaped green areas are proposed within the parking areas. Pyion signs are proposed along the 1-70 frontage and along the US Route 40 frontage. Public water and sewer is proposed to serve the site via a line extension from the City of Hagerstown in the vicinity of Day Road. The site is not currently contiguous to the City boundary; however, based on the City's policy, public water and sewer would be available upon approval of a pre-annexation agreement. There is a large storm water management water quality area located in the northwest corner of the site. A landscape buffer yard water quality treatment area is proposed along the southeast property line. Greenway/forest conservation plantings with stream improvements are proposed in the vicinity of the floodplain to improve water quality. Bridges are proposed to cross the floodplain both at Auto Place and Plaza Drive. One of the proposed restaurant sites appears to be half inundated by the 1DO-year floodplain. The applicant did not request a Sensitive Area Review to be performed by the Washington County Soil Conservation District in regard to stream buffers; therefore, no comments will be provided at this time with regard to the impact of this development on sensitive areas. The developer's consultant stated at the consultation that 31.42-acres out of 38-acres of existing forest is proposed for removal. The developer is proposing to mitigate for Forest Conservation requirements by on-site planting in the floodplain and stream buffer areas and by using the payment-in­ lieu of planting. A Forest Conservation Worksheet was submitted to Staff just prior to this evening's meeting; however, Staff has not completed its review of the Worksheet. Mr. Lung stated that he is not in a position to make a recommendation regarding Forest Conservation; however, he noted that the retention of existing forest is highest priority on the Forest Conservation Ordinance list and payment-in­ lieu is the lowest priority. The Planning Commission must approve the payment-in-lieu of planting. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove to the Planning Commission why forest conservation cannot be achieved on-site.

Mr. Lung began summarizing agency comments. The Washington County Engineering Department indicated that the design of the concept plan appears to meet the City of Hagerstown's street standards and must be designed to meet Washington County street standards. A Traffic Impact StUdy is required and has been submitted to the Engineering Department and the State Highway Administration. At the time of the preliminary consultation, the Engineering Department and the SHA had not completed their review of the Study. Discussions were held during the preliminary consultation with regard to the length of turning lanes on the existing and proposed roads (within the development). Storm water management water quality must be addressed close to each source according to the Maryland Design Manual. The large storm water management area should be designed as an environmental amenity. A detailed floodplain study will be required for the FEMA floodplain. The abandonment of Beaver Creek Road must be approved by the BOCC. A road adequacy evaluation for APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance) compliance will be completed following the Traffic Study findings. The Engineering Department submitted additional information to the consultant regarding the off-site roads that needed to be evaluated from an APFO standpoint to determine improvements that might be required.

The State Highway Administration acknowledged receipt of the initial Traffic Study; however, their review was not complete. Therefore, the SHA would not make any recommendations until the review is complete. The SHA expressed concern with regard to spacing issues between traffic lights on US Route 40, weaving patterns along US Route 40 at the ramps coming off of 1-70 and also at the point where the 140

four-lane road converges into a two-lane road before crossing Landis Spring Bridge. The Historic District Commission noted that the Landis Spring Bridge is listed on the Maryland Historic Sites Survey and is considered National Register eligible. Therefore, consideration must be given by the SHA regarding any road improvements that might be needed. The Plaza Drive entrance was also a concern of the SHA with regard to the Plaza Drive entrance relative to the design and sizing at Merchant Drive.

The County's Address Assignment personnel stated that Plaza Drive is not an acceptable road name and must be changed.

City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department representatives were present at the consultation. They stated they had no concern at this time with regard to allocation. The development has been working directly with the Water and Sewer Department regarding water and sewer needs. The Washington County Department of Water Quality stated they would not be responsible for the construction of the required sewage pumping station.

The Washington County Health Department pointed out problems with existing wells and septic systems in the area and recommended that those systems be connected to the public facility when it is made available to this area. Fire and Emergency Services made many technical comments with regard to the design of the buildings to comply with the appropriate fire codes, spacing of fire hydrants, etc.

The Historic District Commission (HOC) commented there are several sites located on the Washington County Historic Sites Survey in the vicinity of the proposed development, including one on the property itself. The Landis Spring Bridge is on the Maryland Historic Sites Survey and National Register eligible. The HOC is opposed to the demolition of the existing historic site and recommended re-use and adaptation similar to that of Stone House Square (another project created by Faison). They also recommended that roadway improvements be altered to eliminate the need to make changes to the bridge over Landis Spring.

Mr. Lung began summarizing his comments made during the Preliminary Consultation. The Forest Stand . Delineation approved for the concept plan did not include all property involved in this development. Mr. Lung asked questions regarding the subdivision of outparcels and the abandonment of the existing parcel lines. A subdivision plat will be required to combine all properties associated with this development. Additional subdivision plats may be required if the developer subdivides any of the outparcels for the stand-alone uses. Depending on how the subdivisions are done, Mr. Lung noted there may need to be variances approved for internal setbacks, etc. All variances must be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals and a public hearing held prior to the approval of such variances and submission of any site plans. Mr. Lung gave a brief summation of the Planning Commission's role in reviewing projects in the Highway Interchange 1 zoning district. He noted there are two areas within the Zoning Ordinance text for Highway Interchange 1. The first relates to interchange access and states, "First priority shall be given to ensuring safe and uncongested access to the interstate highways from all connecting roads. The Commission shall consider future as well as present traffic volumes. In the site plan review, the Planning Commission shall consider the iocation and spacing of egress and ingress and shall not permit them where they may interfere with traffic movement onto the approach ramp." The second, regarding architectural and landscaping design states that, "The Planning Commission shall give special attention to the visual appearance of the interchange area as seen by the motorists on the interstate highway and on the approach road. Site plan review shall consider the design and arrangement of buildings and accessory structures, the signs, and the landscaping of the interchange." In the HI-1 zoning district, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25-foot buffer yard when adjoining property zoned Residential or occupied by a residence. A 25-foot buffer will also be required along Beaver Creek Road since there is a residence in this area. Mr. Lung made an inquiry with regard to the grade difference from this site. The consultant has provided a cross-section plan showing the grade difference looking from the Kendle farm across the back of the proposed department store. The Kendle farm is higher than the proposed height of the proposed department store. With a mature tree planting along the top of the slope, the top of the building would not be seen. Mr. Lung noted that it would take some time for a tree to reach its mature height to cover the proposed building since most trees are 6 to 8-feet tall when planted. Mr. Lung stated that the County does not have specific lighting standards; however, there is language in the Zoning Ordinance indicating that lighting shall not present glare or off-site spillover. Staff will request a photometric plan to be provided and all lighting for the site should be designed for full cut-off and down directed. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic Interference around the fronts of the bUildings was discussed during the Preliminary Consultation. Mr. Lung noted that he questioned the location of the hotels next to the interstate. He believes this location would be noisy for customers. Concern was expressed by Staff with regard to work proposed in the floodplain and sensitive areas, mass grading, and removal of the existing forest cover. Staff recommends that the site be designed to fit in with the existing land forms and avoid disturbance of eXisting forest and environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Lung summarized comments from the Permit and Inspections Department. He noted that technical requirements from the Zoning Ordinance were discussed. The site must comply with the County's parking requirements, which are based on the use and size of the buildings. Parking space dimensions, handicapped parking requirements, and variances that may be required were discussed.

Discussion and Comments: • Road and Traffic Issues Mr. Reiber expressed his hope that the County and State Highway Administration will work together closely to insure that all concerns and issues regarding traffic and road improvements are addressed. 141

Mr. Kercheval made inquiries with regard to the traffic study that was performed. Mr. Chris Turnbeil from Wells & Associates, the traffic consultant, stated that approximately 12 intersections to the site, including all intersections requested by the SHA, were part of the study. Approximately 75% of the traffic going towards the interchange area comes from the north and west and 25% of the traffic comes from the south and east. The developer is focusing on constructing two lanes into the development from Plaza Drive to Merchant Drive to bring traffic to that side of the development as well as utilizing the back side of Auto Plaza. Mr. Anikis believes that traffic coming from 1-70 will take the first entrance into the shopping center and questioned why the first entrance is being constructed with two lanes and the southern entrance is being constructed with four lanes. Mr. Turnbell stated that the "spine road" is being designed as a local collector type of roadway where you are dealing with turning movements into the entrances. He stated that normally when you have a double-sided development (similar to this one) you might have a four-lane undivided roadway where the center lane is used for turning left and the outside lane is used for turning right or turning onto the roadway. He believes, in this case, an upgrade in the roadway will create a boulevard type affect to create a greenway in the middle. Capacity, in terms of the road network, has been added to create a low speed environment. Mr. Anikis asked if there would be only one left-turn iane coming south into the first entrance. Mr. Turnbell stated there would be one lane. Mr. Anikis believes that more than 75% of the traffic will be coming from 1-70 and asked about a traffic light timing signal to keep traffic from backing. up. Mr. Turnbell stated that the first entrance will be upgraded to add a second ieft-turn lane. He believes that by creating the second left-turn lane it will help to promote the use of this entrance so that 70% to 80% of the traffic will enter at the first entrance. The remaining 20% to 30% of traffic will be accommodated at the second entrance (Merchant Drive). Signals will be set up to accommodate the turns. Mr. Anikis asked if the dual turn lane would turn onto a single lane. Mr. Turnbell stated there will be two accepting lanes that go all the way to Merchant Drive. Mr. Kercheval asked if the developer's work on US Route 40 would be contingent upon SHA's comments from review of the traffic study. Mr. Turnbell stated that the developer will work closely with SHA. Mr. Kercheval questioned the County Engineering Department's request for a smaller street section than what is proposed. He expressed his opinion that the more stringent of the City's and County's standards should be used when designing this development as it will be eventually annexed into the City. Mr. Divelbiss stated that Mr. Hebb of the County Engineering Department was concerned with review procedures for roads, etc. that are not designed to the County's standards. Mr. Kercheval stated that he assumes White Hall Road and Beaver Creek Road were included in the traffic study and asked if any "feedback" has been received regarding those two roads. Mr. Divelbiss stated that APFO analysis and review would be the next step after the approval of the traffic study once trip distribution and generation rates have been agreed upon. Mr. Kercheval asked what future large development was taken into consideration in the traffic study. Mr. Turnbell stated that the County asked the developer to take into account a development north of the interchange, which has not been approved. The trip generation and distribution was confirmed with the County prior to finalizing the "scope" for the traffic study. He also noted that a percentage of growth per year was estimated in the calculations. Mr. Kercheval asked for clarification of the work proposed for the Landis Spring Bridge. Mr. Divelbiss stated that due to the anticipated volume of traffic entering the development at the first entrance, the existing width of the bridge will not need to be widened; therefore, there are currently no plans to alter the bridge. Ms. Parrish asked if the road would be widened past the bridge. Mr. Turnbell stated the developer anticipates widening the left turn lane onto Merchant Drive. There may also be accel/decel lanes required by the State Highway Administration. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with regard to peopie test driving cars from the car dealerships iocated on Auto Pi ace and drivers from out of town who do not know the roads. She suggested some type of traffic calming measures in this area. Mr. Divelbiss stated that written comments from residents on Beaver Creek Road have expressed the same concern. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with regard to only one outbound lane leaving the development. Mr. Turnbell stated the developer will be making improvements to facilitate the outbound movement. He noted there will be dual right turns when leaving the development. There will be a total of five lanes at the main entrance because there will be a lane turning left onto US Route 40. Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to changes on Beaver Creek Road. Mr. Turnbell stated that a connection will be provided. Ms. Parrish asked about traffic calming measures on Beaver Creek Road. Mr. Divelbiss stated that currently there is nothing proposed and would be within the scope of the APFO review analysis to determine the width, the horizontal/vertical, etc. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern because the road is narrow and winding. Mr. Divelbiss stated that White Hall Road and Beaver Creek Road will be reviewed during the APFO process. Mr. Thompson asked about the option of closing off Beaver Creek Road in that area so Beaver Creek Road would not be used to connect into Merchant Drive. Mr. Divelbiss stated they did not consider that option. He noted that the developer's preference would be to "minimize, if not eliminate" traffic on Beaver Creek Road. It is their intent to get as much traffic on the adequate roadway (Route 40) and off of the rural network. Ms. Parrish asked if sidewalks are proposed along the road leading to and from the hotels to facilitate pedestrian traffic. Mr. Divelbiss stated there would be sidewalks provided on both sides of all interior roads. Mr. Kercheval expressed concern with regard to making a left-hand turn onto US Route 40 and crossing traffic. Mr. Turnbell stated that the intersection was analyzed using the standard analysis tools, which showed the intersection operating at an acceptable levei of service. He noted there will be a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 40 and Merchant Drive which will provide gaps in traffic to make left­ hand turns. Mr. Zoretich stated there would also be a traffic signal at the interior intersection of Merchant Drive and Plaza Drive that would aiso help provide a gap in traffic. Mr. Anikis asked when the Planning Commission would receive a copy of the traffic study. He also asked who is paying for the two proposed traffic signals. Mr. Divelbiss stated the developer wouid be paying for the traffic signals. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that traffic lights are not usually functional prior to the opening of a development. He believes the traffic lights shouid be operational prior to opening of the development and should be a requirement for opening. Mr. Anlkis asked if a public hearing would be required prior to the closing of Beaver Creek Road. Mr. Thompson stated a public hearing would be required. Mr. Anikis asked hypothetically what wouid happen to the developer's plans if the BOCC does not approve the closure of 142

Beaver Creek Road. He suggested that the developer have a back-up plan. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that any improvements to White Hall Road and Beaver Creek Road shouid be completed prior to opening the development. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to pedestrian access to the stores and crossing traffic. He made an inquiry with regard to the location of the hotels in relationship to the restaurants. He expressed his opinion that the plan is not "pedestrian-friendly". Mr. Kercheval commented that the traffic study should be provided to the Planning Commission prior to the site plan submittal because traffic issues need to be addressed on the site plan. Mr. Zoretich noted that the traffic study for this project is ahead of a typical site plan due to the complexity of the development. Mr. Divelbiss noted that the County Engineering Department and State Highway Administration have the traffic study. Upon their approval, the traffic study will be available for the Planning Commission.

• Environmental and Forest Delineation Issues Ms. Parrish asked why a sensitive area review was not requested by the developer. Mr. Wright of Faison stated he has contacted Mr. Elmer Weibley of the Washington County Soil Conservation District to review the sensitive areas. Mr. Zoretich stated that the review was not completed prior to the preliminary consultation; however, the major sensitive areas are the stream and the floodplain, which will be enhanced. Mr. Wiley made an inquiry with regard to the restaurant that appears to be located partially in the floodplain. Mr. Wright stated that their engineers felt that was such a "short throat" between the interstate bridge and the other bridge that it could be piped and handle the water". If this process is not feasible, the restaurant would be eliminated from that area. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the floodplain area is a big component in this development and many other issues need to be addressed in regard to the floodplain (MDE C.O.E. permitting for the bridge crossings, the bridge crossings cannot be engineered until the road elevations are set and determined, and the road elevations will not be known until the plan has been set). Therefore, the developer started with the concept plan and is working backward. The developer felt it was premature to look at the floodplain issues until all factors are in place. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with road flooding in this area. Mr. Wiley made an inquiry with regard to clearing part of the site and the enhancement of water quality. Mr. Divelbiss anticipates that the Forest Conservation Plan will have a significant element of reforestation in the sensitive area/priority area (the . floodplain). Approximately 31-acres of forest will be cleared and a large majority will be replanted in the priority area. Mr. Zoretich stated that all forest on the ridgeline will be saved and additional forest will be added. The developer is proposing to plant trees within the priority area of the floodplain and making stream improvements that will help the water quality. Within the parking bays, wide grass areas will be created and "sheet-flow" water to those areas. The County Engineering Department will give the developer water quality credits because at the point source area of the parking area water will be taken off of the pavement and put into areas where it can recharge the ground water. Any higher water will go into an inlet and then to the pond. Mr. Wiley stated that neighboring property owners have expressed their concern with regard to water quality in the area. Mr. Kercheval stated, "the overall effect in the aquifer and how it recharges from this site with current storm water regulations, the impact is meant to be a neutral impact based on current regulations." He also noted that the quantity of water that runs off of the site remains the same, which is part of the storm water regulations. The amount of water that runs into the stream remains the same based on storm water management practices that are required. Mr. Zoretich commented that the storm water management pond will hold back the water, which will be released more slowly over a longer period of time. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to staff's recommendation to make the large storm water management pond an amenity on the site. Mr. Zoretich noted that the developer is considering a fountain and plantings to make the area more attractive since this is the main entrance to the site. Mr. Kercheval made asked what type of plantings will be used for the buffering along the back of the site. Mr. Zoretich stated it will be an evergreen tree probably 6 to 8 feet in height when planted. Mr. Divelbiss stated there is a significant grade change in this area so trees that are planted will automatically act as a buffer. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the easement as noted in comments from Allegheny Power. Mr. Tristle of Frederick, Seibert & Associates stated that the easement goes through the floodplain. Mr. Reiber expressed his desire for the developer to encourage a natural environment, such as fisheries, wildlife, etc., on the 31-acres of forested area.

• Water and Septic System Issues Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to the Health Department's comments concerning several small private water systems (wells) and marginal septic systems in the area. Mr. Lung noted that it would depend where the lines would be located and how far they are from the existing residences. He stated that the Health Department has specific requirements with regard to the distance from a public sewer line to a residence. Mr. Lung stated that certificates are placed on subdivision plats that must be signed by the owners stating that the lot was approved with a septic area; however, when public sewer is available, the owner must connect their home to it. Mr. Lung stated that the developer and individual property owners would be responsible for an agreement or arrangement to provide service. Mr. Wiley asked if water becomes available, would the developer be responsible to connect the neighboring residences to the water line. Mr. Divelbiss stated that there is a planned water and sewer line in Auto Place. The Health Department expressed their concern for the auto dealerships in this area (Sharrett, Honda and Kia). He noted that contact has been initiated with these businesses and they are looking at the extension of water service "positively". There is a question how the service gets extended from the City and how this will fit in with the City's annexation policy. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the other neighboring properties are outside the Urban Growth Area boundary and, therefore, outside the planned service area. The City recently made amendments to their annexation policy regarding the extension of water service outside the medium-range growth boundary (which this property is inside), which the City will review on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion that the responsibility to extend the service lines should end at their property. Mr. Anikis expressed concern with regard to water quality or water quantity 143

problems in the Fieldstone development and how the issue would be addressed. Mr. Divelbiss noted that the developer will not be '1apping into any underground aquifers", but on the positive side the developer will be extending water and sewer service to an area that is a great distance away. Mr. Anikis asked if the developer is familiar with the new total daily maximum load requirements that the State will be adopting. Mr. Thompson noted that the new requirement will be considered on these plans. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the sewer capacity needed for this development will not be in excessive of capacity management planning levels. He noted there is a new MOE policy for nutrient trading that will be used. This development will "decommission the use of an existing sewage treatment plant and transferring its nutrient level capacity from the private plant to the City's Antietam plant. Essentially, we will be bringing our own sewer capacity."

At 10:15 p.m., Mr. Anikis recommended continuation of discussions for this development at a Special Meeting on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Divelbiss announced that it is the developer's intent to hold a community meeting in a location convenient to the residents of the Beaver Creek area. Notices will be mailed to inform residents of the date, time and location of the meeting. Citizens will be given the opportunity to voice their comments and concerns.

OTHER BUSINESS

City of Hagerstown Annexation - Stamper/Dual Highway Property (AOa-03) Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation proposal for property located at 1914-1920 Dual Highway. The site is approximately .92-acres and is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1) by the County. The applicant is requesting a zoning classification of C2 (Commercial General) upon annexation into the City. The C2 district allows for commercial businesses, retail, and offices, but not regional shopping centers (i.e. "big box") development.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

City of Hagerstown Annexation - PER CCC, LLC (A08-04)

Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation proposal for property located at Lot 182, Prospect Place, Harwood Road. The site is approximately 10,000 square feet in size and is currently zoned RU (Residential Urban) by the County. The applicant is requesting a zoning classification of R1 (Residential) upon annexation into the City. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home on the lot.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

Election of Officers Mr. Thompson stated that in accordance with the Planning Commission's By-laws, officers shall be elected in June of each year and will take office at the July Planning Commission meeting.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to nominate Mr. Anikis as the Chairman and Mr. Reiber as the Vice Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted, {j~ !h-:;£," GeorgeAni~is, Chairman 144

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - June 9, 200S

The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, June 9, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. This meeting was held to continue discussions regarding the proposed Hagerstown Gateway development located at the I-70/US Route 40 interchange.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Tim Lung, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS Hagerstown Gateway (PC-OS-002) • Environmental Issues and Sensitive Areas Mr. Reiber reiterated his concerns with regard to environmental issues and sensitive areas on the site. He also expressed concern with regard to the landscaping proposed for the site and sensitivity to the existing forest and wetland areas located on the site.

• Landscaping and Architecture

Mr. Anikis began by stating, "i would like this development to be a model 21 st century shopping center. I would like this to be a true gateway into Hagerstown at 1-70 and 40." He believes that the developer has . the opportunity to "make something of this intersection". Mr. Anikis asked if there are any plans to make the development "energy efficient" by using solar power or other methods to conserve energy consumption. Mr. Wright, a Faison representative, stated that the larger "big box" tenants will have input into the design of their buildings and many of them are pursuing "green buildings". Faison will encourage environmentally friendly buildings. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the appearance of the development from the interstate. He also made an inquiry with regard to the topography from the interstate to the site. Mr. Zoretich stated that the forest currently located in the floodplain will be preserved so the two largest buildings in the development will be screened from the interstate. In other areas the interstate lies below the development and will not be seen. Mr. Anikis asked what the architecture would look like for the hotels. Mr. Wright stated they are currently contacting different hotels that have standard type architecture; however, the hotels have not been selected. Mr. Anikis believes that Hagerstown is the anchor for this County. He expressed his opinion that attractive hotels, attractive architecture, and something a little creative (to help break up the large parking areas) should be encouraged. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the landscaping along US Route 40. Mr. Wright stated that Faison would like to create an "attractive, monumental entrance" coming into the facility. He foresees dense plantings at the intersections with a monument-type sign to direct consumers into the facility. Mr. Thompson stated that the buildings will be finished on all four sides. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the lighting proposed around the development. Mr. Wright stated that Faison typically uses cut-off fixtures so there will be no spillover onto adjacent properties and roadways. Mr. Divelbiss presented a plan showing cross-sections of the site to demonstrate the view from the Fieldstone Acres development.

• Signage Mr. Kercheval asked about the location of a proposed sign for the development. Mr. Wright stated that a large sign is proposed where it would be the most visible coming from the west on Interstate 70. Mr. Kercheval asked about the State Highway Administration's requirements for signs. Mr. Zoretich stated that one pylon sign will be located along Interstate 70 and one sign along US Route 40. No large internal signs for the individual units are proposed. Mr. Divelbiss stated that given the mixture of tenants and end­ users in the project, there will be a combination of lots (approximately 10 or 11). The sign ordinance allows one sign that advertises only the business located on each lot. Therefore, a variance was requested from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a pylon sign that advertises more than one business on a lot. Mr. Thompson asked if the developer has explored the use of signs erected by the Federal Highway Administration to advertise the amenities available at the exits. Mr. Wright stated they will check into the use of these signs.

• Emergency Services Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the difference in "threads" used on hydrants between the City and County. If the property is annexed into the City, Mr. Kercheval believes the developer should be using the City's standards. Mr. Reiber stated that fire departments normally carry adapters on their fire trucks. Mr. Zoretich believes the fire department should address this issue in their comments.

• Other Issues Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern with regard to the proposed gas pumps associated with the grocery store and their location with regard to traffic. He discussed other similar sites where traffic congestion and tanker truck movements are problematic. 145

Mr. Kercheval asked if the Sheriff's Department has mentioned a substation in the development. Mr. Divelbiss stated that Sheriff Mullendore "thought that a substation in this location would help with the service area, call response time, etc.". The deveioper has offered rent-free space in the shopping center for a substation for either the Sheriff's Department or the City police (or both, if desired).

Mr. Anikis asked how the developer would work with the County Planning and Engineering Departments and the City of Hagerstown to decide which standards will be followed. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the project will be designed to County standards because that is what the reviewing agencies are using. If there are elements that can be "easiiy" incorporated, it is the developer's intent to design the plan to accommodate the more stringent (or higher level) of detail. He noted that at some point, the deveioper will apply for annexation into the City of Hagerstown. Therefore, the deveioper is trying to be sensitive to the standards that are "objective" such as closed section streets, parking requirements, etc. All contradictory elements will be designed to meet the County's standards.

Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the parking space dimensions. Mr. Divelbiss noted that the County's parking standards are more stringent; however, the developer will be requesting a variance for parking aisle widths from 25-foot to 24-foot. This dimension is the same aisle width as those used at the Valley Mall. A variance will also be requested for the parking space dimension width from a 20-foot depth to an 18-foot depth and the parking space number requirement, which are 5.5 spaces per 1,OOO-square feet of space to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of space. Mr. Divelbiss stated that there will be areas of the project and lots of the project that will not comply with parking space number requirements given the lay of the land and tenant requirements; however, the overall number of spaces will be more than adequate for the site. The requested variances, if granted, will comply with the City of Hagerstown standards.

Ms. Parrish asked if there are other elements that will be designed to City standards. Mr. Tristle stated that the sidewalks along both sides of the street would be a requirement of the City. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with pedestrian traffic in conflict with vehicular traffic.

. Mr. Thompson asked if the County Commuter has been contacted with regard to providing bus service to the development and any requirements needed to accommodate bus service. Mr. Zoretich believes this issue needs to be addressed because there were no comments regarding this issue at the preliminary consultation. Mr. Thompson suggested some type of internal transportation (such as a tram) to alleviate some of the vehicular movement within the development. Mr. Divelbiss stated that given the site constraints, redirecting traffic patterns around the front of the buildings is limited. The developer will explore traffic calming measures. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the development is not pedestrian-friendly and encouraged the developer to explore alternative traffic patterns.

Mr. Anikis asked if there would be one site plan for the entire project or several site plans for different phases of the development. Mr. Zoretich stated that one overall site plan will be submitted; however, the outparcels may not be leased right away and site plans would be submitted at a later date. Mr. Anikis asked how roadway issues would be resolved prior to the submittal of site plans. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the off-site improvement plan for roadways would be part of the initial first step, which is a subdivision plat. He noted that APFO requirements are currently being discussed with the County Engineering Department. Mr. Zoretich stated that the County Engineering Department has requested more details from the traffic engineer in some areas of roadway. This work has already begun.

Mr. Kercheval expressed concern with regard to the maintenance of the storm water management areas due to the volume, depth and steepness of the sides. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the developer provides the maintenance of these areas as part of a maintenance agreement with the Department of Public Works.

• Historic Structures

Mr. Divelbiss stated that the historic portion of the structure had several additions added to it and had been covered with vinyl siding. Mr. Anikis requested that the developer schedule a meeting with the Historic District Commission members to visit the structure to examine both the inside and the outside. Mr. Anikis then read a passage from an articie written about the Stone House Square development, another project by Faison) that stated, "sensitive to the historic stone farmhouse that remains on the grounds, which will be the home of a signature Starbucks Cafe". Mr. Anikis recommended that the developer should consider the reuse of the historic structure within this development as well. Mr. Divelbiss stated, "If it is a quality structure and something worth preserving and it's intact, I think we could look at it." There was a brief discussion with regard to tax credits.

Mr. Thompson noted that the Landis Spring Bridge is also an historic structure and asked if there wouid be any structural changes to the bridge. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the developer is not anticipating any structural provisions, alterations or changes to the bridge due to the volume of traffic coming off of Route 40 at the main entrance at Auto Place. Mr. Anikis noted there are two one-lane bridges on Beaver Creek Road that also need to be considered when making roadway improvements.

• Buffering Issues Mr. Anikis asked about bUffering between this development and the Kendle property. The Kendle property is currently in a 10-year agricultural preservation easement. The Kendle's have expressed concern with regard to development next to their property. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the County Engineering Department is requiring a right-of-way to serve as a point of access to the Kendle property. There was some question why a right-of-way is being required since the Kendle property is outside the 146

Urban Growth Area and currently preserved in a 10-year agricultural easement. Mr. Lung stated that the Engineering Department's request was to provide a "redundant access" for possible future development.

Chairman Anikis requested Staff to develop a summary of the Planning Commission's concerns and recommendations.

ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~.. itJ~- Georke Ani:!tis, Chairman

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Recommended traffic calming on Auto Place and Beaver Creek Road • Concerns regarding proposed road section designs, i.e. County vs. City standards. Recommended using the "most stringent" design standards. Recommended use of street trees. • Concern regarding the design of the Beaver Creek Road, Merchant Drive intersection and location. Difficult left turn movements. • Questions regarding when the findings from the traffic study and when the Public Works Department's recommendations for off-site improvements will be available for Planning Commission review and comment. • Concern regarding when the traffic signals will be operational and off-site road improvements will be complete. • Concerns over the design and location of major access points off of US Route 40 (number of turning lanes) and design of major access roads within the project. • Questions regarding the possible closure of a section of Beaver Creek Road, a public hearing to discuss the issue, and the decision by the BOCC. • Recommended design of roads, buildings, and parking lot arrangements that are pedestrian­ friendly. • Concerns regarding access to existing residents along Beaver Creek Road in the vicinity of the project. • Questions and concerns regarding the impact of this development on ground water recharge, water quality, water quantity, stream quality and the effect on individual water supplies (wells) in the area. • Concern regarding the appearance of the site as viewed from 1-70. Members do not want to see large expanse of parking lots and paving, rear of buildings, unattractive architecture, service entrances, loading areas, etc. • Recommended providing a higher level of architectural design of the building as viewed from all sides, including use of brick or other natural building materials for external building surface treatment. • Recommended paying careful attention to the location and design of gas pump locations within the parking areas with regard to traffic circulation, etc. • Explore the possibility of providing a substation for the Sheriff's Department • Obtain comments from the County Commuter regarding the provision of pUblic transit service to the site and appropriate accommodations for bus service. • Concerns regarding the design of storm water managements facilities and the ability to maintain them. • Recommended scheduling a tour of the house listed on the Historic Sites Surveys with the Historic District Commission to receive input on possibilities for re-use. • Questions regarding the location of access points terminating into adjoining property outside the Urban Growth Area and staff recommendations for redundant access. • Questions regarding possible required road improvements on White Hall and Beaver Creek Roads. • Concerns regarding the landscaping, buffering, and screening from adjoining and nearby properties. Recommend cut-off style, low level lighting. • Concerns regarding access and additional commercial traffic onto nearby rural roads. • Recommendations that storm water management areas be designed as amenities. 147

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - July 7, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, Juiy 7, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Tim Lung, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended.. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2008 Special Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES Ronnie Gray (SV-08-010) Mr. Lung presented, on behalf of Misty Wagner-Grillo, a variance request from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.2.A regarding compliance with the County's Highway Plan for a proposed access location. . The site is located along the east side of Harper's Ferry Road at its intersection with Nick Road. The property contains 4.6-acres and is zoned P- Preservation. The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot from the original parcel, which currently contains an existing dwelling. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance in the density requirements to allow the subdivision in the Preservation district because the original acreage of the tract was large enough to be subdivided based on the exemption lot procedures under the oid Conservation zoning. The County's Highway Plan classifies Harper's Ferry Road as a major collector highway, which requires a 300-foot minimum access separation. The proposed access for the new iot is located 65-feet from an existing driveway from the south end of the property owned by others. According to the application, the applicant's hardship is based on safety considerations. The application states, "The subject property has limited frontage on Harper's Ferry Road. Therefore the required 300' spacing cannot be achieved to both Nick Road and the existing private driveway to the south. Nick Road is inadequate making an access to it unacceptable. The location shown is the only place along the limited frontage having adequate safe sight distance". The County Engineering Department indicated that they are not opposed to the variance and the proposed access location would be the safest area along the property for access. Mr. Lung noted based on current zoning, there would be no further subdivision potential for the property unless the Board of Zoning Appeals would grant a variance.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked for the marking of limits of the 1OO-year floodplain on the upper portions of the iots. Mr. Bob Bush of Triad Engineering stated that one limit is for FEMA's flood plain boundary per their mapping. The other limit is from the GIS Hybrid Quick 2 Analysis, which is a brief analysis required by the County Engineering Department to confirm FEMA is "within reason" for their mapping. There is a portion of both the new lot and the existing lot that lies within the flood plain. Mr. Bush noted that due to steep slopes, the location of the flood plain, and the inadequacy of Nick Road makes access to Harper's Ferry Road the only viable option for this property. Mr. Kercheval recommended that as the County puts together a long-term comprehensive road plan, access onto major collector highways should be discouraged.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the variance request as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Richard Showe, Lots 9-12 (PC-08-003) Mr. Lung presented, on behalf of Misty Wagner-Grillo, a Preliminary Consultation for Richard Showe, Lots 9-12 for property located in the southeast quadrant of Hicksville Road and Spickler Road. Mr. Lung noted that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a preiiminary consultation be held for any new subdivision resulting in six or more lots since September 8, 1970. The owner is currently proposing to subdivide 4 lots; however, 8 lots were previously created since 1970. The previously created lots are shown on the vicinity map included on the concept plan along with their approval dates. The total property area is approximately 115-acres and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. Lots 1-6 were created in the 1970's and 1980's, Lot 7 and 8 were created in 2003. Two of the proposed additional lots are designated for immediate family members. The two non-family member lots would have access onto Hicksville Road via a shared drive across two panhandles. The lots designated for immediate family member lots would have access onto a road shown as an existing drive. During the preliminary consultation, it was determined that the drive would not meet the criteria for immediate family member lots in accordance with Subdivision 148

Ordinance regulations. In accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, an immediate family member subdivision with lots on a private farm lane must meet specific criteria. One requirement that must be met is the farm lane must serve the existing farmhouse on the property. The proposed subdivision does not meet this requirement. He further explained that Staff has administratively denied the request. The applicant has filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to establish the two lots with access onto a private lane that does not meet all County Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems. No comments have been received from the Board of Education with regard to school adequacy. However, due to the fact that the previous lots were created prior to January 1, 2004 when the APFO was amended to establish the criteria for a major versus a minor subdivision, the school adequacy criteria for a major subdivision would not apply. Any additional subdivisions would qualify this development as a major subdivision, which would require going through the mitigation process. A Forest Stand Delineation was prepared and indicated no eXisting forest on the site. According to the preliminary consultation summary, the applicant is proposing the use of "express procedures" to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The remaining lands are adjacent to a permanent agricultural district (the Price Farm) and a smaller temporary agricultural district (the Hose Farm). The proposed lots do not directly abut any of the agricultural easement areas.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the two lots (Lots 11 and 12) that exit onto a shared driveway and maintenance issues in the future. He also expressed concern for access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Lung stated that Lot 11 has a panhandle to the existing private drive and Lot 12 has direct access onto the private drive. He clarified that the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance would have been met for immediate family member lots if the existing private drive was actually the access for the existing farmhouse. However, the existing drive does not access the existing farmhouse and therefore, the two Immediate family member lots do not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Lung stated that language would be required on the plat to absolve the County of any responsibility for maintenance or ownership of the road. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to further development on the remaining lands and what type of road network would result in the end. He stated that he would not support approval of this plan because he believes the road network issue could be problematic in the future. He would like to see a design for future development and a proposed road network. Mr. Schreiber stated that Mr. Showe owns the property where the existing drive is located, which goes to Hicksville Road. He noted that the existing drive serves an existing VOR navigational receiver. The Federal Aviation Administration has the right to use the existing drive. Mr. Showe and the FAA jointly maintain the drive. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern that there may be maintenance problems In the future and concurs with Mr. Reiber's comments. Mr. Wiley also expressed his concern that there may be maintenance probiems in the future and he would also like to see a plan for future development of the remaining property. Mr. Lung stated that based on previous zoning, the owner would be allowed 5 exemption lots (4 are being used on this concept plan). Based on the current A(R) zoning, 20 density lots may be allowed with 1 remaining exemption lot; therefore, there is the potential for approximateiy 21 additional lots. Mr. Schreiber stated that further subdivision of the property would require another preliminary consultation. He also noted that a public street would be required for further development. Mr. Kercheval believes that planning for future development would create a more attractive development and would provide better access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Reiber asked if the maintenance agreement for the drive would be recorded in the deeds. Mr. Schreiber stated It would be in the deeds and proof would be submitted to the Planning Department, if necessary, prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. Mr. Anikis recommended a letter should be sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals stating the Planning Commission's opposition with regard to the requested variance.

Mr. Anikls asked how Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements would be met for this property. Mr. Schreiber explained that the immediate family member lots are not subject to requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance; therefore, the owner qualifies for the express procedure payment-in-lieu mitigation for the other 2 lots.

Estate of George Horn, Jr. (PC-Oa-004) Mr. Lung presented, on behalf of Lisa A. Kelly, the preliminary consultation for the Estate of George Horn, Jr. located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Breathedsville Road and Lappans Roads. The owner is proposing to subdivide six residential lots on 46-acres. The property is primarily zoned A(R) ­ Agricultural Rural; however, there is a 200-foot deep strip of property zoned RV - Rural Village along the frontage of Lappans Road. Four out of the six lots are located in the RV zoned area. One lot contains an existing dwelling (Labeled as Lot 2 on the concept plan). There is currently a subdivision plat being reviewed by the County Planning Department for this lot (labeled as Lot 1 on the subdivision plat), which contains 4.44-acres. The remaining 5 lots are proposed for new development and each contains approximately 2-acres. Lots 1-4 would access Breathedsville Road, which is classified as a local road. Lot 2, which contains the eXisting dwelling, has access onto Breathedsvllle Road, Lot 4 would have a panhandle to Breathedsville Road, Lots 1 and 3 would also have access onto Breathedsville Road, and Lots 5 and 6 would have access onto Maryland Route 68, which Is a major collector highway with 300­ foot access separation requirements. An entrance location is not shown on the concept plan for Lots 5 and 6; however, it appears that these lots meet the access separation criteria for a shared entrance. Any future subdivision for additional lots, meeting the access separation requirement may become an issue. The State Highway Administration was not present at the consultation and no written comments were received by Staff. The County Engineering Department commented that storm water management would be required and Breathedsville Road must be 16-feet wide. Individual wells and septics will serve the lots. The Washington County Health Department commented that the septic systems must be kept 100­ feet away from the 3-dot stream shown in the vicinity of Lot 1 and 25-feet from any rock outcrops. A Forest Stand Delineation was approved for the site showing approximately 25-acres of existing forest 149 primarily located on the remaining lands. A worksheet was not provided; however, the developer has stated that he intends to retain the existing forest to meet Forest Conservation requirements. Under APFO guidelines, this is considered a minor subdivision because oniy 5 of the lots would be for new development. Therefore, school mitigation is not an issue at this point in time; however, if the remaining lands are developed or there is additional subdivision of the property, APFO gUidelines for a major subdivision would apply. The developer indicated there are no plans for additional lots. Determining future development potential is difficult because the property is split between two different zoning districts. Mr. Lung explained the densities allowed in the two different zoning districts and the allowed exemption lots.

Discussion: Mr. Kercheval asked if Lots 5 and 6 and Lots 3 and 4 are sharing accesses. Mr. Townsley of Fox & Associates, stated that Lots 5 and 6 would share an access and Lots 3 and 4 would have a shared access off of Breathedsville Road. He noted there are sight distance issues along Breathedsville Road; therefore, a shared access is necessary. Mr. Sherman Horn, representing the Estate of George Horn, plans to sell the remaining lands to a developer for future use. Mr. Kerchevai asked how forestation requirements would be met on the iot. Mr. Townsley stated there is existing forest behind Lot 6 to the property line. The developer believes this would be a good place for forest retention because it would provide a buffer along Lappans Road. Ms. Parrish made an inquiry with regard to the three dot stream reported on the property. Mr. Lung stated that the three dot stream is a perennial stream. He noted that an investigation to verify that the stream meets all of the criteria of a perenniai stream has not been completed. Mr. Anikis stated that a Rural Village cannot be increased in density by more than 10%. He asked if the subdivision would meet this requirement and which lots would be included in the Rural Village zone. Mr. Lung noted there would be four lots added to the Rural Village. There was a brief discussion with regard to the boundaries of the Rural Village. Mr. Anikis asked Staff to verify this issue to insure that the development does not exceed the 10% growth. Mr. Reiber questioned the width of the shared driveway. Mr. Lung stated the developer would be required to follow State Highway Administration's standard for ingress and egress. Mr. Anikis asked if Breathedsville Road would need to be widened for future development. Mr. Townsley stated that a Road Adequacy Worksheet was prepared and it would not need to be widened.

OTHER BUSINESS City of Hagerstown Annexation (AOB-05) Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request for Private Reserve, LLC for property located off of Atlantic Drive, adjacent to Summerland Manor. The property is approximately .65-acres in size and is currently zoned by the County as RU - Residential Urban. If the property is annexed into the City of Hagerstown, it is proposed to be zoned R1 - Residential. The County's Comprehensive Plan designates this property for low density residential and the City's Comprehensive Plan proposes moderate density residential. The County Planning Staff has reviewed the application and has found the proposed City's zoning to be similar to the County's zoning. It is Staff's opinion that "express approval" is not necessary.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that "express approval" is not necessary for this request. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

Doubs Farm/Hagerstown Towne Center Annexation (PC-OB-005) Mr. Thompson began the discussion for the annexation request of approximateiy 142-acres of property into the City of Hagerstown. The property is located at the intersection of US Route 40 and 1-70. Mr. Thompson stated that the County does not have a formal role in the annexation of this property; however, there is a significant difference in the current County and the City of Hagerstown's proposed zoning. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners must grant "express approvai" to permit the proposed project to move forward at this time. If "express approval" is not granted, the project would be required to wait for a period of five years, after which it could be developed as the City deems appropriate. The applicant is requesting a C-4 (Commercial Regional Shopping Center) zoning designation upon annexation into the City of Hagerstown. The property is currently zoned primarily HI-2 - Highway Interchange 2, with a small portion of HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1) zoning along the Dual Highway. The applicant is proposing approximately 16-acres of professional office mixed use on the site, which would be consistent with the County's HI-2 zoning designation. The approximately 124-acres of proposed C-4 zoning designated property would not be consistent with the County's HI-2 zone. The applicant and the City of Hagerstown have requested the Board of County Commissioners to grant "express approval". The BOCC reviewed the proposal in March 2008 and a revised proposal was reviewed in May 2008. In an effort to respond to the City in a timely manner, the BOCC requested Staff to conduct a preliminary consultation, which was held on June 30, 2008. In addition, the BOCC is requesting additional input from the Planning Commission. The BOCC will be holding a public meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at Hagerstown Community College to receive citizen input. Upon completing their review of the project including Staff's comments, Pianning Commission comments, and citizen comments, the BOCC will make their decision to grant or deny "express approval". Several City and County agencies and the State Highway Administration were present at the preliminary consuitation. Mr. Thompson stated that based on the information submitted for this project, many of the comments are general in nature because a detailed plan has not been developed at this point in time. He also noted that the project does not have the appropriate County zoning at this time. 150

Mr. Tim Lung presented a verbal summary of the consultation. Due to time constraints, a written summary was not available at this time. Mr. Lung began his presentation using a map to show the sUbject property and surrounding zoning designations and land uses. Mr. Lung noted that all of the land involved in the project is under the control of the developer. He stated that the proposal indicates that a portion of Day Road would be abandoned. Any abandonment of a County road requires a public hearing and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lung stated that the concept plan proposes 4 major anchor stores, 5 junior anchor stores, additional retail shops, and a movie theater for a total of 875,000 square feet of space. There are also nine out-parcels for stand-alone retail pad sites totaling 45,000 square feet of space, two 120 room hotels, and three office buildings with approximately 70,000­ square feet each for a total of 210,000 square feet. The primary access will be off of US Route 40 just west of the 1-70 ramp. The existing road leading into the Hagerstown Commerce Center is proposed to be relocated further west to tie in with the new access for the shopping center. The project has been designed to meet the City of Hagerstown standards for C-4 zoning; therefore, a detailed analysis from a County zoning standpoint has not been completed. Comments have been issued on the design of the project by the City of Hagerstown, which mirrored many of the concerns expressed by the County during the preliminary consultation. Mr. Lung noted that the County reviewed the plans to determine if the property is annexed into the City, what impact would it have on the surrounding area that would stay in the County. The County staff discussed their concerns with regard to traffic, storm water management, bUffering, lighting, and noise, etc. Representatives from the State Highway Administration and the County Engineering Department were present at the consultation. A traffic study was prepared and submitted to both agencies in the spring. Based on scoping requirements from the SHA, the traffic study included only intersections along US Route 40. During the consultation, the County Engineering Department requested a broader scope of review to assess traffic impact and indicated the specific intersections and areas to be evaluated prior to making any recommendations for off-site improvements that would be required. Mr. Lung stated that written comments were received from the Town of Funkstown Planning Commission with regard to the impact of traffic in Funkstown. Mr. Joe Kroboth, Director of Public Works, was present at the consultation and indicated that the traffic study should incorporate review of the impact this development would have on traffic going through Funkstown. Traffic concerns were also discussed with the development's impact on Landis Road. The concept plan shows a .mini-round-about located on Landis Road. Fire and Rescue agencies are opposed to the mini round­ about, which makes it difficult for emergency vehicles to maneuver. Comments from the City and County agencies and Fire and Rescue agencies recommended a second major access point. An internal private road access to the office complex area is not acceptable. Agency comments during the consultation focused on the relocation of Landis Road to intersect with a public street extended through the development. Staff from both the City and County are opposed to the location of the gas station pumps proposed at the entrance to the development. A frontage road for access to all of the out-parcels located along the main access road was recommended. Comments focused on the appearance of the site from the interstate and included comments about dumpsters, service entrances, the appearance of the backs of the buildings, sign age on the back of the buildings, etc. Recommendations were made to use the storm water management pond as an amenity at the entrance to the development. Concerns were voiced with regard to traffic movements and pedestrian access in front of the stores. The City recommended moving the large anchor stores closer to the center of the development. Setback requirements were discussed for the City's C-4 zoning classification. Two of the proposed large anchor stores adjacent to the existing condominiums do not meet the setback requirement. Provisions for bUffering using berms, fencing and vegetation along all residential areas were discussed. The City of Hagerstown's Annexation Agreement requires 40-feet of buffering along Landis Road. The City Planning Department recommends a 50-foot buffer planted with evergreens. The proposed bUilding setback requirement of 25-feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The developer is proposing a 40-foot building setback and the City Planning Department is recommending a 50-foot building setback. The parking lot landscape buffer requirement is 10-feet and the proposed buffer is 40-feet. The City Planning Department is recommending a 50-foot landscape buffer. The County Planning Department recommended low-level down-directed, full cut-off lighting. Mr. Lung stated that some stores use up-lighting to highlight the sides of their stores which causes a shaft of light to create a halo effect above the site. Staff discourages the use of this type of lighting. Forest Conservation requirements are proposed to be addressed within the floodplain and stream buffer areas on-site. Question: Mr. Anikis asked if a bridge would be required over the flood plain area. Mr. Lung stated criteria to span a flood plain area would be required. Mr. Lung also noted that the County Engineering Department would require a detailed flood plain analysis to clearly define the width of the flood plain. FEMA Amendments may also be necessary. The County Engineering Department expressed concern with regard to backflow from storm water management on the other side of Landis Road. Provisions for two public transportation (bus) stops were recommended during the consultation. Large unbroken expanses of parking areas was a concern by both City and County staff. A Forest Stand Delineation was prepared for the site which showed no existing forest. The developer intends to address Forest Conservation requirements by planting in the floodplain area. The City of Hagerstown allows street trees to qualify towards Forest Conservation requirements. The County's Historic District Commission reviewed the plan at their July 2, 2008 meeting. Old records of a potential cemetery dating to the 181h century on the site were discussed during the meeting. Mr. Lung noted that an environmental study was completed on this property by the consultant, which did not show the cemetery. However, he stressed that the issue should be further investigated. Public water and sewer would be provided to the site by the City of Hagerstown. The sewer must comply with the City's Sewer Capacity Allocation Program (SCAP). Water lines should be evaluated in the area to insure adequate flow of water for fire protection. Mr. Lung stated there is an existing pumping station located at the Four Points Hotel. The City indicated that the pumping station must be upgraded and moved to property located on Hebb Road. Concern was expressed with regard to noise from the back of the buildings due to loading and unloading of trucks. 151

Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked if there were discussions regarding the need for public safety services within the complex. Mr. Lung stated that Sheriff Muilendore was present at the consuitation and did not indicate the need for a substation. The Sheriff was concerned with access to the development. Once annexed, the area would be under the jurisdiction of the Hagerstown Police Department. Mr. Lung stated that comments were received from the County's Division of Fire and Rescue and the City of Hagerstown Fire Department. Neither agency requested a fire station; however, they did express concern with regard to access and the proposed mini round-about. Planning Commission members expressed their concern with regard to access to the proposed outparcels, bUffering between the proposed shopping complex and existing residentiai units, buffering between the theater and residential area of Landis Road, buffering between the shopping compiex and the interstate, and County off-site road improvements. They aiso expressed their opinion that the development should be made more pedestrian friendly and that the large anchor stores should be moved toward the center of the development, Mr. Anikis recommended that if the developer finds the cemetery on the property, it should be protected and maintained. He expressed his concern for the mosque located on the adjacent property and their privacy. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern that if both proposed shopping centers are developed, the County will become too saturated with retail areas,which could result in many empty buildings. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that upgrades for water and sewer systems should be required to help "offset usage". Mr. Anikis asked if the project would be required to foilow the new TMDL's (Total Maximum Daily Loading). Mr. Bass of the City of Hagerstown stated that would be within the purview of the City's Water and Sewer Department during the site plan review process. He noted that City Staff has only made a preliminary review of the concept plan. Mr. Anikis suggested that the developer consider a biotechnology business park and believes this site would be the ideal location for such a facility.

Consensus: The Planning Commission concurs that "express approval" would be required for the subject site and with Staff's concerns that need to be addressed as this project moves forward.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. So ordered. Respectfuily submitted,

(l~~L-

Georde ~iS, Chairman 152

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - August 4, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, August 4, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Andrew Bowen, and Sam Ecker. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson.

CALL TO ORDER

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

Mr. Thompson stated that the Preliminary Plat for Rye Field Estates (PP-05-012) has been removed from this evening's agenda.

MINUTES

Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

Town of Smithsburg Annexation - Verdier

Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed annexation of approximately .45­ acres of land that is contiguous with the Town located on the north side of Cave Hill Road just west of Geiser Way. This is an existing parcel with a single-family dwelling unit and no additional development is proposed at this time. The applicant is requesting SR (Suburban Residential) zoning upon annexation, . which is consistent with the existing RR (Residential Rural) County zoning designation. Both zoning designations permit single and two-family dwellings with a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000-square feet for a single-family dwelling on public water and sewer. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Low Density Residential designation on the 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. It is Staff's opinion that "express approval" is not required and no formal action is required by the Board of County Commissioners.

Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if the Town of Smithsburg has completed their master plan and if it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson stated he does not know if the Master Plan has been adopted at this time. He noted that this request is within the Town's Growth Area. Mr. Bowen asked if the Town has submitted an annexation report with this request. Mr. Thompsdn stated that an annexation plan has been submitted. Public sewer is available to the property; however, public water is not available to the site.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with the Staff recommendation, that "express approval" for the proposed zoning is not required in this case. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Town of Smithsburg Annexation - Jacgues

Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed annexation of approximately .72­ acres of land that is contiguous with the Town on three sides of the property located off of East Water Street, north of Main Street. This is an existing parcel with a single-family dwelling and upon annexation the owner proposes to subdivide one additional lot. The applicant is requesting SR (Suburban Residential) zoning upon annexation, which is consistent with the existing RR (Residential Rural) County zoning designation. Both zoning designations permit single and two-family dwellings with a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000-square feet for a single-family dwelling on public water and sewer. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Low Density Residential designation on the 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. It is Staff's opinion that "express approval" is not required and no formal action is required by the Board of County Commissioners.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with the Staff recommendation, that "express approval" for the proposed zoning is not required in this case. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, September 8, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown 2. Planning Commission Rezoning Public Meeting, Monday, September 15, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room #1, Hagerstown. l> ~ o C :0 s:Z m Z -l

g' oa. roCD P- 154

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - September 8, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, September 8, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baitimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker and Ex-officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Tim Lung, Senior Planners Misty Wagner-Grillo and Lisa Kelly, Parks and Environmental Land Planner Bill Stachoviak, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 4, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Ecker and Mr. Anikis voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained (due to absence at the August 4'h meeting).

NEW BUSINESS

-VARIANCES

Mary E. Grim, Lots 1-4 (SV-08-013) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.2A of the County's Subdivision Ordinance for access spacing. The property is located along the east side of Rohrersville . Road (MD Route 67) and is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the reqUired 500-foot access spacing requirement for proposed driveways for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and the remaining lands. The existing driveways are 250-feet apart and the existing driveway off-site is 450-feel. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that the State Highway Administration has reviewed the sight distance requirements and has approved the variance.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the variance request as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. The motion passed with Mr. Ecker, Mr. Anikis and Mr. Kercheval voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber abstained.

Mr. Wiley arrived at 7:05 p.m.

Barry StUD and Moira Weldon

Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a waiver from Section 5B.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 50-foot Agricultural Land Use Setback for property located along Brownsville Road. The property is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the 50-foot agricultural setback for an existing garage in order to subdivide 3-acres around the existing house and garage. Staff has no objection to reducing the agricultural setback from 50-feet to 15-feet for the existing garage due to the fact that it is not a principal structure and will meet the setbacks of the Environmentai Conservation zone.

Discussion: Mr. Ecker asked what the owner is pianning for the remaining acreage. Mr. Townsley of Fox & Associates, Inc., the applicant's consultant, stated that Mr. Stup is planning to keep the land at this time and would like to build a house on the property in the future.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the waiver based on Staff's recommendation for the existing garage. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

- SUBDIVISIONS

Rye Field Estates (PP-05-012)

Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approvai the preliminary plat for Lots 2-18 of Rye Fieid Estates. The property is located between Stottlemeyer Road and 1-70 and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The developer is proposing a single-family subdivision for Lots 2-18 with a new cul-de-sac (Barley Lane), which will be 1,200-feet in length. All lots will be served by private wells and septic. The proposed subdivision is located in the MI. Aetna and Boonsboro Fire Districts and the Greenbriar Elementary, Boonsboro Middle and Boonsboro High school districts. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met through forest retention and planting of a total of 19.6-acres. School mitigation requirements will be addressed at the final plat stage. All agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding who is responsible to notify potential owners of the sand-mound septic systems on several of the lots. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that a note is on the pial. Mr. Townsley of Fox & Associates, Inc., the owner's consultant, stated that both the developer and the Heaith Department should be responsible. Mr. Anikis recommended that the Heaith Department prov'lde 155

a fact sheet for these systems to potential owners. Mr. Lung recommended that a note be attached. in the permits piUS system to the parcels requiring sand-mound systems so owners can be instructed to contact the Health Department to obtain guidelines on the installation and maintenance of these systems.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

John A. Horst, Lots 7-11 (PP-08-002)

Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Lots 7-11 for John A. Horst. The property (127.39-acres) is located along the east side of Ashton Road and the north side of Big Pool Road and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. All lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems. Storm water management will be addressed through the use of a rain garden. The proposed subdivision is located in the Clear Spring Elementary, Middle and High school district and the Clear Spring Fire and Ambulance service areas. School mitigation requirements will be addressed at the final plat stage. Lot 1 was approved in November 1975, Lots 2-5 were approved in March 2006 and Lot 6 was approved in June 2008. A preliminary Forest Conservation Plan for Lots 7-11 was submitted with Lot 6 and was approved in June 2008. The total Forest Conservation requirement for Lots 6-11 is 1.27-acres. The developer is proposing to retain the remaining lands (0.21-acres) and planting 1.06-acres for Lots 7­ 11 to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. A final Forest Conservation Plan will be submitted with the final plat for Lots 7-11. All agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Mr. Ecker asked what the developer's plans are for the remaining parcel. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the developer's consultant, stated it will continue to be farmed. Mr. Ecker asked how many lots could be subdivided from the remaining lands. Mr. Schreiber stated approXimately 18 or 19 additional lots would be available. Mr. Ecker expressed his concern for additional traffic and access on Big Pool Road. There were brief discussions regarding road adequacy issues on Ashton and Big Pool Roads, school mitigation, and storm water management.

. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lots 7-11 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS

Carl Eby, Jr. - Lot 1 (S-OS-067 and SP-OS-020)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary/Final plat and Site Plan for Cari Eby, Jr. for property located along the north side of Clear Spring Road near the intersection of Cedar Ridge Road. The property is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The owner is proposing to expand a private lumber drying facility on a 16.3-acre parcel in addition to a single-family residence. Existing on the site is a kiln and furnace building and a storage building. The owner is proposing to add 3 drying sheds, a lumber storage yard, a stacking shed and an additional furnace and kiln facility. The maximum height of all buildings is 30-feet. The site is served by individual well and septic. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The owner will be the only employee; therefore, no parking spaces are required. Ughting will consist of wall mounted lights. No signs are proposed. Solid waste wHi be collected by inside containers. There will be approximately 3 truck deliveries per week. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception (Case #AP-99-109) in September 1999 to establish a wood drying operation with storage in a proposed 60-foot by 150-foot building and 30-foot by 40-foot building to house a drying kiln. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by retaining 4.90-acres of existing forest on-site. All agency approvals have been received on the site plan. Health Department approval is pending on the Preliminary/Final plat.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the Site Plan as presented and the Preliminary/Final plat contingent upon Health Department approval. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.

Bowman Truck Sales and Leasing (SP-OS-026)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Bowman Truck Sales and Leasing located along the south side of Precision Place, which is south of Maugans Avenue and east of 1-81. The site is currently the subject of a rezoning request for Hi-1 - Highway Interchange 1 zoning. The Board of County Commissioners have given preliminary approval for the rezoning request; final approval is pending. The subject site is approximately 17-acres in size and is currently the site of the former Angstrom Precision manufacturing building. The building is approximately 41,400-square feet in size. The developer is proposing to use 462-square feet of the existing building for truck tractor sales and leasing. Access will be onto Precision Drive. The hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with 2 employees per shift. There will be no freight deliveries. Two parking spaces are required and 4 spaces are provided. The sales display area will be 41, 12-foot by 25-foot parking spaces for trucks and trailers for sales and lease. The site is served by public water provided by the City of Hagerstown and pUblic sewer provided by Washington County. The existing sign will be used, no new signs are proposed. Solid waste will be collected by inside containers. The existing parking lot lights will be used, new lighting is not proposed. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements since no new development is proposed. All approvals have been received. 156

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approval of the pending rezoning request by the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

Fori Ritchie Building 517 and 518 (SP-08-032)

Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for the conversion of two existing buildings at the former Fort Ritchie military base being redeveloped by COPT. The two existing buildings are located in the Restricted Office District and are not in the historic area. The developer is proposing to convert the former PX building (Building #517) to a 27,250-square foot office building and the former commissary (Building #518) to a 42,000-square foot data storage center. Both buildings are located on West Benfield Avenue. The former military base is zoned SED - Special Economic District. The buildings were constructed by the military in the 1990's. Significant landscaping, parking and lighting exist around the two buildings. Ten employees are proposed for the data storage area. Parking requirements for this bUilding are based on office square footage; therefore, 140 parking spaces are required and 150 spaces, including handicapped spaces, are provided. Sixty employees are proposed for the office building; therefore, 91 parking spaces are required and 91 parking spaces are provided. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted an variance in 2007 that applied to the entire redevelopment of the existing buildings, which reduced the parking space dimensional requirements from 9' x 20' to 9' x 18' and the aisle widths from 25' to 23'. New handicapped spaces meet the current ADA and Maryland Code requirements. The existing lighting on the site consists of the shoe-box style down-directed lighting, which staff believes is sufficient. Hours of operation for both buildings will be Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Trash and recyclables will be collected inside the building. Occasional truck deliveries are proposed. Mr. Lung noted that the design of the existing buildings and their previous use provides for extensive loading areas to the rear of the buildings. There is existing water and sewer service to the bUildings. The County's Department of Water Quality has jurisdiction over the sewer and has granted their approval. COPT operates the private water system. The County Engineering Department has given their approval for the site plan. There is no new disturbed area; therefore, no review of storm water management is required at this time. The roads in the development are private and are owned and maintained by COPT. . The County's address assignment personnel and Fire and Emergency Services personnel have determined that a new road name was needed because another Benfield Avenue currently exists on the site that does not connect to this portion of the road. This portion of the road will be renamed to Range Road; however, depending upon how the Fort redevelops in the future and new road alignments are made, the road name may change again. No new signs are proposed. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because it is redevelopment of existing buildings with no new disturbed area. Health Department approval is pending. All other agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Mr. Lung stated there was a previous discussion regarding the Planning Commission giving Staff the authority to approve site plans based on the overall concept plan presented at the preliminary consultation. However, it was the Planning Commission's opinion, at that time, there was not information provided on the concept plan to give staff the authority to grant approvals and no formal action was taken by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kercheval expressed his belief that only minor changes were needed to the concept plan. He does not recall the Planning Commission being dissatisfied with the level of the concept plan and wanting continued review of all new development plans for the site. He believes that staff should be given the authority to approve site plans in order to keep projects moving in a more timely manner. Mr. Reiber recalls there were questions regarding street and road name changes, issues regarding the sewer plant and concems regarding Fire and Emergency Services issues. Mr. Kercheval recommended that COPT try to resolve all outstanding issues and submit their master plan to the Planning Staff in order that Staff may be given the authority to approve future site plans requiring minor changes to the site.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon Health Department approval. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

- FOREST CONSERVATION Estate of Agnes M. House (S-08-032) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a request for off-site retention to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for property located at the intersection of King Road and Maryland Route 67. The applicant has submitted a preliminary/final plat of subdivision for 5 lots. The total forest mitigation requirement for the proposed development is 2.01 acres. The applicant would like to meet this requirement through off-site retention on a separate parcel also owned by the applicant. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requires off-site retention at a 2:1 ratio, which would bring the total mitigation requirement to 4.02 acres. The applicant is requesting approval of the off-site retention of 3.49-acres and a waiver for the remaining 0.53-acres of required mitigation. Staff has no objection to the off-site forest retention at the 2:1 ratio (4.02 acres) since the parcel is adjacent to the subject site and is owned by the applicant. However, staff does object to the reduction in the amount of mitigation to 3.49-acres since there are other options to meet the requirement, such as payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,308.68 or planting of additional forest.

Comment: Mr. Russ Townsley of Fox & Associates, Inc., the applicant's consultant, stated that the applicant is withdrawing their request for a waiver of the remaining 0.53-acres and requesting the use of the payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,308.68 to meet the forest mitigation requirement. 157

Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked if the applicant has enough acreage to plant the additional forest. Mr. Townsley stated there is enough area; however, it would have to be separated from the existing woods. He also stated it would be easier for the applicant to make the payment-in-Iieu. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the County is getting more trees with the proposed plan, which is better for the environment and it creates a good buffer at the intersection of two roads.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the off-site retention of 3.49-acres of forest and the payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,308.68 to meet Forest Conservation requirements. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval.

Comment before the vote: Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that there is enough acreage to plant the remaining 0.53 acres of forest.

Vote: The motion passed with Mr. Ecker, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Kercheval voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "Nay".

John Moore - Frog Hollow Estates (FS-04-008 and S-04-029) Mr. Stachoviak presented for review and approval a Forest Conservation Plan non-compliance case for Frog Hollow Estates, Lots 1-4. The property is located along the east side of Harpers Ferry Road approximately 0.35 miles south of its intersection with Nick Road. Mr. Stachoviak stated that the Planning Department was notified on June 9, 2008 by a neighbor that a logger was removing trees on the site. An inspector from the Engineering Department was requested to visit the site and reported that a logger was removing trees that had already been cut or blown down by a storm. The owner, Mr. Moore, was told to contact the County Planning Department, which he did soon afterwards. Mr. Moore was informed that he was not in compliance with the Forest Conservation Pian since there were no signs installed or inspections conducted prior to beginning activity. On June 12, 2008, a site inspection was made and a non-compliance notification was sent to Mr. Moore. Signs were installed by July 1'I and inspected on July th 8 • At that time, Mr. Stachoviak determined there was a timber harvest on the site, which he estimated to be a total of 32,000-square feet. He noted that the trees had been cut in the stream buffer area and in the forest conservation easement area designated on the property. A second letter was sent to the owner, which assessed the non-compliance fee of $9,600 and specified corrective measures. Mr. Moore contacted his consultant, Triad Engineering, who determined that the remaining trees still meet the definition of a forest. Due to the applicant's cooperation and response to all appropriate corrective measures, Staff recommends a reduction of the non-compliance fee.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis stated that he visited the site and noted that the signs do not appear to be made of metal and appear to be temporary. Mr. Stachoviak stated that the signs are heavy vinyl on wooden stakes. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to a stream bed crossing and the slope of the grade to access the last lot.

Mr. Reiber asked if permits are required for logging, if specific areas on each lot were restricted from logging and a general explanation of "harvesting". Mr. Stachoviak stated that a "selective harvest" was performed, which means that selected trees were cut. He expressed his opinion that if signs had been installed and an inspection of the signs had been performed initially, the non-compliance may not have occurred. Mr. Stachoviak stated that timber harvesting is allowed following certain criteria, such as obtaining a sediment control plan from the Washington County Soil Conservation District and a timber harvest management plan. There was a brief discussion regarding different strategies to insure that property owners understand their responsibilities with regard to forest conservation areas. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the County needs to make improvements in handling the Forest Conservation program. Mr. Reiber asked who determines the non-compliance fee. Mr. Thompson stated that the maximum fee that can be charged is established in the Forest Conservation Ordinance; however, the Planning Commission may adjust the fee based on individual circumstances. There was a brief discussion regarding the amount to be assessed for the non-compliance fee.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to assess a non-compliance fee of $50.00. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. The motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Ecker voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber abstained.

Recommendation: Mr. Anikis recommended that the signs be placed on metal posts as soon as possible and that an engineering firm stakeout the appropriate area.

The Commission recommends that Mr. Moore contact Mr. Weibley of the Washington County Soil Conservation District before proceeding with the timber harvest to obtain appropriate permits.

OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Thompson reminded Commission members that the Maryland Department of Planning and Smart Growth Task Force wili be holding their "listening" session on Thursday, September 251h in Hagerstown. A notice was included in the September Agenda packets.

Mr. Thompson announced that the Hagerstown City Council would like to hold a joint meeting with the County Planning Commission to discuss the Water Resources Element. Further discussion will be held during the Commission's Workshop In October. Mr. Thompson noted that the County will be preparing an 158

RFP to hire a consultant to write the County's Water Resources Element. Several municipalities will be participating with the County (Smithsburg, Hagerstown, Williamsport and Hancock).

Mr. Thompson announced that the PATH stakeholder's meeting scheduled for this week has been cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date. He noted that during recent discussions, it was determined that many of the agricultural easements throughout the state would need to be changed, which would take approximately 3 to 5 years.

Mr. Wiley left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

1. Planning Commission Rezoning Public Meeting, Monday, September 15, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room #1, Hagerstown. 2. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, October 6, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown 3. Planning Commission Workshop, Monday, October 20, 2008, Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baitimore Street, Conference Room 1, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting 9:15 p.m ..

Respectfully submitted,

ULUHA'-' j(L...L-; Geotge Anil&, Chairman 159

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING September 15, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held a rezoning public meeting on Monday, September 15, 2008, in the Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street, Court Room #1, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker, Andrew Bowen and Linda Parrish. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

NEW BUSINESS

- RZ-08-003 - Ronald and Jean Dolan

Mr. Goodrich presented a rezoning request application submitted by Ronald and Jean Dolan for property located at 10914 Dam #5 Road south of Clear Spring. The property is located on the north side of the road opposite the C & 0 Canal. The applicant is requesting the Historic Preservation (HP) overlay on 1,44-acres, which is part of Parcel 22 that is 10-acres in size. Mr. Goodrich explained that the Historic Preservation overiay would be an additional layer of zoning on top of the existing Environmental Conservation zone that controls the land use. The HP zone regulates changes to the exterior appearance of the structures on the property through Historic District Commission approval of building permit applications. The Historic District Commission uses the Secretary of the Interiors Standards, which are design guidelines created by the Federal government and adopted by the County for preservation of historic structures. The HP zone also creates eligibility for the property owners to apply for property tax credits based on the amount of money they spend on restoration of the exterior of historic buildings. The HP zone currently does not exist on the property. Mr. Goodrich submitted the written Staff report for the public record. The Staff report contains statistical information, such as the population change in the area, pUblic utility availability, school capacity and enrollment figures, traffic data, a discussion of the compatibility with the neighboring properties and a discussion of the "change or mistake rule" for requesting a change in zoning. In this case, Mr. Goodrich noted that the "change or mistake rule" does not apply to the requested HP overlay zone. The Zoning Ordinance provides a list of 11 criteria that may be used in evaluating an application. It is only necessary that an applicant meet 1 of the 11 items. Mr. Goodrich stated that the applicant's application contains a discussion of the 11 criteria, a detailed history of the property, and a discussion focusing on how this property can meet many of the required criteria.

Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request based on the information provided, which clearly indicates that 7 out of the 11 criteria can be met. Mr. Goodrich noted that the Historic District Commission has reviewed this application and recommends approval of the request. The County Engineering Department has no objection to the request.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis asked why the applicant is requesting the overlay on only a portion of the site. Mr. Dolan, the applicant, stated that most of the property is located in a floodplain and under a Federal scenic easement and he was trying to keep additional restrictions to a minimum area. Mr. Goodrich noted that the Historic Preservation text of the Zoning Ordinance states that large areas of vacant property should not be included in the HP zone because restrictions that apply to the zone would cover open space areas as well. The zone should only include the area where the historic structures are located.

No one was present to speak in favor of or in opposition of the request.

ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (j~ LL; .- ~ George Anikis, Chairman 160

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - October 6, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 6, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Drew Bowen. County Commissioner Terry Baker was present in the absence of Ex-Officio James Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2008 Planning Commission Public Meeting as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Note: County Commissioner Terry Baker did not vote on any agenda item presented during this evening's meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

- SUBDIVISIONS

Keuper Estates, Lots 3-7 (S-07-138)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary/Final plat for Keuper Estates, Lots 3­ 7 located along the west side of Little Antietam Road south of Leitersburg and is zoned A(R) ­ Agricultural Rural. The developer is proposing five single-family lots with sizes ranging from 1.6 to 4.5-acres on a total of 17-acres. A new public street, Winchester Drive, will provide access to the lots and will connect to Little Antietam Road. All lots will be served with individual well and septic. All agency approvals have been received. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by retention of 3.4-acres of existing forest on the remaining lands. The site is exempt from APFO school mitigation requirements since the development is proposed for five lots or less. The Planning Department is also reviewing a Simplified plat in conjunction with the Preliminary/Final plat.

Discussion: Mr. Bowen asked if the proposed future street connection would service the remaining lands. Ms. Kelly stated there will be 81-acres remaining that could be developed in the future and the proposed street would serve the remaining lands. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry with regard to the APFO school mitigation. Mr. Thompson noted that if the developer proposes additional lots in the future, all existing lots would be counted as part of the mitigation requirements. The development is located in the Old Forge Elementary, Smithsburg Middle and Smithsburg High school district. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the roof top disconnects and the non-roof top disconnect credits for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. He questioned who would be responsible for enforcing the maintenance in perpetuity of these disconnects. Ms. Kelly stated that the County Engineering Department would be responsible for enforcement. Mr. Anikis expressed his concem regarding the homeowner's knowledge of their responsibilities for the disconnects and sand-mound septic systems.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the Preliminary/Final and Simplified plats as presented and the retention of 3.4-acres of existing forest on the remaining lands to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

- SITE PLANS

Gerald N. Minnich Funeral Home (SP-08-035)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Site Plan for the Gerald N. Minnich Funeral Home located along the south side of Robinwood Drive adjacent to the Elk's Club. The property is zoned A- Agriculture. In March 2008, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision for this property. The owner is proposing to construct an 11,500 square foot funeral home on 3.89­ acres of property. The building will be 30-feet in height. A Special Exception was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in January 2008 that allows for the creation of a funeral home in the Agriculture zoning district. The subject site will be served by public water and an individual septic 161 system. A 40-foot access easement over the existing entrance of the Eik's Club will be used by the funeral home. The County's Engineering Department denied direct access from Robinwood Drive into the site due to the lack of spacing from the intersection. The hours of operation for the funerai home office will be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and viewings for the funerai home will be by appointment. Deliveries will be made daily to the site. Two empioyees are proposed. Parking spaces required for this use are 20 spaces; however, 116 parking spaces will be provided. Solid waste will be provided by trash receptacles inside the building. Exterior lighting will include building and pole mounted lighting throughout the parking area. A 6-foot high, 24-foot sign will be placed at the shared entrance of the site. A 10-foot by 24-foot loading/unloading area will be located to the rear of the building. Storm water management requirements will be met by a bio-retention pond. Landscaping will be located throughout the proposed site, which will include landscaping around the proposed sign, throughout the parking lot and around the building. The side and rear property lines will be screened using 25-foot White Spruce trees. Other landscaping materials will include Birch, Dogwood, Ash, and Holly trees, fountain grass and Japanese Yews. All agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, gave a brief explanation regarding the slope and landscaping proposed to the rear of the building. The site will be approximately 10 to 15-feet below the level of the proposed slope and trees to shield the existing residents from vehicular lights and building-mounted lights. During special events, there is an agreement between the funeral home owner, Mr. Kenworthy, and the Elk's Club to use each others parking facilities.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the Site Plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Note: Ms. Kelly stated that Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were previously approved by the Planning Commission through payment-in-lieu.

Vista PCS, LLC Telecommunications Tower (SP-08-038)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the Site Plan for the Boyd Mountain Telecommunications Tower located between Big Pooi Road and Gehr Road along the south side of Interstate 70. The property is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. The communications company is proposing to lease a 1DO-foot by 100-foot area from the Gehr property, which encompasses a total of 104-acres. The developer is proposing to construct a 12-foot x 3D-foot telecommunications equipment shelter, a meter stack inside a 50-foot by 50-foot gravel compound at the base of a 199-foot monopole. There will be 6 antennas plus 6 sites for future antennas. A 12-foot wide gravel access drive will be constructed from Gehr Road to the site. An 8-foot high chain link fence will be installed encompassing the 50 x 50-foot area around the base of the monopole. There will be no employees; therefore, water and sewer facilities will not be required at the site. The monopole will have an exterior finish of gray galvanized steel. An identification sign will be placed on the chain link fence. The Board of Zoning appeals granted a Special Exception in March 2008 allowing the construction of the proposed commercial cell tower. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met through the "express procedure" by payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,143.15. All agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis and Mr. Reiber made an inqUiry regarding comments received from the Historic District Commission and other agencies. Mr. Thompson stated that the HDC was opposed to the location of the cell tower due to all of the historic structures, especially Fort Frederick, in the immediate area. Mr. Wiley asked if a balloon test was performed on the site. Ms. Hillorie Morrison of Vista, LLC stated that a balloon test was performed to address the concerns of the HDC. However, the Board of Appeals found that the site is approximately 1 mile from Ft. Frederick and the existing trees would provide adequate cover from the viewshed of Ft. Frederick.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the Site Plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Bowen. The motion passed with Ms. Parrish, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Bowen voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "Nay".

TDR Enterprises (SP-08-037)

Ms. Kelly, on behalf of Ms. Wagner-Grillo, presented a Site Plan for a 1O,OOO-square foot addition to an existing metal fabrication plant located on the northwest side of Maryland Route 64. The parcel is 6.9-acres in size and is zoned A- Agriculture. The site will be served by a private well and septic. Total parking spaces required is 38 spaces and 38 parking spaces will be provided. Solid waste will be stored inside the building. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by the "express procedure" and payment-in-Ileu in the amount of $1,001.88. TDR Enterprises Is a custom metal fabrication plant that has an existing 20,000-square foot building. No new signs are proposed. Two new wall mounted lights are proposed. There are currentiy 18 empioyees, 25 employees are proposed. The hours of operation are not proposed to increase. All agency approvals have been received. 162

Discussion: Ms. Kelly noted that the dumpster is currently located in the front of the site. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that the dumpster cannot be seen from the road due to the elevation of the site and the trees between the road and the site.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the Site Plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Dunkin Donuts (SP-08-025)

Ms. Kelly, on behalf of Ms. Wagner-Grillo, presented a Site Plan for the conversion of a vacant bank building to a Dunkin Donuts restaurant with drive-thru located along Route 632 at the intersection of Oak Ridge Drive. The site is 1.2-acres and is zoned BL - Business Local. The site will be served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and private sewer. Parking spaces required is 44 and 44 spaces are proposed. Solid waste storage and disposal is a dumpster with a private hauler. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements due to a disturbed area of less than 40,000 square feet. Hours of operations will be 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 7 days per week. Four employees are proposed for the morning shift and two employees for the afternoon shift. One delivery per day by box truck is expected. No additional lighting is proposed. A proposed sign will be located on the roof of the building. No freestanding signs are proposed. All agency approvals have been received.

Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that this is a good use for rehabilitating an existing building.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the Site Plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

Fort Ritchie, Lot 1 - Highfield Subdivision Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a Preliminary Plat/Site Plan for a proposed power substation for the Fort Ritchie Redevelopment and COPT. The proposed site is located along the north side of Ritchie Road on approximately 3.64-acres zoned SED - Special Economic Development. Fort Ritchie LLC will convey the 3.64-acre site to Allegheny Power for the substation, which will replace the existing substation. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a Special Exception for this use in the SED zoning district. A 75-foot buffer yard with screen planting is provided along the adjacent residential area on Ritchie Road. This will be an unmanned fenced facility containing all the normal equipment associated with a power substation along with a control building. The maximum height of any structure on the site will be 24-feet. The power lines coming into and going out of the substation will be underground. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be addressed by retaining off-site 1-acre of existing forest on other lands of Fort Ritchie. Due to the topography of the site, the power substation will sit approximately 20-feet below Ritchie Road. The screen planting proposed consists of 63, 10­ foot evergreen trees planted at 12-feet on center in staggered rows. Ash trees will be planted on the interior of the site. Access to the site will be internally on the private Fort Ritchie access road with an easement granted to Allegheny Power for ingress and egress. The subdivision to create the lot meets the County's standards to create a lot with public road frontage because there is frontage along Ritchie Road; however, there will be no direct access to Ritchie Road. Address Assignment, Department of Water Quality and Health Department approvals are pending. All other agency approvals have been received. Mr. Lung also requested that the Planning Commission grant the Staff the authority to approve the final subdivision plat.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding the Planning Commission giving Staff the authority to approve site plans using the Master Plan for the Fort Ritchie Redevelopment. Mr. Lung stated that the County Engineering Department issued several comments during the Preliminary Consultation that must be addressed. Staff believes these issues should be resolved prior to the Planning Commission giving staff the authority the grant site plan approval. Outstanding issues include which streets will be owned publicly or privately, findings from the traffic study to determine APFO improvements that would be needed off-site and when they would be needed, and a strategy to address the runoff from the storm water management.

Mr. Reiber asked what would happen to the old power substation. Mr. Hoffman, COPT representative, stated that the old substation would remain in existence and active until new service lines can be connected between existing facilities and the new substation. Ultimately, the old substation will be demolished. The existing substation is owned jointly by COPT and Allegheny Power. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the old substation should not remain on the site. Mr. Hoffman stated the old substation will be removed.

Mr. Anikis asked if there would be any "RF" interference to residents across the road from the new substation. An Allegheny Power representative stated there would be no interference.

Malian and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan contingent upon all agency approvals and to grant staff authority to approve the final subdivision plat. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. 163

OTHER BUSINESS - RZ-08-003 Ronald and Jean Dolan Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a map amendment for Ronald and Jean Dolan for property located at 10914 Dam #5 Road. The applicant is requesting the Historic Preservation overlay zone on a 1.44-acre parcel of land currently zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. A public meeting was held on September 15, 2008 at which time Staff presented their written Report and Analysis and Mr. Dolan presented his request. There was no public comment in favor of or in opposition to the request. No additional written comment was received during the ten (10) day comment period. Mr. Goodrich noted there is a Scenic Easement related to the C & 0 Canal on a portion of this property and the easement document describing the restrictions was included with the Agenda material. Staff recommends approval of the application based on a determination that it meets 7 of the 11 criteria that must be addressed in accordance with Zoning Ordinance regulations. Mr. Goodrich stated that a majority of the site subject to the rezoning is iocated in Zone A of a floodpiain. He also noted that because this is a historic structure, it is exempt from some limitations on structures in the floodplain.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to recommend approval of the Historic Preservation overlay to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

City of Hagerstown Annexation - Kenneth Jordan (A08-07)

Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the City of Hagerstown for Kenneth L. Jordan. The applicant is requesting the annexation of an existing 10,000-square foot lot located on Lot 183, Prospect Place on Harwood Road adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the City of Hagerstown west of Virginia Avenue. The applicant is requesting R-1 (Residential) zoning, which is consistent with the existing RU (Residential Urban) County zoning designation and the Low Density Residential designation. It is Staff's opinion that "express approval" is not required.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation request to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Update on Route 40/Edgewood Drive Intersection

Mr. Thompson noted that the Route 40/Edgewood Drive intersection project has been funded by the Maryland Department of Transportation in conjunction with Washington County and the City of Hagerstown. The procurement process has been delayed due to litigation issues; however, MOOT is working to resolve these issues.

Upcoming Workshop

Copies of the UGA Advisory Committee's Final Report were distributed to Planning Commission members. Mr. Thompson noted that five of the six assigned tasks have been completed. This report has been given to the Board of County Commissioners and will be discussed during their meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2008. Mr. Thompson stated this would be one item that will be 1h discussed at the Planning Commission's Workshop on October 20 • Public hearings are anticipated sometime around the beginning of 2009. The UGA Committee is currently reviewing Staff's zon ing proposal.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

1. Planning Commission Workshop, Monday, October 20, 2008, 1:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown 2. Planning Commission RegUlar Meeting, Monday, November 3, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT Ms. Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted, {j~/l;£. Geo~ge AriI'kis, Chairman 164

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - OCTOBER 20, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, October 20, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. In the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Jill Baker and Misty Wagner-Grillo, Land Preservation Administrator Eric Seifarth, Land Preservation Planner Sara Edelman, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS

Certification Report for Ag Land Preservation Mr. Eric Seifarth and Ms. Sara Edelman presented the Certification Report for Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Mr. Seifarth began by stating that the County's primary source of funding for the Maryland Ag Land Preservation Program is the State Ag Transfer Tax that is collected locally. The County is required to file a certification report to verify that the funds are being spent correctly. The Ag Transfer Tax, by being certified, allows the County to retain 75% of those funds with the remaining funds sent to the State. If the County is not certified, only 33% of the funds are retained. Through a 60/40 matching mechanism, the County uses its 75% of funds to leverage for State funding. Mr. Seifarth noted that the State auditors are critical of most Maryland counties when the certifications are not submitted in a .timely manner. The State now requires that the Ag Board, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Pianning Commission approve and sign the report. Mr. Seifarth reviewed the audit report of the Agricultural Land Transfer Tax Revenues. He noted that the County must show, in a three year period, that there is no money that is older than three years that has not been spent. The current funds were collected during the peak of the real estate boom and three of the past five months, no funds have been collected for this fund. The County currently has seven preservation programs. The State also requires the establishment of Priority Preservation Areas. Mr. Seifarth gave a brief explanation of the Priority Preservation program. A map was used to show existing blocks of preserved iand in prime farmland or prime woodiand. Large blocks of preserved land exist in Sharpsburg, Williamsport, Clear Spring, and the Smithsburg/Leitersburg area. There are two important reasons to establish iarge blocks of preserved land: (1) it makes it easier for the farmers to stay in business and, (2) it helps the support industries.

Comments: Mr. Bowen and Mr. Kercheval recommended changing the color scheme of the map so blocks of preserved lands would not appear fragmented.

Mr. Seifarth noted that the County has approXimately 24,000-acres of land permanently protected. The County's goal is 50,000-acres of permanently protected land. In order to reach that goal, approximately a quarter of a billion dollars will be needed. Mr. Seifarth then discussed the ranking system used by the County to establish easement areas. He noted that a minimum of 20-acres is required, the property must be agriculturally assessed, the land must be in close proximity to other preserved properties, there must be prime soils on the property, and/or prime forest cover in order to be considered for the County's priority preservation areas. Mr. Seifarth stated that the State has requested the County to establish strategies to deal with our "weak" zoning (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres), which the State does not support. He stated that Legislative statute requires the County to spend $1 million each year. Mr. Seifarth stated that funds are down due to economic pressures, so it is his hope that the County can use an average over several years to reach the $1 million requirement. He noted that the County has an Installment Purchase Program which mandates $400,000 of revenue each year from real estate transfer taxes. It could be v",ry difficult to meet the $1 million requirement in the next few years.

Comment: During a review of. the Certification Report, Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the statement on page 7, "the amount of excise tax to be paid has limited higher density developments" is not accurate and he does not agree with the statement. He believes that the limitations on water and sewer infrastructure is a major deterrent to higher density development.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis asked how the State determines how much money each County is given. Mr. Seifarth stated that for this program, the State funds are split SO/50. The first 50% of the funds are distributed equally among the 23 counties In Maryland. The second 50% of the funds are distributed according to the County's ability to fund the 60/40 match mechanism. Washington County tries to maximize its 40% up to $1.34 million, which is matched up to $2 million by the State.

Mr. Seifarth requested that the Planning Commission vote to support this Report, when appropriate, in November. 165

Review of the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee Report Mr. Thompson began this discussion stating that Staff has been working with the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee for more than a year to complete the tasks assigned to them by the Board of County Commissioners. A report has been submitted to the BOCC with recommendations to be considered for the first five of the six tasks assigned. The Committee is currently working with Staff to review proposals for the actual zoning of the UGA. Mr. Thompson noted that the Agricultural zoning district is proposed to be removed from the UGA; however, agricultural uses will still be permitted. A presentation of the Report will be made on October 28th to the BOCC.

Discussion: Mr. Bowen asked how TDR's (Transferable Development Rights) would be applied. Mr. Goodrich stated that if a TDR program is adopted, a certain number of development rights would be assigned to properties in the rural area (sending area). Developers in the urban area (receiving area) would be required to purchase TDR's in order to increase the density of their development in the urban area. Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding the status of implementing a TDR program. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Consultant (White and Smith) has completed their study and made their presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. The consultant surmised that a TDR program could be established under certain conditions and further explained how it would work. The Board of County Commissioners has varied opinions if the County should establish a TDR program. The UGA Committee believes that the County should establish a TDR program. Mr. Kercheval stated that there are many challenges to establishing a TDR program and a lot of consideration needs to be given to such a program. Mr. Goodrich stated that TDR's were the most talked about issue with the UGA Advisory Committee. He stated that TDR's are a land use tool to further the goals of the community and that Staff has never considered TDR's as a method of compensation for previous zoning changes. Mr. Goodrich noted there was a lot of discussion regarding the link between the TDR and the EDU (equivalent dwelling unit) and that TDR's have worked in other communities for their needs at a particular time. However, Staff is unsure that the County is ready for TDR's and whether there is a market for them or the political and community desire to have them. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that due to current economic conditions, a TDR program is not critical right now. However, she believes that now would be a good time to begin working toward the establishment of a TDR program. Mr. Goodrich stated that TDR's are not being considered in the zoning proposal for the UGA because Staff has not been given a clear direction on TDR's by the County Commissioners.

Mr. Goodrich began his presentation on the UGA Committee's Final Report. The BOCC appointed the UGA Advisory Committee in the summer of 2007. Six tasks were assigned to the Committee and are listed in the Final Report. The Committee formed subcommittees, which were assigned specific tasks dealing with housing issues, incentives and TDR's. Public meetings were held early in the process. The final task of the Committee, the rezoning of the UGA, is still a work in progress. The Committee met approximately every 2 weeks over the past year. Several meetings were spent understanding how land use regulations worked.

Mr. Goodrich summarized each task assigned to the Committee. The first task was receiving citizen input during public meetings. Many of the Committee members were present at the public meetings held at the Hagerstown Community College and Williamsport High School. Approximately 50 citizens attended each of the meetings. Mr. Goodrich noted that most of the citizens spoke only to their particular problems. However, one issue of concern was the properties currently zoned Agriculture in the UGA. The agriculture zoning district is proposed to be eliminated; however, agricultural uses would be allowed to continue. Agricultural zoning and agricultural uses are contrary to the encouragement of development in the UGA.

Mr. Goodrich stated that the second task dealt with incentives. The Committee made the following recommendations to provide incentives for development in the UGA and to streamline development: more mixed use zones; greater bUilding height; greater density; area-wide infrastructure planning; determining APFO requirements early in the development review process; timely planned review; assumption of the Fire Marshal duties under the County's control; ensure that EDU's are available in the growth area; protect the airport from encroachment; incentives for green space; fiscal incentives for re-use of existing buildings; sustainable development techniques; and allowance for more multi-family units in single-family zones to encourage workforce housing.

Mr. Goodrich then reviewed the Committee's recommendations relative to TDR's. Generally, the Committee recommends that the County shouid adopt a TDR program. They recommended the receiving areas as being the Town Growth Areas and the Urban Growth Area and a selected Y. mile fringe area around them. They also recommended a Y. mile fringe area around the Rural Villages as receiving areas. The Committee recommended that developers could only upzone in the Growth Area with TDR's. TDR's for other increases such as buiiding height and impervious service were also recommended. TDR values should be consistent with other preservation programs in the County. Three tables are included in the Final Report illustrating this concept. EDU's should be guaranteed with the purchase of TDR's. Credits for removing existing septic systems as well as credits for systems that were never installed were recommended by the Committee. Other recommendations included a streamlined process and the grandfathering of agricultural uses.

Next, Mr. Goodrich reviewed the Committee's recommendations relative to housing issues. The Committee recommends the implementation of the Workforce Housing Task Force's recommendations, which includes down payment assistance, hiring a consultant to prepare a workforce housing program, acquisition of properties for rehab or resale, a workforce housing impact statement for relief from other 166

regulations, a graduated property tax, investigating the use of land trusts to lower the cost of housing, trust fund for housing affordability program, income limits, linking TOR's and upzoning with density bonuses and being able to respond to changing demographics in the County. They also supported inclusionary zoning, amending the Excise Tax Ordinance to include more waivers for workforce and affordabie housing, and accepting the Federal government's definition for workforce and affordable housing.

Mr. Goodrich noted that the Committee is now working On the proposed zoning for the Growth Area. The Committee is prOViding their opinion of Staff's proposed zoning and recommendation for any zoning changes they believe are not appropriate. He displayed a map showing all the areas currently zoned Agriculture within the UGA boundary. There are approximately 9,500 acres of agriculturally zoned land in the UGA. Mr. Goodrich noted that the HI-1 zoning district will be eliminated and those properties currently zoned HI-2 will be assigned a new zoning designation. Many of these areas will be zoned with a higher density residential use.

Discussion: Mr. Bowen asked if the UGA boundary is going to be changed. Mr. Goodrich stated it is not Staff's intent to change the growth area boundary. Since the establishment of the growth boundary in 2002, there have been some changes in circumstance that may warrant a change in the boundary. However, a complete evaluation or change in the boundary is not anticipated. Mr. Goodrich distributed a summary of the current zoning districts in the growth area and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Anikis asked if the City of Hagerstown's 20-year annexation plan was taken into consideration when proposing the new zoning districts. Mr. Goodrich stated the City's Comprehensive Plan and proposed land uses were considered. Initially, approximately 40 properties were found to have a potential conflict between the City and the County's proposed zoning and land use. However, after further review, only 8 or 9 properties are real confiicts and solutions to deal with them in the future have been discussed. Mr. Kercheval stated the City and County staffs have worked together to resolve some of the conflicts when the City adopted their Comprehensive Plan. He noted that a few areas of economic development have . been withheld in the City's growth rate plan as leverage to use water and sewer as extra revenue sharing. Mr. Kercheval stated that the City does not like high density residential development on the "fringes" because they are encouraging redevelopment in town. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County can adjust the text of the zoning districts and their permitted uses to more closely match those of the City, thereby eliminating some of the conflicts.

Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern that there is a lot of emphasis on mixed use in the Report; however, he does not see zoning designations for mixed use. Mr. Goodrich stated that the current "PUD" (Planned Unit Development) zoning district will be broken down into two categories, both of which will be mixed use. Mr. Kercheval asked if there are any mixed use Euclidian zones. Mr. Goodrich stated there are only mixed use overlay zones.

Mr. Goodrich reiterated that the recommendations in the Final Report are those of the Committee. Staff's original proposal along with the Committee's zoning proposal will be presented to the Planning Commission, in the future, for their review and recommendations.

Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that Staff should prepare a document to address the pros and cons of the Committee's recommendations. The Planning Commission could then make a more informed decision on which to base their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Reiber asked if there is an alternative to a TOR program. Mr. Goodrich stated that TOR's, inclusionary zoning for affordable housing, etc. are all well-established land use tools that work in certain scenarios with varying degrees of success.

Ms. Parrish expressed her COncern that the Committee did not include any information about schools in the incentives section of the Report. She believes the County could use incentives for schools in areas where they are most needed. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County has the Comp Plan's recommendation and concept for larger developments to dedicate land for public school sites; however, those developments do not always occur where sites are needed. He also noted that the Board of Education decides where school sites are needed, not the County. There was a brief discussion regarding incentives for addressing school issues. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that there should be incentives to encourage green space in areas where there is none and incentives to encourage historic preservation.

Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that more issues need to be linked together as they are defined, such as the limitations On sewer capacity or EDU's.

Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the testing of APFO at the beginning of the process. Mr. Kercheval stated he does not agree with this concept. Mr. Goodrich stated he believes the Committee was working toward a way to getting the developer started more quickly on road and sewer issues rather than schools.

Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that he does not agree with more development in close proximity to the Rural Villages. He believes that building close to the Rural Villages will contribute to the need for infrastructure due to failing septic systems. Mr. Thompson stated that the State Growth Task Force 167

Committee is proposing to recommend designating aii PFA's in the State as growth areas, which wouid include Rurai Villages in Washington County.

OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Thompson stated that the PATH project proposed by Aiiegheny Power wiil probably not be coming through Washington County. There was a brief discussion regarding varying opinions and news stories being released.

Mr. Thompson informed members that he is currentiy working on a Zoning Text Amendment for smaii eiectricity generating windmilis and solar power issues.

ADJOURNMENT The chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Respectfuiiy submitted, (/..w-tt< iLL,- Ge&ge lnikis, Chairman 168

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - November 3, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 3, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker, Drew Bowen, and Ex-Officio James Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michaei C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly, Planner Cody Shaw, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Lung introduced Mr. Cody Shaw who joined the Planning Department staff on September 8, 2008.

NEW BUSINESS

-VARIANCES

- Rosemary T. Bowes (SV-OS-014) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance, which requires all lots to have access and public road frontage. The property is iocated along the south side of Porterstown Road near Sharpsburg and is zoned P- Preservation. In 1991, the applicant subdivided a 10-acre lot (Lot 1) from an original 50-acre tract of land. The remaining 40-acres of land had two panhandles to Porterstown Road; however, at the time of the subdivision access to the remaining lands was gained from an easement across an existing private lane on land owned by others. The private lane serves 6 additional dwellings. In 2000, the remaining lands (40-acres) including the two panhandles were placed into a permanent Rural Legacyeasement. There is an existing dwelling on the property that was placed in the Rural Legacy Program. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the two panhandles, which contain approximately 4-acres of land. The 4-acres might be conveyed to the owner of Lot 1 and in turn the owner of Lot 1 would convey an equal amount of land to the Boweses. Another option might be to convey one of the panhandles to an adjoining land owner who is pursuing placement in the Rural Legacy Program. The Rurai Legacy Program will not consider any land swaps until it is verified by the Planning Commission that the panhandles may be eliminated. The elimination of the two panhandles would iandlock the remaining 40-acre parcel. The Rurai Legacy Program prohibits any subdivision of new lots for additional development of the land; therefore, according to the applicant, the panhandles are no longer needed.

Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked where the remaining 40-acres would have access. Mr. Lung stated they would continue to use the existing lane on the property to the west, which is a deeded right-of-way. Mr. Bowen expressed his concern with regard to the Planning Commission's liability in the future if a dispute should arise between the owner of the existing lane and the owners of the landlocked parcel. The applicant, Mr. David Bowes, stated that he understands the risks if such a dispute would occur. Mr. Lung noted that the lane and access was estabiished prior to the subdivision of the property and the creation of the two panhandles. Mr. Anikls asked if fire and emergency services have any objections to the length of the lane and its maintenance during inciement weather. Mr. Bowes stated they do not have any objections since the lane is cleared and maintained during inclement weather.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the variance from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance contingent upon the Rural Legacy Program approving the exchange of land between property owners. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.

-SITE PLANS Bennett Development Group, LLC (SP-08-042) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a Site Plan for Bennett Development Group, LLC. The property is located along the south side of Industrial Lane and the east side of Partnership Court in the Governor Lane Industrial Park and is zoned PI - Planned Industrial. The owner is proposing to add a 10,400-square foot addition to an existing 10,450-square foot building. The site is currently occupied by ASB Construction and is used for office space and the storage of materials. The total parcel area is 2.04­ acres. There is a proposed entrance onto Partnership Court. The site is served by public water and public sewer. There is an existing building-mounted sign with no new signage proposed. The existing lighting is building mounted and proposed lighting will also be building mounted. There is currently a dumpster in the front of the building, which is used for solid waste disposal. The hours of operation are 169

Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There are currently six employees and 4 additional employees are anticipated with the new addition. Parking required is 14 spaces and a total of 41 spaces will be provided. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were met in 1999 when the Planning Commission granted approval for the developer to use the payment in lieu process. There is existing landscaping on the site and additional landscaping is proposed which will include Leyland Cypress, burning bush and Red Maple trees. Health Department approval is pending. All other agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding storm water management. Mr. Tony Taylor of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant, stated that a surface sand filter will be installed in the front of the site for water quality management. Water quantity management is handled through a regional storm water management pond located on the west side of Partnership Court.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon Health Department approval. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.

Emerald Pointe PUD, Phase 2A (PSP-OS-002)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval the preliminary plat/site plan for Emerald Pointe PUD, Phase 2A. The property Is located along the east side of Marsh Pike and north of the intersection of Leitersburg Pike and is zoned A(PUD) - Agriculture Planned Unit Development. The developer is proposing to create 28 townhouse lots on a total of 5.90-acres. The projected build-out for this section is two to three years. Lots will be served by public water and public sewer. All lots will front on the newly constructed public streets, Sapphire Drive and Ruby Drive. Parking spaces required is 1.8 spaces per unit for a total of approximately 51 spaces. A total of 85 parking spaces will be provided, 15 of which are in the overflow parking area. A mailbox cluster will be provided at the existing parking lot. The setbacks for the townhouses are 20-feet front yard, 8-feet side yard, and 10-feet rear yard. Landscaping will be provided by the deveioper on each lot and will include ornamental grasses, Spruce, Holly, Weeping Cherry, and Boxwood. Street lights and sidewalks will be provided. A large portion of the Forest Conservation requirements have been addressed in preViously approved sections of the development. Approximately 14-acres of forest have been approved. A total of .42-acres of forest conservation is required and will be addressed in the development of future sections. City of Hagerstown Sewer Department and Washington County Health Department approvals are pending. All other agency approvals have been received.

Discussion: Ms. Parrish asked about school capacity for schools that would serve this development. Ms. Kelly noted that this is an age-restricted development and is so noted on the plats for this section and all previously approved sections. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry about the enforcement of the age restriction element. Mr. Crampton stated he has not had any problems with this issue.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the preliminary plat/site plan for Phase 2A of Emerald Pointe PUD contingent upon City of Hagerstown Sewer Department and WashinGton County Health Department approvals. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS City of Hagerstown Annexation -S & H Partnership/Summit Ridge LLC (AOS-06) Mr. Thompson presented for review and approval a request from the City of Hagerstown to annex an existing parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.73-acres. The site is located on the south side of Maryland 144 (West Washington Street) on the east side of Hump Road. No new development plans are proposed; however, a trucking facility is currently operating on a portion of the site, which is permitted under the existing IG (Industrial General) zoning classification. Upon annexation, the applicant is requesting an IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning district under the City's regulations. The proposed zoning classification is more restrictive than the current zoning classification; therefore, Mr. Thompson believes that "express approval" is necessary for this request.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that "express approval" be granted for the annexation request. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

City of Hagerstown Annexation - Valley Car Wash (AOS-09)

Mr. Thompson presented for review and approval a request from the City of Hagerstown to annex an existing parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.19-acres. The site is located on the east side of the City at the intersection of Eastern Boulevard and Diamond Drive. The property is the location of an existing car wash operation, which is a permitted use under the County's BG (Business General) zoning designation. No new development is being proposed. The applicant is requesting a C2 (Commercial General) zoning designation upon annexation. The proposed zoning is consistent with the County's BG zoning classification and the County's 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. No "express approval" is necessary in this case.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation request to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. 170

Certification Report for Ag Land Preservation

Mr. Thompson presented for approval the Certification Report for Agricultural Land Preservation Program. This item was discussed during the Planning Commission's workshop on October 20th Mr. Thompson informed the Commission that requested changes have been made to the map and on page 7 of the Report. Staff will be making their presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on November 4'h at to the Ag Advisory Board later in November. Staff is requesting approvai of the Certification Report by the Pianning Commission this evening.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to accept the Certification Report. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.

Planning Commission Policy #8

Mr. Thompson began this discussion regarding Policy #8, adopted in the 1990's, which states, "The Director shall have the authority to recertify ali non-recorded one or two single-family residential lot subdivision plats with the understanding that each plat would be reviewed to assure that the original site conditions are unchanged and also that said plat be recorded within a 30-day period." Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Department recently experienced an incident in which a plat from the 1980's was not recorded and has been submitted for recertification. He has contacted the County Attorney's office for clarification and a possible change to the policy.

Announcements

Mr. Thompson noted that the Maryland Planning Association Directors will be meeting in Annapolis on Friday, November 7'h. Topics of interest include the new storm water management regulations, new ag preservation regulations, and review of the final recommendations of the State Growth Task Force that have been submitted to the Governor.

Mr. Thompson reminded Commission members of the joint meeting with the City of Hagerstown's Planning Commission on Wednesday, November 12'h at 5:00 p.m. There are two items on the agenda for that meeting: a presentation of the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments dealing with the Water Resources and Growth elements and a review of the inventory of ali shopping centers around the City of Hagerstown and their vacancy rates. Mr. Thompson distributed packets of information for the Commission members to review prior to the joint meeting.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

1. Pianning Commission meeting with the City Planning Commission, Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 5:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown 2. Pianning Commission regular meeting, Monday, December 1, 2008, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. So ordered.

Respectfuliy submitted, ~e., fW...... - Geofge Anfkis, Chairman 171

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY OF HAGERSTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING November 12, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission and the City of Hagerstown Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Washington County Administrative Annex at 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.

CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

Washington County Planning Commission Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and asked all who were present to introduce themselves.

The following members of the Washington County Planning Commission were present: Chairman George Anikis, Clint Wiley, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber (arrived at 5:30), Andrew Bowen (arrived at 5:30) and Ex-Officio James Kercheval. The following Washington County staff members were also present: Greg Murray, County Administrator; Julie Pippel, Director of Environment Management; Michael Thompson, Planning Director; Steve Goodrich, Chief Planner and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant, Washington County Planning Department.

The following members of the City of Hagerstown Planning Commission were present: Chairman Doug Wright, Judy Wheeler, Dennis Miller, Fred Nugent, Doug Stone, Dave Gysberts and Ex-Officio Martin Brubaker. The following members of the City of Hagerstown Pianning Department staff were also present: Kathy Maher, Director; Steve Bockmiller, Alex Rohrbaugh, Stuart Bass and Clayton Zug.

- Growth Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan (H.B. 1141) Ms. Maher and Mr. Bass presented a power-point presentation highlighting the House BiiI 1141 amendments prepared to meet requirements of the Growth Element and to bring the City's Comprehensive Pian into full compliance. House BiiI 1141 requires the Growth Eiement to include the following: past road patterns, management capacity, growth projections, and growth boundary for annexations. Ms. Maher explained that future annexations must be consistent with their Comp Plan. Services and infrastructure needed to serve growth must be addressed and financing mechanisms must be identified to provide the infrastructure and services. The City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan recommends policies to: strengthen the City's role as the primary provider of urban services, increase economic deveiopment, and promote prosperity and fiscal stability.

Mr. Bass stated the City identified the following major concerns in 1997 in Hagerstown: minimal growth, revitalization of the deteriorating urban core in the face of steady growth outside the corporate boundaries, and competition with new residential and economic development investment occurring outside of the City, which the City was making possible by the extension of city water and sewer. Mr. Bass noted that the City of Hagerstown constituted 45% of the population of Washington County in 1950 and 27.8% of the population in 2000. However, at the same time, the population in the suburbs grew dramatically. This change affected the economic heaith of the City with the 2000 median family income being 22% lower than the County's average and over two-thirds of the population in the urban area living below the poverty level resided within the City. Therefore, the City considered capturing a greater share of the surrounding growth than experienced over the last 50 years. This would allow the city to strengthen their position in the region, increase tax revenues, diversify the socio-economic base, and improve their capability of attracting higher paying jobs.

Ms. Maher stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan places particular emphasis on the relationship between land capacity supply, projected growth and the availability of water and sewer resources to serve growth.

Mr. Bass stated that in 2000, the City was beginning to see a change by benefitting from the Maryland Smart Growth legislation, building moratoriums in Frederick County, lower interest rates, scarcity of affordable land to the east of Washington County and the City's 2002 Annexation Policy.

During the Impact Capacity Analysis, the City's consultant looked at the vacant land within the Urban Growth Area and how it was zoned to determine the acreage and how that would translate into residential/commercial development. It was determined there are 10,000 acres of vacant land outside the City, but within the County's designated UGA that is zoned for residential uses which could generate 22,000 new housing units and 55,000 new residents. There are 227 acres of vacant residentially zoned land and 761 acres of non-residentially zoned land within the City. Ms. Maher noted that most of the vacant acreage in the City is industrially zoned along old railroad corridors. Growth on infill parcels and newly annexed land resulted in a 0.9% growth in population per year in the City between 2000 and 2005. The City anticipates growth will continue due to the higher cost of living and the anticipated job growth to the east. Population growth projections assume continuation of growth at a moderate pace of 1.5% per year through 2027.

In order to determine an appropriate growth boundary, the City analyzed land capacity within the City and the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. A Medium Range Growth Area (MRGA) was identified within the 172

designated County Urban Growth Area to guide the City's growth for the next 20 years. The MRGA includes existing residences and businesses that receive city services, creates a rational City boundary with respect to potentiai annexation, and provides a reduced wastewater service boundary to insure adequate capacity.

Mr. Bass stated that the City spent a iot of time outlining strategies to address the relationship between planned growth and the infrastructure needed to accommodate it. The Plan provides direction for managing the City's water and sewer utilities during that time. Approximately 11,053 EDU's (equivalent dwelling units) of capacity will be availabie with upgrades to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. Approximately 33,460 EDU's to serve new development are available within the UGA using three waste water treatment plants (WWTP). The County Water & Sewer Infrastructure Report found there is potential for development within the UGA that could create a 42,000 EDU shortfall of sewer capacity.

Mr. Bass stated that the City has identified strategies to maximize water and sewer systems capacities, which include coordination with the County, the establishment of priority areas, and continued upgrades to the City's Plan to assess new technology as it becomes available. The City also identified water and sewer service boundaries to allow the City's utilities to serve the projected future demand and to ensure that vacant and under-utilized lands within the existing corporate boundaries will have adequate infrastructure for future development. The Plan's official growth rate is 1.5% per year and the figure upon which water and sewer capacity is calculated. Within the City and the MRGA, a projection of 8,807 EDU's of sewer is needed to serve development through 2027, which allows for 2,246 EDU's remaining. The Pian has established the following priorities: to serve a reasonabie amount of growth outside the current City boundary and to insure that infill and redevelopment needs are met. Special consideration will be given to projects outside the MRGA in targeted economic development areas, such as the Airport and Friendship Technology Park.

Ms. Maher stated that the Plan identifies other public services and infrastructure needed to accommodate growth. It identifies the City's top transportation priorities as follows: Eastern Boulevard (the upgrade of the County's portion and extension to Marsh Pike), the Northwest Connector (Haven Road to Salem . Avenue), Professional Court extension to the new Hospital site, Paul Smith Boulevard (Route 40 to Alternate 40) and Southern Boulevard (Funkstown By-pass). The Plan included projects from the Board of Education for future schools. Ms. Maher noted that the City has adopted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) that mirrors the County's APFO. The Plan recommends the relocation of two fire companies currently located close to the City's square. One fire company would relocate to the north and one to the west, which would move them closer to areas of growth. The City's Fire Chief also recommended that fire agencies in the Hagerstown region come together to discuss strategies for addressing growth and service territories with the Mayor and City Council, the County Commissioners and the Town of Funkstown. The Plan also recommends the City's commitment to financially assist the expansion of the Central Library. Ms. Maher noted that the City has recently implemented new open space requirements in their Subdivision Ordinance. The Plan identifies financing mechanisms such as the APFO and Excise Tax, deveioper contributions and the CIP.

Mr. Bass noted that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan sets forth new City policies that will be implemented through separate decisions, ordinances and laws. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances will be updated and amended to be consistent with the Plan's recommendations. New zoning districts are recommended to gUide the location of higher wage employers and high-quality new residential deveiopment in the City, enhance the City's fiscal foundation and broaden the City's economic base.

The City is currently in Phase I of a Comprehensive rezoning with three new proposed mixed use zoning districts. The City's Capitai Improvement Program will be updated to include specific projects. The Water and Sewer Element will be forwarded to the County for inclusion in the County's Water and Sewer Plan. The City will prepare additional Comp Plan amendments to complete the Water Resource Element requirements following completion of the County's study.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding the recommendation that the "end date" of the flow transfer agreement be eliminated. Ms. Maher stated that an "end date" is counter-productive to the reasons for establishing the agreement. Mr. Murray expressed his opinion that the flow transfer agreement needs to address issues in a cooperative manner between the City and County. Mr. Kerchevai expressed his concern that the City's current rate structure makes a flow transfer liability to the County. He does not believe that the Plan is focusing on the UGA as a whole, but rather it focuses on the City's MRGA. Originally, the County proposed a three-tier rate structure for flow transfer; however, a two­ tier system was established.

Mr. Anikis asked if the MRGA includes support for residential development in the UGA beyond the MRGA in the next 20 years. Mr. Wright stated there would not be enough allocation because the City does not want to by-pass vacant land to get water and sewer to the rural areas and potentially run out of capacity for the MRGA. Mr. Kercheval noted that the City is assuming full use of the City plant and partiai use of the Conococheague plant. He believes that the City and County need to work together to develop strategies to provide services outside the MRGA; specifically, economic development areas at the Airport and the Allegheny Technology Center. Planning Commission members from both the City and the County believe that sewer capacity issues need to be addressed by the elected officials.

Mr. Kercheval noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan lists Central Booking as a joint City/County effort. However, Central Booking is a County-wide service and includes all the towns, not just the City of Hagerstown or Washington County. 173

Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the City's SCAP (Sewer Capacity Allocation Plan) policy which the Comp Plan implies "will go away" when the Consent Order is lifted. Ms. Maher stated that the City plans to keep a SCAP to manage the provision of service in the future.

Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the Implementation Plan and the City's plans to work with the County to accomplish several of the tasks. He suggested that both Planning Commissions have a time scheduie and a lead person to ensure that these tasks are accomplished.

- Shopping Center Vacancy Rate Analysis

Mr. Rohrbaugh presented a brief report focusing on the vacancy rate of shopping centers in and around Hagerstown. Currently, two major retail shopping centers both in excess of 800,000 square feet are proposed in the greater Hagerstown area. The analysis is based on shopping centers containing more than 40,000 square feet, has a mixture of retail shopping and dining facilities, and includes office space. Out-parcels were also considered, which are incidental to the shopping center. The analysis defined two types of shopping centers: a neighborhood shopping center and a destination shopping center. A neighborhood shopping center would include grocery stores and small personal care businesses and a destination shopping center wouid attract large anchor stores and large numbers of people (i.e. the Valley Mall). The analysis does not include retail vacancy rates in downtown Hagerstown. A map was attached to the analysis showing the 24 shopping centers included in the analysis. There are 13 shopping centers in the City and 11 shopping centers in the County that were within the City's MRGA.

Mr. Rohrbaugh stated that the vacancy rate in the City is 13.9% or 365,000 square feet of available space. The shopping center with the highest vacancy rate is Long Meadow Shopping Center. According to an article in the Main Street News, entitled "Sharp Rise in Shopping Center Vacancies", estimated that by the end of this year the overall vacancy rates of retail shopping centers will be 12.5%. The City has a slightly higher vacancy rate than the national average. Three of the 13 major shopping centers in the City had anchor stores that were vacant, which included the South End Shopping Center (Big Lots), the Giant Eagle shopping center on Burhans Bouievard, and the former Furniture and More shopping center on . Wesel Boulevard. Four shopping centers had no vacancies, which included the Centre at Hagerstown, the Kenley Square Shopping Center, the Center at Antietam and Hagerstown Commons.

Mr. Rohrbaugh stated that there are 11 retail centers containing over 40,000 square feet of space outside of the City but within the MRGA. The vacancy rate for these centers is substantially lower (4.4% or 105,040 square feet) than the City's vacancy rate. The shopping center with the highest vacancy rate in the County is Fountainhead Plaza, due to the Martin's grocery store relocating to North Pointe Drive. Two shopping centers in the County currently have no vacancies (Valley Plaza and Old Orchard Centre). The average vacancy rate for all shopping centers in the study are 9.4% or 470,758 square feet.

Performance factors were considered which can greatly affect the "health" of a retail center both positively and negatively. These factors are not constant and can change over time as demographics and transportation infrastructure alter the urban and suburban landscape. Four performance factors have been identified: recently constructed shopping centers, management issues, site issues, and optimally sited locations. Each factor was detailed and its affects on shopping center vacancy rates discussed in the analysis.

The City recommended that consideration should be given to the impact that additional large, retail shopping centers would have on the existing shopping centers. It could result in high vacancy rates for the older, struggling shopping center which would lead to large scale abandonment of these types of centers. In conclusion, the analysis states, "If the trend In retail shopping centers reflects that of national trends, and/or if struggling centers become obsolete, then the community needs to re-evaluate zoning designations and plan for redevelopment where these centers eXist."

Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the analysis report with regard to zoning designations. It was suggested that a mixed use zoning designation may be beneficial in some areas where you could have both residential and office or retail uses. Members also discussed incentives for private developers to redevelop vacant sites. Members discussed the current economic situation, which some believe has slowed down the commercial growth and redevelopment in the area. Mr. Kercheval stated that one of the current lobbying initiatives is an adaptive reuse element. One recommendation is a program similar to historic tax credits in which the developer could receive tax credits for rehabilitating an old building that is not classified as historic.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Anikis adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _tj.w:k..~' 174

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 1, 2008

The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, December 1, 2008, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.

Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Sam Ecker, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly, Planner Cody Shaw, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 20, 2008 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Ecker abstained because he was not present at the workshop meeting.

Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2008 Reguiar Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Thompson stated that he has spoken to Mr. Barnhart of the Washington County Health Department regarding fact sheets for sand mound septic systems. Currently, the Heaith Department does not have . any documents available; however, they are in the process of preparing a fact sheet and will forward a copy to Mr. Thompson upon completion. Mr. Thompson noted that sand mounds are no longer considered "special" systems.

NEW BUSINESS

- VARIANCES

Brent & Deanna Bailey (S-08-086) Mr. Shaw presented for review and action a waiver request from Section 5B.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a 50-foot Agriculture Land Use Setback. The property is located along the south side of Falling Waters Road in Williamsport. In accordance with Section 5B.5, the Planning Commission may increase minimum setbacks up to 50-feet for properties adjacent to parcels that are actively farmed or parcels with an Agricultural District designation. An adjoining property is being farmed and has an Ag use assessment. The proposed dwelling meets the minimum setbacks for the Environmental Conservation zone, which are a 40-foot front yard setback, a 15-foot side yard setback, and a 50-foot rear yard setback; but, does not meet the 50-foot agriculture setback requirement. Staff recommends reducing the agriculture setback from 50-feet to 35-feet.

Discussion: Mr. Bowen asked for a brief summation explaining the reason for the 50-foot agriculture setback. Mr. Kercheval explained that the setback was established to help avoid conflict between the agricultural land and residential development. Mr. Lung noted that the requirement applies to property not only in an agriculture preservation district but any area being actively farmed. He further explained that in this particular case, the adjoining land is being actively farmed. Mr. Kercheval asked that a note be added to the plat stating that the applicant requested the reduced setback. Mr. Thompson stated that the note would be added with the date that the Planning Commission granted the modification. Mr. Kercheval questioned why a distance of 35-feet was chosen for the setback and if that distance would also apply to accessory structures. Mr. Thompson stated that 35-feet is the distance needed to get the dwelling on the lot as proposed. Mr. Schreiber noted that the proposed setback distance was based on principle permitted uses, not accessory uses.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to grant the waiver from Section 5B.5 of the Zoning Ordinance from the required 50-foot agriculture land use setback to 35-feet contingent upon the waiver request and approval date being noted on the plat. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

John Sensenbaugh (SV-08-016) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which states that panhandles may not exceed 400-feet in length. The property is located along the north side of Partridge Trail in Robinwood and is zoned RR (Residential Rural). There is private access via Dormayne Drive, which is inciuded in the land owned by John Sensenbaugh. A total of six lots access Dormayne Drive. The property owner is proposing to create a 1.33 acre lot for his son from a total parcel of 2.27 acres. The lot would have public road frontage onto Partridge Trail via a panhandle of 715­ feet. Included in the agenda packets were comments from the Division of Public Works Land 175

Development Engineering and the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. The site is served by public water and an individual septic system.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the variance request as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS

AMS, LLC (PC-OS-007)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and comment, a preliminary consultation for AMS, LLC for property located along the east side of Greencastle Pike, just south of its intersection with Huyetts Crossroad. The property is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1). The developer is proposing to create 8 industrial/commercial lots on approximately 32-acres of land. During the preliminary consultation, the County Engineering Department stated that a Traffic Impact Study would be required. The Engineering Department will also require that the proposed road into the site be extended to the property to the east for interconnectivity with Newgate Boulevard and not terminate in a cul-de-sac. A fiood study will be required for the stream that runs through the property and a storm water management plan is required and must comply with the Washington County Stormwater Management Ordinance. The project may require a minimum of two storm water management facilities to avoid problems of the storm water conveyance system near the stream. The Washington County Soil Conservation District provided standard comments regarding the flood plain and sensitive areas. Consideration must be given to the existing stream on the site. The State Highway Administration is requiring a sight distance worksheet. Curb and gutter will be required along Maryland Route 63. The City of Hagerstown will provide water service, which is currently available. The Washington County Department of Water Quality indicated that sewer service is available and would be provided through the Cedar Springs Pump Station. The Planning Department informed the developer that the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee is currently making recommendations for rezoning properties within the UGA. This site is proposed for the IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning designation. Ms. Kelly recommended a buffer to shield the view from MD Route 63 from any of the buildings. She also suggested that the buildings should be aesthetically pleasing from MD Route 63. During the consultation, attendees discussed the eiimination of the panhandles and recommended replacing them with a cul-de-sac.

Discussion: Mr. Bowen asked if the proposed road would be a County road. Ms. Kelly stated It would be a County road. Mr. Bowen then made an inquiry regarding the County's position when taking over new roads. Mr. Kercheval stated that long term plans for the County have proposed the connection of Newgate Boulevard in this area. Mr. Bowen concurred with Staff that the panhandles should be eliminated for this development. Mr. Kercheval recommended that the tree line along the parcels containing the historic properties be retained. Mr. Anikis noted that the historic property listed in the Washington County Historic Sites Survey (Site WA-I-367) has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; therefore, more consideration should be given to additional buffering from the commercial/industrial uses proposed. Mr. Anikis recommended that all forestation requirements should be met on-site. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated there are priority areas that would be considered first and the remaining forestation requirements would be met as much as possible on-site.

-SITE PLANS

Deacon Enterprises. LLC (SP-OS-04S)

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Deacon Enterprises, LLC for property located along the southwest side of Mt. Aetna Road near its intersection with Colonial Drive. The owner is proposing to construct a dentist's office on a .92 acre parcel (With no remaining lands) zoned BG (Business General). The proposed office will be 3,400 square feet in size, 30-feet in height with one access point on Mt. Aetna Road. The site will be served by public water and public sewer provided by the City of Hagerstown. One sign, which will be 12-feet in height and 30-square feet, is proposed at the entrance. Lighting will be building mounted. Solid waste will be collected and stored inside the building. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The number of employees proposed is 10 with 2 practitioners. Parking required is 8 spaces and 26 parking spaces are provided. There will be UPS deliveries daily. Storm water management will be provided on site by a bio-retention pond. Landscaping will be provided around the building and throughout the parking lot using boxwood, Green Ash juniper, and pine and spruce trees. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there is less than 40,000 square feet of disturbed area. Health Department approval is pending. All other agency approvals have been received.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon Health Department approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved .

• FOREST CONSERVATION

Victoria R. J. Proulx. Lot 2

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a request to use the payment-in-Iieu of afforestation for 2.29­ acres of land located on Valley Road near Route 340. Ms. Kelly stated that a preliminary/final plat was submitted to the Planning Department along with a Forest Conservation Plan. A letter was received with 176

the plan from Mr. Tim Kellerman, Senior Environmental Specialist, with Triad Engineering indicating that all requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance could not be met on-site. The total tract area is 4.5-acres in size. The Forestation Worksheet indicates that 2.58-acres of forestation, retention, or afforestation would be required. The applicant is proposing to retain .15-acres of existing forest and provide .14 acres of supplemental planting to create the .24-acre span in a priority area of wetiands. The owner is also proposing to use the payment-in-Iieu to meet the remaining planting requirement of 2.29 acres. Ms. Keily noted that the purchaser, Richelle Lewis, is proposing to use the property for agricultural purposes (grazing of cattle and horses); therefore, large areas of open space are needed.

Discussion: Ms. Lewis stated that she currently owns and lives on the property across the road and does not plan to build a house on the subject property at this time. Ms. Lewis and a representative from Triad Engineering displayed photographs of the site during discussions regarding existing forest. Ms. Lewis stated she plans to provide additional buffering for the Proulx's and the Mayberry's. The tree line along Miller Avenue and in the center of the property would be cleared. Mr. Kercheval recommended retaining the tree lines along the west and northeast sides to help buffer the residences in those areas. Mr. Bowen noted that there may be no further subdivision of this property per a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals as noted on the submitted plat.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan for approximately 2.29 acres of land and the request to use the payment-in-Iieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements, contingent upon all tree lines on the north and northwest sides of the property being retained. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS

Westfields Development

Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification from the required 3-acre parcel to a 2.6-acre parcel to establish a daycare facility in the Westfields cluster development. The property is located along - the west side of Sharpsburg Pike and Rockland Drive and is zoned A (Agriculture).

Discussion: Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the daycare facility will be a good amenity for the development.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the modification as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.

Hagerstown Gateway (PC-OS-002) Mr. Lung presented for review and comment a proposed sensitive area stream buffer plan associated with the proposed retail center (Hagerstown Gateway) to be located at the southeast corner of 1-70 and US Route 40. A preliminary consultation was reviewed by the Planning Commission in June 2008. The Washington County Subdivision Ordinance and Washington County Zoning Ordinance require a sensitive area review and provision of stream buffers as part of a proposed subdivision or site plan. The Washington County Soil Conservation District reviews all sensitive area and stream buffer requirements. The applicant, Faison, is requesting the Planning Commission's concurrence with the Soil Conservation District's recommendation and/or additional recommendations for addressing the stream buffers. As per the Sensitive Area Ordinance, the applicant has evaluated the site and submitted documentation to the Soil Conservation District for their review and recommendation. A copy of the report entitled, "Washington County Sensitive Area Buffer Report for Hagerstown Gateway"was included in the Planning Commission's agenda packets. The site was checked for streams and an analysis was performed to identify stream buffers that would be required. Three streams needing buffer areas were identified on the site. The developer has applied to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for a joint review of their request to disturb jurisdictional non-tidal wetlands and wetland buffers associated with some of the streams and springs in the area. The proposed impacts on stream buffers would be the removal of 2,500 square feet of wetlands, removal of 360 linear feet of an existing discharge channel, the removal of 1,318 linear feet of a three dot stream associated with the perennial wetlands and fill within an MDE 100 year floodplain, installation of two box culverts or bridge structures and associated fill through a FEMA 100 year floodplain over an existing dry drainage swale and the instailation of two bridge structures and associated fill through a FEMA 100 year floodplain over an existing stream (Landis Stream Branch). Mr. Lung explained that normally the sensitive area review and stream buffer requirements are determined by the engineer per the Ordinance's criteria. The stream buffer is applied to the plat or site plan and does not allow any disturbance or work within the buffer area. However, in this case, the developer is proposing disturbance within the stream buffer; therefore, mitigation will be required per the Sensitive Area reguiations, which state, "No permanent structures or construction shall be permitted within a stream buffer except those designed to improve water quality in the stream or structures such as fences designed to iimit access to the stream." Due to the proposed disturbance within the stream bUffer, Mr. Elmer Weibley of the Soil Conservation District, is recommending additional mitigation above the standard requirement for stream buffers. A copy of Mr. Weibley's memo detailing his recommendations was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Weibley's recommendations include:

1) Expansion of the proposed wetlands area. The developer has agreed to expand the wetlands area to 4,000 square feet. 177

2) Stream restoration of 1,650 linear feet of Landis Spring Branch. The SCD is requesting plantings in this area. The actual stream buffer, based on the evaluation of the size of the stream, is 24 feet from the center of the stream or 48 feet from side to side. Within that area, plantings of at least 2" caliper at a stocking rate of 100 trees per acre has been requested. All recommendations for mitigation by the SCD are to improve water quality in exchange for the elimination of the spring and buffers, as well as the bridge culvert work. Mr. Weibley does not believe that the trees planted within the stream buffer area should be counted toward Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Staff agrees with Mr. Weibley's position; however, the developer is not in agreement. The developer believes they should be allowed to count the trees in the stream buffer area toward the overall Forest Conservation requirements.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis and Mr. Bowen asked why the SCD does not want to count the trees in the buffer area as part of the Forest Conservation requirements. Mr. Lung stated that the intent of the regulation and recommended mitigation is to improve water quality. Mr. Bowen stated that he agrees with planting of the trees to mitigate the disturbance in the stream buffer and the need for better water quality. However, he expressed his opinion that the planting of the trees in the buffer area can satisfy both requirements; therefore, he does not believe it is fair to make the developer plant twice the amount of trees. Mr. Lung stated that if the developer is allowed to count the trees to satisfy both requirements, less trees would be planted effectively decreasing the water quality improvement. He noted that the Corps of Engineers and MDE will also be requiring wetlands mitigation. As part of the Corps of Engineers' and MDE's review, the impacts of eliminating the springhead and the outfall will be reviewed and mitigation will be required. According to Mr. Weibley, both agencies allow stream restorations to be counted toward their mitigation requirements; therefore, Mr. Lung believes that the developer would use these plantings as part of the MDE and Corps of Engineers mitigation requirements aiso. Mr. Lung noted that the developer, as part of the wetlands mitigation, is applying for a CLOMAR map amendment to the FEMA map to reduce the size of the floodplain.

Mr. Anikis Invited Mr. Divelbiss, attorney for Faison, to make a brief presentation on behalf of his client. Mr. Divelbiss gave a brief summation of Faison's stream restoration efforts. He believes that the trees planted within the 48-foot area shouid be counted toward mitigation for the disturbance of the stream buffer and Forest Conservation requirements. He noted that the Sensitive Area Ordinance and the Forest Conservation Ordinance do not prohibit the developer from being credited for both mitigation requirements using the same planting area. Mr. Dave Troslie of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, Faison's consultant, gave a more detailed presentation using a colored drawing to show the area that the developer is proposing to mitigate for SCD and FCO requirements, which is approximateiy 2.4 acres. He also reviewed the requirements of MDE and the Corps of Engineers. The wetland area, which will be controlled by MDE, requires 2,500 square feet of mitigation. The developer is proposing 4,000 square feet of mitigation. The Corps of Engineers cited areas of concern at two of the stream crossings, which the developer will be required to mitigate (approximately 210 linear feet). Mr. Trostle stated that the developer is proposing to pipe the water from the spring head to the wet pond. The developer is also proposing to restore the "meandering" of the Landis Spring Branch to help reduce the sediment loads. Currently, the stream is approximately 3,000 feet long and upon completion of the proposed improvements the stream will be 4,000 linear feet long. A buffer will be provided along the entire length of the stream.

Discussion: Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the developer is addressing the water quality issues with their proposed mitigation. He stated that he believes it is his responsibility as a Planning Commission member to enforce the laws approved by the County Commissioners (i.e. Forest Conservation Ordinance). As long as the developer is meeting the specified requirements, Mr. Bowen stated he is "totally against" requiring the developer to "go above and beyond". Mr. Ecker concurred with Mr. Bowen's comments. Mr. Kercheval asked what the developer is requesting from the Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the developer is asking the Planning Commission to accept the proposed mitigation plan for the meandering stream efforts. Mr. Kercheval stated he is not opposed to the mitigation plan per Staff's recommendations. Mr. Wiley concurred.

There was a brief discussion regarding Forest Conservation requirements including Mr. Weibley's recommendation that stream buffer planting not count towards forest conservation and the developer being allowed to count "street trees" as part of there mitigation requirements. These issues will be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date. The Commission has requested that Mr. Weibley be present at the meeting when these issues are discussed. Mr. Thompson stated that an amendment to the Forest Conservation Ordinance will be required in order to allow street trees to be counted as part of the mitigation for Forest Conservation.

City of Hagerstown Annexation - Norfolk/Southern Railroad (ADS-OS) Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation a request from the City of Hagerstown for annexation of approximately 95 acres of land located south of the current City of Hagerstown boundary below Wilson Boulevard, west of Downsville Pike, east of Virginia Avenue and north of Oak Ridge Drive. The applicant is proposing to develop the property for the off-loading and storage of new motor vehicles, a rail to truck transfer point. Mr. Thompson reminded the Commission that this request was previously presented to them and received their recommendation for approval contingent upon certain conditions and was presented to the BOCC The annexation proceeded to the BOCC; however, no action was taken by the Commissioners prior to the annexation request being withdrawn. At this time, there is some 178

question if express approval is required from the BOCC. The applicant is proposing an IG (Industrial General) zoning designation under the City of Hagerstown's Zoning Ordinance. The property is currently zoned PI (Planned Industrial) by the County. The industrial uses permitted in IG (Industrial General) and IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning districts are permitted in the Planned Industrial (PI) zoning district. Mr. Thompson noted that there Is not a significant difference in the proposed use; however, there is a significant difference in the process required for a Planned Industrial project. Staff is recommending the previously discussed conditions as well as one additional condition for approval (all recommended conditions were outlined in a memo included in the agenda packet).

Mr. Thompson has discussed, with the County Attorney, whether or not conditions can be placed on an "express approval" request and if "express approval" is necessary in this case. The County Attorney believes the process is the issue and not the change in zoning. The County Attorney also indicated that if the City does not believe express approval is necessary, the City can proceed with the annexation. Mr. Thompson expressed his opinion that the concerns of the Planning Commission and the BOCC should be forwarded to the City. The concerns include: effects to the residential development across the street from the subject site, traffic, buffering, lighting, and access to the site. Mr. Thompson noted that the railroad is proposing the use of 1DO-foot light poies.

Discussion: Mr. Kercheval stated that he does not agree with Staff's recommendation and he believes that express approval is necessary. He also stated that he has not discussed the legal issues with the County Attorney, which could influence a change in his position. However, he needs to discuss the issue prior to making a decision. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the requested zoning is incompatible with the surrounding residential area. He believes that the Planned Industrial zoning district is very different from the Industrial General zoning district. He also believes that additional buffering should be required along the north end of the property to protect the existing residential development, as well as the areas previously recommended. Mr. Wiley and Mr. Ecker concurred with Mr. Kercheval's comments. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that express approval should be required so the County has more leverage when the annexation is discussed. He expressed concern that the proposed use would have an impact on the residents in the area already in the area. There was a brief discussion -regarding access to the site. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that significant screening is needed along the northern, western and southern boundaries of the site. He expressed concern regarding the proposed 1DO-foot light poles. Mr. Anikis suggested that truck traffic from the site be required to use Oak Ridge Drive to Downsville Pike and should not be allowed to enter Halfway Boulevard. Mr. Thompson stated that other trucks use the road to Halfway Boulevard; therefore, it may be difficult to prohibit trucks from this site from using the same route. Mr. Anikis asked if the hours of operation can be restricted so trains are not unloaded on weekends and late at night. Mr. Kercheval stated that when the property is annexed, the County will not have any control over these issues. Mr. Thompson noted that the City does have a Noise Ordinance that may help to address the hours of operation. Mr. Anikis asked if Mr. Thompson could attend the public hearing to represent the County Planning Commission and to voice their concerns. Mr. Thompson stated he would make a request to the County Commissioners to attend the public hearing. He noted he would make changes to his original recommendation before presentation to the BOCC.

Policy #8 - Planning Commission Policies and Resolutions

Mr. Thompson presented a request to delete Policy #8 of the Planning Commission Policies and Resolutions. Policy #8 states, "The Director shall have the authority to recertify all non-recorded one or two single-family residential lot subdivision plats with the understanding that each plat would be reviewed to assure that the original site conditions are unchanged and also that the said plat be recorded within a 3D-day period". Mr. Thompson noted that the Ordinance states that plats are to be recorded within two (2) years from approval. Changes to the Ordinance are being considered.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to delete Policy #8 from the Planning Commission Policies and Resolutions. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.

Discussion: Mr. Anikis noted that in the Policies and Resolutions, reference is made to "Executive Director" and "Planning Director". He recommended that if both phrases are referring to the same person, changes should be made for consistency throughout the document.

Re-adoption of By-laws

Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission's By-laws, which were adopted in 2005, have not been recorded per Article XI of the By-laws. The County Attorney's office has recommended that the Planning Commission re-adopt the By-laws, which will then be recorded. Mr. Kercheval questioned the follOWing sentence from Article IV, Section 1, which states, "The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month". He noted that the Commission might not hold a meeting due to lack of items for the agenda. Mr. Thompson stated he would check on this issue and report to the Commission at next month's meeting.

NEXT MEETING

1. Monday, January 5, 2009, 7:00 p.m., Regular Planning Commission meeting, Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown 179

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Bowen. So ordered. Respectfully submitted,

/1 .11. / (-I..Ltnf'£. ~G<.; Geo~e An1kis, Chairman