Docstoc

Mr

Document Sample
Mr Powered By Docstoc
					At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Warren held
in the Warren County Government Center Board Room on October 14, 2009.

PRESENT:      David McDaniel, Vice-Chairman; Harry Krum; Lorraine Smelser
              and Victor Failmezger; also present Taryn Logan, Planning
              Director; Matt Wendling, Planner; and Linda Neighbors, Secretary.

ABSENT:      Mark Bower, Chairman; Blair Mitchell, County Attorney.

Call to Order:

Mr. McDaniel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda:

Mr. Krum moved to adopt the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
       Absent: Bower

Approval of the regular meeting minutes of September 9, 2009.

Mr. Failmezger moved that the regular meeting minutes of September 9, 2009 be
approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Krum and passed on
the following vote:

       Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
       Absent: Bower

Public Presentations:

There were no public presentations.

Public Hearings:

       2009-09-01    E. F. Thompson, Inc.

Ms. Logan introduced the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit for a
trucking facility. The property is located on Kelley Drive, is zoned Industrial (I)
and is identified on tax map 12, as lot 32A6, in the Kelley Industrial Park
containing approximately 3 acres. The property was formerly occupied by
Walden Foods, is currently owned by Green Industrial Realty and is presently


                                                                                      1
vacant. The applicant is leasing the parking lot area to park 8 tractors. The
applicant states they have served as a contractor for the United States Postal
Service since 1964. They have a contract to haul USPS products from the facility
located across Kelley Drive from this property (New Breed Logistics) to points in
southeastern Virginia. These are scheduled trips coming and going 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. She said comment letters had been sent to the Town
and VDOT. She said the Town was in agreement with the request and VDOT
had simply stated the current inadequacy of the Rockland Road/Route 340/522
intersection.

Ms. Logan stated that staff would recommend that if the Planning Commission
were to approve of this request that the following conditions be applied:

   1. The applicant shall comply with all Virginia Department of
      Transportation, Warren County Building Inspections Department, and
      Town of Front Royal regulations and requirements.
   2. There shall be no more than 8 tractors parked on the property.
   3. If the building is occupied in the future by this applicant or another
      applicant, the Planning Department must be notified. Additional parking
      may be needed to accommodate several uses on the property.
   4. The applicant shall ensure that drivers turn off their trucks if parked for
      more than 5 minutes.
   5. There shall be no outdoor storage located on the property.
   6. Landscaping shall be installed along the frontage of the property in
      accordance with Section 180-49.1 of the Warren County Zoning
      Ordinance. This landscaping shall consist of one tree and 10 shrubs for
      every 35 feet of linear street frontage and shall be approved by the Warren
      County Planning Department prior to installation.

Ms. Logan noted that the public hearing had been properly advertised and
adjacent property owners had been duly notified. She said she would be happy
to answer any questions.

There being no comments from the Commission, Mr. McDaniel opened the
public hearing and asked if any one present wished to speak for or against the
application.

There being no one present who wished to speak for or against the application,
Mr. McDaniel closed the public hearing and turned the matter over to the
Commission members for their consideration.

Mr. Krum and Ms. Logan discussed the re-alignment of Rockland and Reliance
Road which is currently on the six-year plan of road improvements. She said


                                                                                 2
VDOT was currently in the process of obtaining the remainder of the right of
way needed for the re-alignment. She said she believed these eight (8) tractors
have actually already been there using the site so this was just to bring them into
compliance with the ordinance by them getting the conditional use permit.

Mr. Failmezger verified with Ms. Logan that it was just the tractors or the
vehicles of the tractor-operators, not the trailers that would be parking there.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Krum moved that the Planning
Commission forward this application to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation to approve the conditional use permit request of E. F.
Thompson, Inc. for a trucking facility with the following conditions:

   1. The applicant shall comply with all Virginia Department of
      Transportation, Warren County Building Inspections Department, and
      Town of Front Royal regulations and requirements.
   2. There shall be no more than 8 tractors parked on the property.
   3. If the building is occupied in the future by this applicant or another
      applicant, the Planning Department must be notified. Additional parking
      may be needed to accommodate several uses on the property.
   4. The applicant shall ensure that drivers turn off their trucks if parked for
      more than 5 minutes.
   5. There shall be no outdoor storage located on the property.
   6. Landscaping shall be installed along the frontage of the property in
      accordance with Section 180-49.1 of the Warren County Zoning
      Ordinance. This landscaping shall consist of one tree and 10 shrubs for
      every 35 feet of linear street frontage and shall be approved by the Warren
      County Planning Department prior to installation.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
       Absent: Bower

       2009-09-02    Marlon O. Mills

Mr. Wendling introduced the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit for
a commercial repair garage in conjunction with a single family dwelling. The
property is located on Route 55 East (John Marshall Highway), is zoned
Agricultural (A) and is identified on tax map 30, as lot 21C.

Mr. Wendling stated that Mr. Nelson Mills had been operating this business as a
non-conforming use since 1974 and had primarily worked on family and friends’


                                                                                   3
vehicles. His son, Marlon, would like to expand the business to the general
public and work on one to three vehicles daily by appointment only. He works
on automobiles, tractors and small engine equipment and has only one part-time
employee who is his son. The applicant is requesting hours of operation from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday by appointment only and closed
on Sunday.

Mr. Wendling continued that requests for comments had been sent to and
received from the Warren County Health Department and Virginia Department
of Transportation.

Mr. Wendling said the Health department felt that there wouldn’t be a sufficient
increase in the use of the residence’s restroom facilities to warrant a negative
impact to their existing sewage treatment system. The Health Department had
commented that the conditions of storage and disposal for waste automobile
fluids, oil and fuel were a concern with this type of business. Mr. Mills is
proposing that his business would likely never exceed a volume of twenty
gallons on the premises at any given time and would be disposed of on a
frequent basis.

Mr. Wendling noted that VDOT had stated that based on the 55 MPH posted
speed limit and a requirement to have 610’ of unobstructed sight distance in each
direction that the entrance did not meet their minimum requirements for a
commercial entrance. The existing entrance sight distance to the east is 350’ and
to the west is 525’ along John Marshall Highway. VDOT does not recommend
any increase in the use of this substandard entrance which fails to meet the sight
distance standards. Staff and Mr. Mills have worked together with VDOT since
the previous meeting and had come up with a condition for the permit that
would basically only allow the applicant to bring the vehicles to his property on
an appointment-only basis. He said staff would recommend the following
conditions if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to
the Board of Supervisors:

    1. No inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the property.
    2. No more than 3 vehicles or tractors will be stored on site while awaiting
       repair and payment for repairs at any one time.
    3. Vehicles shall be picked up by applicant and brought to the garage on a
       by-appointment-only basis.
    4. Applicant shall comply with all Warren County Health Department,
       Virginia Department of Transportation, and applicable environmental
       regulations and requirements.
    5. All waste fluid storage tanks and containers shall be clearly labeled with
       contents and shall be disposed of on a monthly basis.


                                                                                    4
    6. Mercury switches and other automobile parts shall be recycled in
        accordance with State and Federal regulations through the End of Life
        Vehicle (ELVS) program.
    7. The applicant shall be in conformance with the requirements of section
        180-42 of the Warren County Code (Zoning Ordinance) regarding
        commercial repair garages.
    8. No more than one (1) employee other than the owner shall be associated
        with such an operation.
    9. The business shall not generate customers to the property due to the fact
        that VDOT cannot support any increase in the use of the existing
        entrance.
    10. This permit is non-transferable.
    11. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday from 8:00 AM
        - 6:00 PM and closed on Sunday.
    12. All associated materials and debris for the operation of the garage shall
        be stored within a fully enclosed building and shall be disposed of
        properly on a monthly basis.
    13. Warren County planning staff will review this permit and initiate a site
        visit on an annual basis.

Mr. Wendling stated that the public hearing had been properly advertised and
adjacent property owners duly notified.

He said he would be happy to answer any questions and that Mr. Mills was also
present to answer any questions.

Mr. Failmezger said he remembered discussing a sign for the business at the
previous meeting. He said he recalled the Commission’s concern that a sign
would likely attract drive-in customers from the road. He said he wasn’t sure
that issue had been resolved due to the unsafe entrance.

Mr. Wendling suggested that an additional condition could be placed on the
permit that if a sign were permitted it would state “by-appointment only” to
discourage potential drive-in customers. He said he didn’t know if a sign could
actually be denied since under a conditional use the applicant was allowed a four
by four sign.

Mr. Failmezger said he thought the discussion was that people would drive in if
they saw a sign advertising the business. He said perhaps the applicant could
address that point for the Commission after the public hearing.




                                                                                  5
There being no further discussion, Mr. McDaniel opened the public hearing and
asked if there was any one present who wished to speak for or against the
application.

Deanna Hickerson of 75 Patty Tract Lane, Front Royal addressed the Planning
Commission. She stated that she was an adjacent property owner and had
concerns. She said one of her concerns was about the sign (on the property). She
said Mr. Mills’ letter stated that he wanted to expand his business and to her that
meant advertising and signs. She said she was concerned that if there were signs
there would be drive-in customers as a result of that. She said it would be very
difficult to meet the requirements recommended by the Planning Commission.
She said many of the items listed would seem to be easy to circumvent and very
difficult to enforce so far as coming in and out because it is a residence. How
you differentiate between friends coming to visit and customers coming for
repairs? She said she thought it would be very difficult to control the growth of
the repair facility as recommended and therefore would have an adverse impact
on the surrounding residential area. She said once the conditional use permit
was allowed, she felt it would be very difficult to enforce the restrictions and
conditions that went along with the permit.

George Shanks introduced himself stating he was an Attorney from Luray,
Virginia and a Warren County property owner. He said he also was the husband
of Janice Butler who owned property adjacent to this site. He said he and his
wife were opposed to the issuance of this conditional use permit. He said the
applicant appeared to predicate his permit request on the theory that it’s easier to
ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. He said if he understood the
application correctly it looked as though the applicant, Nelson Mills, had
operated a business at that location in excess of thirty years. He said he would
invite the Commission to inquire before voting on this matter about whether the
applicant has at any time had a business license. He said if not, he would
suggest to the Commission that they are ratifying what the rest of the people
present recognize as an illegal act of operating a business without a business
license. He said it was not simply a matter of form over substance; he thought
Warren County relied on the income from business licenses as well as other
licenses and fees in order to keep the budget balanced. He said the request
invites the Commissioners to ratify the notion that it is easier to ask for
forgiveness than to ask for permission. He said by suggesting that a conditional
use permit as crafted by the applicant would invite the staff to inspect this
operation once a year he would state that inspecting this kind of non-conforming
activity in an agricultural/residential zone once a year invites rampant,
uncontrollable violations which the Commission would not have brought to their
attention in time to do anything about. He said the location itself, as suggested
by VDOT, lies in an area where any kind of commercial use is ill-advised. He


                                                                                  6
said the entry-way was at the crest of a hill. He said Route 55 was a beautiful
corridor and he believed it was slated to be transformed into some form of
wonderful corridor in the future and some type of special planning will be
applied as an overlay; in the meantime it is the most scenic and rustic corridor
that the County has into the Town of Front Royal from the east. He said folks
that entered via Route 66 came across the bridges into a large commercial
corridor. He said Route 55 offered the beauty, the solitude and the splendor of
Warren County. He said to encourage someone to turn that beautiful corridor
into a commercial corridor flies in the face of the County’s comprehensive plan.
He said the County very thoughtfully created a comprehensive plan which
discourages commercial development on that Route 55 east corridor. He spoke
about the old Rutherford’s junk yard which seemed to have cleaned up in recent
years that had been there prior to zoning. He said other than that, there was no
commercial enterprise until you got to the Route 66 interchange at Linden. He
mentioned that just up the road there was a large residential subdivision that
generated a good deal of traffic on its own. After some continued remarks, he
said he didn’t understand how someone who had flouted the law could come
before a Commission like this and expect you to grant that kind of conditional
use permit; he said it just didn’t seem to him to be the appropriate thing to do.
He said he would invite the Commission to inquire of the applicant before
passing on this just how he (the applicant) proposes to get around that. He
asked if he planned on paying those back taxes and interest. He asked at what
point the “family and friends” operation turned commercial. He said that was
his point, the applicant had a plan to do that and would not be before them this
evening had it not been for the fact that he decided to put up a sign. He said
when staff saw the sign and sent him a notice; it was then and only then that he
applied for a conditional use permit. He said by doing it that way, it invites
people to not only ignore the law but hold the law in contempt. If he can get
away with it for a decade or two or three why can’t we? It that’s the way you
(the Commission) wanted their law respected they should grant his conditional
use permit; if that’s not the way you want the citizens of Warren County to view
the legitimacy of their law that tries to control growth and provide for the benefit
of all the people and all of the activities in Warren County to create a harmonious
environment, then he would submit that the Commission had no choice but to
deny the application. He said he and his wife think it’s an incompatible use; they
didn’t think it should be encouraged in any way, shape or form and would ask
that they (the Commission) tell the Board of Supervisors the same thing with
their decision.

Kathy Mills of 2479 John Marshall Highway addressed the Commission. She
said she had married Marlon Mills about six months ago and would like to make
a couple of points clear to the Commission. She said while she and her husband
appreciated their neighbors’ concerns, this was going to be a very small


                                                                                  7
operation. She said he had only been working on vehicles for friends and family
and was not looking to do this full-time, perhaps two cars per day. She said this
was agriculturally zoned property and they understood there were concerns
about activity there and traffic into the driveway. She said they could, by right,
have a business that generated a lot more traffic like having a day-care or a way-
side stand. She said either would pull a lot of people in and out of the driveway
but that was not their intent. She said they could also have a saw mill which
would bring a lot of trucks in and create a lot of noise and dust. She said there
were many things that they could do on the property by right; however what
they were asking was going to have much less impact. She said the property was
kept in immaculate condition and that wouldn’t change. She said nothing would
change other than her husband bringing two cars up the driveway per day. She
said she just wanted to make the point they could do many things by right
without asking permission. She said she didn’t know where the impact would
come in; she said her husband did have a business permit and has had a business
permit. She said he was not attempting to do anything on a large scale at all.
She said they were unaware that people were having problems with this; she
said he was just trying to do something on a very small scale. She said she was
just pointing out that he could have a business there whereby all these concerns
would be valid but that was not his intention. She said he was just looking for a
small, part-time business, a couple of cars per day, and that was it.

Marlon Mills of 2479 John Marshall Highway addressed the Commission. He
said he would like to point out that the building he would be using had been
there since 1974 and had been formerly used as a warehouse for the family’s auto
parts business which they dissolved in 1999. He said yes, he had had a business
license for the past several years. He said why he had gotten to this point was he
had called the Commissioner of Revenue and asked if he could do repairs on the
side as part of the business since the (business) reflected he could do various
things. He said he wasn’t aware that people would be coming in when he posted
the sign so that is how they had gotten to where they were now. He said so far
as working on friends and people’s cars he had done it for years and he had only
asked that they pay him what they thought it was worth. He said he hadn’t
made an every day business of it but he was at the point where he would like to
be able to do a little more than just occasional. He said there had been a lot of
stuff worked on in that building for years. He said cars had been painted inside
the building which he didn’t do anymore. He said there had been engine
overhauls and a lot of work; he said people would have never known anything
was happening on the property. He said if you rode by on Route 55 you could
see absolutely nothing. He said if you looked really hard in the winter with the
leaves off you might see a vehicle parked in the driveway up there. He said he
would like to have a sign but he didn’t want people just driving up. He said he
planned on it being by appointment only. He said if the Commission didn’t


                                                                                8
want him to have a sign he could always advertise in the paper. He said he
would be happy to answer any questions.

Janice Butler of 100 Blackburns Ford Drive, Stephens City, VA addressed the
Commission. She stated that she was an adjacent property owner. She said she
had concerns and signage was one of them. She said she didn’t think that was an
area where a commercial sign should be posted on the road. She said her other
concern was that Route 55 was quite a dangerous highway as it is now. She said
any further traffic going in and out of the existing driveways for a commercial-
type business would just prove to be a more dangerous situation than what is
already there. She said she knew staff had addressed that with a condition that
he picks the vehicles up and then returning them to their owners. She said her
concern was enforcement of that condition and that he is interested in expanding
his business. She said Mr. Mills was right, the property was immaculate and she
would agree with that, it has always been. She said it was a beautiful piece of
property and the garage was off to the side of the property and was not
something that would jump out at you. She said her concern was who would
enforce that from happening as the business did grow. She said if the
Commission was considering allowing him to do this she felt the restrictions
needed to be very specific and enforcement needed to be more than a once-a-
year drive-by to see what was going on with the property. She said she didn’t
want to hinder Mr. Mills from making a living and supporting his family
especially in these hard economic times but she didn’t want to change the
aesthetics of that area because it is a beautiful residential area. She said with her
property lying back there she certainly didn’t want it to become a commercial
repair garage.

There being no one else present who wished to speak for or against the
application, Mr. McDaniel closed the public hearing and turned the matter over
to the Commission members for their consideration.

Mr. Krum opened the discussion by stating that he would like to see the matter
tabled so staff could do some investigative work in determining if and for how
long the applicant had been in business and whether they had obtained a
business license. He said legitimate concerns had been raised about the traffic on
Route 55 since it was once of the busiest roads in the County.

Mr. McDaniel asked Ms. Logan if staff could address the issue regarding the
business license.

Ms. Logan responded that she couldn’t address it at the present time but
obviously she could obtain the records regarding the business license.



                                                                                   9
Mr. Krum moved that the Planning Commission table the conditional use permit
request of Marlon O. Mills for a commercial auto and small engine repair garage
in combination with single family dwelling until the Planning Director can
investigate the business license and various accusations that were made during
the public hearing and report back to the Commission at their next meeting. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the following vote:

      Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
      Absent: Bower

Authorization to Advertise:

      2009-10-01    Anita Martindale

Mr. Wendling introduced a request for a conditional use permit for a kennel.
The property is located at 2857 Reliance Road, containing 2.0175 acres +/-, is
zoned Agricultural (A) and is identified on tax map 11, as parcel 15G.

Mr. Wendling stated that the applicant currently owned 10 dogs that she had
adopted over the years as pets. He said 8 of the 10 dogs were over the age of 10
and she didn’t plan on adopting any more dogs. He said she didn’t plan to
breed board or sell dogs as part of the kennel permit. He said she had installed
an outdoor shelter for the dogs to protect them from inclement weather. He said
the application for a kennel was strictly to bring the applicant into conformance
with the Warren County Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Wendling continued that the property was most recently owned by Shirley
Black who had been approved for a conditional use permit for a commercial
breeding kennel. He noted that Ms. Black had built a 6-foot wooden privacy
fence around the backyard of the property as a condition of her permit.

Mr. Wendling read several suggested conditions that staff would recommend
placing on any eventual conditional use permit. He said the request had been
sent to VDOT, the Warren County Health Department and the Animal Control
division of the Warren County Sheriff’s Department for their review and
comments. He said Ms. Martindale was present to answer any questions and he
would also be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. McDaniel asked Ms. Martindale if she had contacted any of her surrounding
neighbors with regard to her request.

Ms. Martindale came forward and addressed the Commission members. She
said she had 10 dogs but in the past had as many as 20 plus puppies. She said


                                                                                 10
she had lived in Fauquier County and had a license to have 20 dogs and board as
many as 5 dogs at one time. She said her dogs usually lived from 13 to 16 years
and right now, 8 of the 10 were over the age of 10 years. She said she had
obtained them by various means including dogs that had been abandoned.

Mr. McDaniel asked her if she saw the opposition and what went on earlier with
the conditional use permit request and the neighbors. He said that was the
reason for his earlier question.

Ms. Martindale said she had gone through that before so she knew. She said she
felt sorry for people but also felt sorry for the one seeking the permit. She said
she had gone through that in the community she lived in when she had her
kennel permit in Fauquier County. She said her immediate neighbors had no
problems with her kennel and even members of the homeowners association
brought their dogs to her to look after. She said dogs had actually gotten loose
and came over to her kennel. She said she had never had problems but knew
there could be opposition. She said she usually tried to have the dogs inside no
later than 9:00 p.m., most of the time 8:00 p.m. She said she usually didn’t let
them out before 8:00 a.m.

Mr. Krum verified with Ms. Martindale that it was for her dogs; that she
wouldn’t be boarding dogs.

Ms. Martindale said these were her dogs and her pets.

Mr. Wendling verified that there was a suggested condition not to allow
commercial breeding or boarding of dogs.

Ms. Logan stated that the condition was usually suggested when the kennel
license was for personal pets that there shall be no breeding or boarding of dogs.
She said that didn’t allow them to do anything else other than have the dogs as
pets.

Mr. Failmezger asked Ms. Martindale if she planned on keeping the number of
dogs at 10 if one or more passed on.

Ms. Martindale said her children would shoot her if she adopted any more dogs.
She said no she had more than she could handle. She said she actually had her
pets cremated and when her husband passed away, there were 13 cremation
boxes in his casket. She said her children knew the rest went with her when she
passed away.




                                                                                11
Ms. Smelser moved that the Planning Commission authorize the proposed
conditional use permit request for advertisement for a public hearing. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Krum and passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
       Absent: Bower

       Z2009-09-01 A request to modify Section 180-14(E) (prohibited signs) of
the Warren County Code (Zoning Ordinance) to prohibit light emitting diode
(LED) lighted signs, except to display fuel pricing; digital signs; and flashing
signs.

Ms. Logan said the packets contained copies of proposed zoning ordinance
amendments to the County’s sign ordinance, Section 180-14(E) of the Zoning
Ordinance. She said she had attached a memo from John Kulnis, Zoning
Administrator, explaining the justification for the requested amendments. There
has been an increasing safety concern among staff and citizens regarding LED,
digital, and flashing signs, which have grown in popularity recently. The
proposed amendments are shown in bold and underlined and language
proposed to be deleted is shown with a strike through the wording.

Ms. Logan stated than an example would be the church on Route 55 east. She
said the church name was regular but under it the community messages were
LED and flashing which was currently allowed under the county’s ordinance.
She said staff had concerns about people wanting to replace billboard faces with
digital flashing signs since they had become quite popular. She said Mr. Kulnis
had recently attended a zoning conference and learned that many nearby
jurisdictions had recently updated their ordinances to include language
regarding LED and flashing signs. She said the ordinance had been drafted to
allow fuel station pricing signs for gas prices. She said other than to display fuel
pricing; the proposed ordinance would not allow LED and flashing signs.

Ms. Smelser asked Ms. Logan what was wrong with digital signs. She said in her
view it was just new technology. She said she would think a lot of the lighted
signs are digital, period.

Mr. Krum said when you looked at some of the surrounding counties; they were
junk heaps when it came to their signs.

There was some informal discussion among the Commission members.

Ms. Smelser said she wasn’t sure she understood the differences; she said she
thought digital could be many things. She said what she saw was running


                                                                                   12
digital signs displaying messages and in her mind it was technology. She said
flashing or moving could be something else.

Ms. Logan said if there was a problem with digital that could be dropped from
the proposed ordinance; she said that was Mr. Kulnis’ suggestion. She said
perhaps they should get some sign examples for clarification.

Mr. Failmezger said he felt if they didn’t have sign examples and had the public
hearing, the Commission would get educated from someone who really cared
about putting signs up in the County.

Ms. Logan said this had come about since Larry Andrews had placed the sign at
the church on Route 55. She said she had received numerous complaints from
people who lived in the mountain areas nearby about the glare and the flashing.
She said she didn’t think it looked that bad but it had become a large concern in
the County.

Mr. Krum asked Ms. Logan if Mr. Andrews had to get approval from the County
for the sign.

Ms. Logan said he did get County approval; she said she had to approve it
because the ordinance does allow community messages to be flashing (signs).

Ms. Smelser said it wasn’t flashing; it was just moving and changing messages.
She said changing messages was different from flashing.

Mr. Failmezger said it would be helpful to have examples of each thing they
were discussing and which specific things would be prohibited.

Ms. Smelser said in her mind flashing was like strobe lights; something that
would give you headaches. She said digital was technology to her.

After discussion, Mr. Krum moved that the Planning Commission table the
proposed amendments for discussion at a work session or the next regular
meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Failmezger and passed on the
following vote:

      Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
      Absent: Bower




                                                                                 13
Commission Matters:

       Commission Members:

The Commission members had no new business to discuss.

       County Attorney:

Mr. Mitchell was not present. The Commission members requested that Ms.
Logan send flowers to Mr. Mitchell due to his recent illness.

       Planning Director:

Ms. Logan stated that Mr. Fox, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, had asked
at a recent Board meeting that she ask the Planning Commission to look at the
County’s sign ordinance regarding (election) campaign signs. She said his initial
thought was that the County should allow two larger campaign signs per district
and get rid of all the little ones. She said legally, the County could not get rid of
the little signs. She said he had asked her to get feedback from the Commission
members on allowing two of the larger signs; she said right now the County’s
ordinance didn’t allow them, it just allowed the smaller ones.

Mr. McDaniel asked Ms. Logan how the County would enforce two per district.
Would be the first two that went up?

Ms. Logan said she believed that would be two per district per candidate. She
said some were out there anyway but they weren’t actually allowed under the
ordinance. She said Mr. Fox wanted to give the candidates a choice of
“either/or” but the County couldn’t ask candidates to get rid of their small signs.

Ms. Smelser said they were only up for a certain amount of time anyway so she
didn’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Failmezger said he had no problem with it.

Mr. McDaniel said it was too late for this election but if they wanted something
for next year he didn’t have a problem with it either.

Mr. Failmezger said during certain years such as presidential election years that
could amount to a lot of signs.




                                                                                   14
With the concurrence of the Commission members, Ms. Logan said staff would
draft a proposed amendment and include it on the Commission’s next agenda
for authorization for advertisement.

Mr. Krum asked Ms. Logan about the requirement for the designation of “urban
areas” in the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Logan said the County would be required in their next comprehensive plan
update to designate urban development areas where the County could
accommodate growth for the next ten to twenty years with a higher density of up
to four units per acre. She said that was the reasoning behind the Town Planning
Commission Chairman coming to speak with her last week regarding setting up
a work session with both Town and County Planning Commissions. She stated
that they needed to start a dialogue because obviously the Town and County
were going to have to work together on this.

Mr. Krum said he believed that Mr. Stanley felt that kind of development needed
to be right next to the Town borders because of water and sewer availability.

Ms. Logan said she believed it had always been discussed by the County that it
should be contiguous with the Town. She said that type of development would
need public water and sewer. She said that was why it was important to meet
with and work with the Town Planning Commission.

Mr. Failmezger said that would certainly be an agenda item for the joint meeting
with the Town Planning Commission.

Ms. Logan and the Commission members discussed possible dates in November
for a joint meeting.

Mr. Krum stated that Ms. Logan should conduct a study of the County with a
view towards finding other suitable acreage for industrial growth besides the
Route 55 corridor.

Ms. Logan informed the Commission members that EEE Consulting had
completed its study of the wind energy analysis and provided her with their
report. She said she planned on putting it on the next agenda for the Planning
Commission’s review. She said she would e-mail a copy of the report to each of
them the next week so they would have time to read and review it.

Ms. Logan asked the Commission if it was their desire to authorize
advertisement for a proposed ordinance amendment to the Residential One (R-1)



                                                                                15
zoning district for cluster subdivisions which would read …. lots in cluster
housing developments shall have central water and sewer ….

Mr. Failmezger said it didn’t need to say “public” it just needed to say “central”.
He said central could be public; public couldn’t be central. He said it needed to
say “central” instead of “public”; that would give the developer the option to go
to the Town for public services or do their own central system.

Ms. Logan said right now the suburban residential district where Blue Ridge
Shadows was located read “central water and sewer” and they did get public
water and sewer.

After discussion, the Commission members directed Ms. Logan to proceed with
preparation of a proposed amendment and advertisement to amend the utility
requirements for lots in cluster housing developments in the Residential One
zoning district to allow central water and sewer.

Ms. Smelser moved that the Planning Commission authorize the proposed
amendment to the R-1 zoning district stating “central water and sewer” for
advertisement for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Failmezger
and passed on the following vote:

       Ayes: McDaniel, Krum, Smelser, Failmezger
       Absent: Bower

Adjournment:

There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.


                     _________________________________________
                           Chairman




                                                                                 16

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:98
posted:5/7/2010
language:English
pages:16