3/10/03

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" rowspan="2" width=210 BGCOLOR="#99CC99" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="0968dfc3.jpg"> <div> <A HREF="id35.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Planning Commission Meeting Notes Occa"><U><B>Planning Commission Meeting Notes  - Occasional Meetings </B></U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=130 BGCOLOR="#CCCC99" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="0978dfe1esnpes.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>Welcome to the Web Site of Clare Whitbeck</B></FONT><B>     </B><B>|</B><B>     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Welcome to the Web Site of Clare Whitbec"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id83.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11/12/02"><U>11/12/02</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id87.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11/25/02"><U>11/25/02</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id90.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12/9/02"><U>12/9/02</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id100.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1/27/03"><U>1/27/03</U></A>   |   <B> 3/10/03</B>   |   <A HREF="id114.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3/24/03"><U>3/24/03</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id150.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9/8/03"><U>9/8/03</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=350 colspan=2 BGCOLOR="#CCCC99" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="0978dfc3.jpg"> <div> <I> 3/10/03</I></div> <div> When I arrived, a gentleman was discussing his problems with access to his 6 lots.  He believes that had he been given access to Route 5, he wouldn’t be here today pursuing lot 6.  He’s not looking a building a major house, no 4,000 sf home.  He goes for a perk test Wednesday at 2:30.  The State can grant access or the County can restrict access.  This was a public hearing and the record will remain open for 10 days. </div> <div> Next came County First Bank, a project which would remove an historic house (the Lawrence M. Davis House) from Route 6.  The water supply will come from a 1997 well.  The Health Department has found the septic system which will be adequate.  The building has some historic significance and is not in an historic district.  Mr. Ichniowski said it wasn’t economically feasible to retain the historic structure.  This will be the same bank as is along Route 235.  He thinks it will look good in the area.  The applicant intends to meet the zoning ordinance requirements.  Larry Greenwell asked if there were a need to have a traffic study done.  If by pass lanes are required, they will construct them.  Greenwell said the traffic is very bad there.  He sees a potential problem there.  The Planning Commission continued.  Comm Raley said he sees a lot of shadow roads in here that he doesn’t understand.  Grimm said the section 60.5.2 requires the BOCC consider public comment.  Clare Whitbeck commented that the building has historic value and should be preserved.  Mr. Taylor said that was a good discussion.  Ichniowski said it was the building or the trees.  He thinks what you have left is not historic.  Julie King asked if any consideration has been given to moving the structure.  Mr. Carrick said the building would fall apart.  It would have to be torn to the ground to add on to it.  Where do you go to preserve the building?  The walls are falling down.  They weighed the option.  Mrs. King said she understands that the house is compromised, but is the residential structure on a piece of commercial property.  Maybe it’s a planning issue.  The motion to approve passed 5 - 0.  Grimm said he brought that up and tried to work with applicant to preserve the building.  With the recent amendment they can work with </div> <div> The next project was the Pembrooke subdivision.  The project must either redesign or be granted reapproval.  The County doesn’t hold the title to the county road.  The Metropolitan Commission withdrew its approval because it couldn’t get permission to access the property.  Julie King said this project is similar to Hickory Hills and Green Brier.  Grimm said the applicant clearly had a phasing proposal and would come on line with other sections.  It never received the final approval to which the grandfathering could be attaches.  John Parlett said there seems to have been some misunderstanding about this property.  Mr. Welch said he thought he had satisfied all the requirements to have the plan approved.  It was not until this August that we discovered that the Phasing Plan had not been approved.  To everyone’s surprise the approval did not exist.  Parlett said the original application was in June 1997.  The Planning commission reviewed it in November. 1997.  The Preliminary plan was submitted.  Record plats were submitted.  The project had an existing street which was to be realigned.  That happened in May 1999.  Preliminary Plan was approved in July of 1999.  On August 23 of 1999 the phasing plan was submitted.  The last MetCom approval was in Sept 1999.  Parlett said he is the owner of $234,000 worth of engineering.  There is nothing that said we have not received approval.  He Believes the information was transmitted verbally because of a lack of MetCom approval.  There was not other correspondence in the file.  Work was started before the bond the posted.  Everyone was satisfied with the work at that time.  Application fees were over $20,000.  The project shouldn’t stop just because of some small details.  Mr. Welch became ill and wound up with quadruple by pass.  He looked for a purchaser for what he believed was an approved subdivision.  The timing was never right for us until this summer.  The reason we are here tonight is that we believe everything was provided and it was a technicality that it was not approved.  Yes, there were issues with the easements on Hermanville Road.  The County Attorney at that time failed to recognize that MetCom has the right of condemnation.  Since that time we have met with MetCom and reactivated those plans and talked about the condemnation process.  There are certainly open issues.  There have been a number of issues.  There have been State rules changes.  He wants after the fact approval.  It’s easy to get to two homes per acre.  There will be bioretention.  He wants to salvage the approval and the $500,000 investment.  Mr. Craus is out of the State.  Parlett said we will start from square one.  Mr. Grimm said he doesn’t think everything would have to be shredded.  Grimm said he has struggled.  It appears that what prevented the applicant to come forward was the question of whether there is legal access.   If there is a different opinion today, there is an equitable reason to grant approval.  Taylor said MetCom has approved what they wanted to do.  Parlett said there is no correspondence in their files from MetCom.  There is nothing in writing in the files.  It is staff’s understanding that more was cleared than was allowed they will do what has to happen. It has been said that construction plans have not been submitted to MetCom.  These are the plans that were submitted in 1998 and 1999.  Mr. Taylor said but you are going a different way now.  Phase one of the Lexington Park apartments a new pumping station must be provided.  That is the direction we are heading.  $254,000 worth of construction has already occurred.  The force main has been install under the wetlands.  All approvals were in fact in place.  Mr. St. Clair asked how this happened.  Parlett said there was an existing road.  JTM construction started work and go caught.  The project was stabilized and the stormwater management was made to function.  He wants to make that a separate issue.  The stop work order was in 1998? asked Larry Greenwell.  That’s right, said Parlett.  Raley asked if this project had been approved and Parlett said yes.  Grimm said the fact that you made the preliminary approval means the facilities were adequate.  St. Clair said if he got a stop work order in 1998. .   Parlett said they started in the fall of 1998.  The project continued to get the streets.  It didn’t have final site plan approval by the Planning Commission.  Julie King said preliminary approval, final approval and site plan approval.  Are we required to have a revised phasing plan.  Larry Greenwell asked about Willows Pond.  Parlett said that is now Lexington Park Apartments.  Comm Raley asked what the time line is for buildout.  Parlett said the market will dictate that.  They will actively pursue phase II.  Based on the market, said Parlett, he expects to see most of it completed in 6 years.  Raley asked how that and the Lexington Park Apartments will work tegether.  Parlett said the Apartments will be ready by ‘04, with the second phase in the fall of ‘04.  Raley said he knows it was given adequate public facilities and 1999, but a lot has happened since then.  He wants to know what the level of service is on Willows Road when both of these projects are completed.  Parlett said the Lexington Park Apartments just finished its traffic study and a light will not be required.  Greenwell noted that the presence of a traffic light at 5 and Willows was required.  Parlett said the traffic study did not warrant a traffic study.  Two and a half years later, another traffic study was done and didn’t warrant a traffic light.  The traffic study will have to be updated before another phase is constructed.  Parlett said he will be paying.  Raley said light is one thing, capability of the road is another.   Parlett said they are making the improvements so people will want to come there.  I testified that the project needs to be handled carefully as this property has a profound effect upon the St. Mary’s River. Taylor said the first item to see whether the applicant is aggrieved.  Grimm said there are some advantages to the new ordinance, but you can’t take parts of each.  Greenwell said he should be aggrieved, but this should fall under stormwater management.  Lawrence Chase said it’s important.  Greenwell said the new ordinance is better.  Parlett proffered to attempt to enhance the first phase and comply with the new regulations for the balance of the property.  Raley said he thinks a legal opinion is important because there is the potential for contentiousness.  Mr. Chase noted that a legal opinion was the cause of the problem.  Ms. Springdale (?) Assistant County Attorney.  Mr. Parlett said that would be acceptable.  If the line were only for our subdivision, he said, but it’s for our subdivision and Lexington Park Apartments.  They moved that subject to legal opinion and Mr. Parlett’s process they approved the preliminary, final plan, and phasing approval.  Julie King said she would like to have the opinion before putting the motion on the table.  There is an issue with forest conservation and inattention to detail.  She said things seem to be continuing to slip through.  Greenwell said he thinks the developer and the County fumbled several times in this project.  Taylor said he likes it because it’s in the development district.  The vote was 6 - 1. </div> </td> </tr></table></body>