11/25/02

<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><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>   |   <B>11/25/02</B>   |   <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>   |   <A HREF="id109.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE=" 3/10/03"><U> 3/10/03</U></A>   |   <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>11/25/02</I></div> <div> The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM.  Before the meeting was called to order, Mr. Grimm asked Mr. Norris whether the Planning Commission (PC) could consider comments the Board of County Commissioners received after the PC closed its record.  Frank Taylor reminded them the meeting had not yet been called to order.  The November 25 meeting was called to order by Frank Taylor with Jon Grimm and John Norris III at the table.  Frank Taylor listed the discussion topics for the PC: 1. Adequate public Facilities - Schools, Chapter 70 of the Zoning Ordinance 2.  Direction to staff for small area plan for Callaway 3.  Direction to Agencies for Capital Improvements program projects for FY ‘09.  4.  Recreation and Parks on the “Three Notch Trail”  5.  Review of draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment.</div> <div> <B>Adequate public Facilities - Schools, Chapter 70 of the Zoning Ordinance</B> was next.  There were 4 items held out for further review.  Grimm presented his memorandum on services districts, school capacity calculations, mitigation, school capacity, relationship with the capital improvements program.  Grimm said a number of unforseen circumstances including more students than expected, programmatic changes, redistricting not having been completed, etc have cause the PC to have concerns over development in the development district.  Grimm said he has shaded his recommendations.  To do everything possible not to shut down development in the growth areas, but not in other areas.  Grimm said the BOCC did follow the PC recommendations on the Zoning Ordinance and area awaiting input on these four items.  F Taylor said he thought everyone was concerned about stopping growth in the growth areas, though they were not sure how to do it.  He encouraged the PC to come up with some recommendation, even if it’s only that we need relief.   J Taylor said he struggled and was delighted with Jon’s memorandum.  The areas highlighted by Grimm, he said, suited his notions exactly.  Jim Raley asked about the impact of changes on the capital improvement plan.  Is this just a linear extension of what happens when you go from not approval to 105%?  He’s having troubles with the numbers.  What is the .47?  If he goes to school capacity, increasing capacity above 100%.  He asked if capacity can be increased in the development district without doing it in others.  Grimm said that’s a legal question, but he knows that there are differential fees based on geography.  Other counties subsidize based on geography.  Norris said you can have a differential fee, you must expend the funds where they are collected.  Grimm said he used fees as an analogy.  Norris said if you want to do it through an excise tax, he would have to examine the enabling legislation to see if the County can impose an excise tax.  F Taylor said those kinds of ideas come from a body other than the PC.  Jim Raley said we keep talking about the growth areas, but the enrollment at Chopticon is about the same as the enrollment in Great Mills.  Tom Watts said that subdivisions that are approved are already in the calculation.  Watts said he hasn’t a clue how many lots are available in the development district and are those lots sufficient?   How would that relate to this calculation.  He thought Grimm’s recommendations were fine.  He thinks the school system is a County wide asset.  He thinks they have done an admirable job dealing with the situation the Base creates.  He thinks we should be a County wide school system and work on that concept, unless you want to use the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF) to direct growth to the development district.  Raley said the non development districts are growing at the same rate as the development districts.  The purpose of this tool is to control the rate of growth, said Watts.  If you put a 100% at Chopticon and Leonardtown and 120% at Great Mills, he added, that would allow growth to proceed in the development district.  Asked if development was still 50/50 rural to development.  Grimm said in a couple of years there have been more permits in the development district.  Grimm said he thinks it has been the market that caused the change. F Taylor said if a need is identified for another school outside the development district, would the school be directed to some sort of Town Center or Village Center.  Grimm said the last new school was one of the last before the new Smart Growth came to pass.  The new school now being planned is Carver and is in the Development District.  A new school, Grimm said, would ve built in a Town or Village center if there is growth in the rural areas.  F Taylor said he likes Grimm’s solution because it avoids the minutia.  He suggests recommending a task force to hammer out the pieces of the solution.  He thinks there should be flexibility to permit growth in the growth areas.  He doesn’t know what the percentage should be.  He thinks the PC doesn’t want to impede growth in the growth areas.  Watts asked if there were a County wide school district, is that possible to have different numbers in Lexington Park and have a different school district?  Grimm said he thinks it’s possible.  Working out the details is, as always, the problem.  Raley said it’s got to be somewhat based on what the numbers have been in the past.  It’s hard to turn an aircraft carrier.  If we do that, the proposal has to be flexible enough to allow you to turn responsibly.  He doesn’t think anyone can tell us what the number ought to be, 100%, 102%, or 122%.  Jon said if the Board is to continue, it must have information from approval processes.  With that information they can be more sophisticated.  Grimm said the new ordinance will give the school system better information.  John Norris said there is a 1997 case from Carroll County which says only a genuine lack of adequate facilities can strip a property owner of his rights.  John Norris said he believes we may not have taken that into account with three separate service areas.  J Taylor said he thinks Grimm’s recommendations will serve as a starting reference point.  Raley said he feels comfortable that this will work.  F Taylor said he doesn’t think the PC is going to solve this problem tonight.  F Taylor said he would like to recommend that the BOCC assemble a group of stake holders as a task force.  Watts said he thinks a two step procedure would be appropriate.  Service Districts was the first issue.  J Taylor said a single service district would be ok and there was agreement.  There was a suggestion that student yields be accounted for by type of housing.  Grimm said a senior development is exempt.  The third proposal is to allow mitigation for schools.  Grimm noted that the Board of Ed does use modular classrooms, but that should be coordinated with the Board of Ed.  Grimm noted that the .47 per house is an average for all housing within the County.  Raley said that taking into account whether there is a one bedroom or five bedroom to be built might give a better picture.  Watts said he had looked at other Counties.  Montgomery is different from Frederick and Carroll.  Watts said they were all at 105 - 110% with mitigation.  John Norris noted that Harford County is 120% across the County.  Anne Arundel is 125% two years after the record plat.  J Taylor said the rural areas are developing faster than the development district.  If there are more houses up there, then we want to live up there   J Taylor says if we do 120% across the board, then we do it, but our approved comprehensive plan says we don’t do that.  Grimm noted that the general pattern of development at the north end of the County is rural development.  The Board of Ed will have to argue that allowing an existing to in rural area to be expanded and win.  A new school will not be built in rural areas. He recommends that they do something in the growth areas.  In the northern end of the community we are combating a bedroom community.  He recommended a differential approach with more in the growth areas.  You won’t pass the level to start saying no until you reach 116%.  If you apply the same standard, said F Taylor, then you have growth across the County.  Grimm said if you broaden it to all growth areas. . .  There is mixed use zoning in all the town centers that would allow a mix of high density residential development with commercial.  Watts said his research did not find any County at 100%.  Norris noted that Anne Arundel was 125% but required mitigation over 100%.  F Taylor said we ought to show a difference in our growth areas and RPD.  Look at 105% in the RPD and use 120% in the priority funding areas.  Recommendation to use years 2 - 6 to allow construction to consider as being available for consideration of capacity also seemed to receive approval. F Taylor asked if everyone agreed and asked if a single motion would be needed.  Grimm said the next item was the footprint in the TMX.  I left the room for a couple of minutes.  </div> <div> When I returned, Grimm was talking about requiring access to the property via a paved road.  That doesn’t mean the pavement must go all the way to the gravel pit itself.  The BOA hasn’t judged the case on which he gave them the application, but he expects them to cooperate.  The proposal is to allow something other than paving.  DPW says sometimes one might be able to use tar and chip, but bituminous concrete should be the standard.  Watts asked if this wasn’t a dust problem and was told yes but also surface drainage and it’s about impacting the surrounding property.  F Taylor was asked and was told there are private roads that pass up to 25 properties until you reach the farm on the back.  There are incidences where ownership doesn’t extend to the main road.  Julie King noted it could be damage to the road itself.  Norris said on a shared road that they don’t own the road, the road must be paved.   F Taylor noted that there has been a change since the public testimony.  Grimm said the letter writer is pleased with the interpretation, but he still thinks another surface should be allowed.  There was discussion as to whether tar and chip would be allowed.   Watts said the idea is to keep the dust down.  Maybe we should use the word surface treatment.  Maybe the mine owner would prefer to pave the road of a 100 AC mine rather than keep repairing it.  Norris asked if he should define it so as to not allow mere watering of the road.  Greenwell said one could use recycled asphalt or blue chip and get as good a road as tar and chip.  On B1C said J Taylor it says the mine area cannot be closer than 50 feet . . .There was a question about the mapping of Myrtle Point as a PUD.  Would the PC support removing the PUD if the BOCC so desires?  The reply was yes.  The underlying density is RL.  Watts said they want to increase the usage and would be more limited as RL.  To implement a park, said Grimm, would required a major amendment to the PUD.  Julie King asked about an open period for another PUD change.   Is there a problem about doing for one without doing for another and Grimm said no. Watts asked if a PUD is in existence and the area around it changes would the PUD be impacted.  Grimm said he thinks it’s property specific.  There were incidences where there had been no activity for 10 or more years and those the BOCC removed from the zoning map.  Watts asked what happens when a PUD is built out.  Grimm said it retains its PUD status and its rules govern how development and redevelopment must occur.  J Taylor addressed a letter about putting a mobile home in the RPD.  Property is on the edge of the development district.  Property owner got caught in the change of the zoning ordinance.  Couldn’t we grandfather her?  Grimm said you can grandfather classes of applications.  F Taylor said couldn’t we say there is a class of people like this?  There certainly could be.   Grimm said they could use a time period as the definition of the class.  F Taylor said there is another one where the RNC neighborhoods is 37% mobile homes.  Can we do that?  You chose 50% said Grimm.  Could we extend this approval by time, asked Raley.  If they meet certain time limits can they do it afterwards, Grimm asked.  Julie King said when she read the Dart family letter then the other they seemed similar.  Is there a difference?  Grimm said they both were caught up by time.  Greenwell said he had a note “text amendment”.  Did we do that?  Grimm said you chose 50%.  You could treat both as grandfathering problems, said Grimm.  Grimm said the number of applications was treated one way.  You could chose time.  Norris asked if they would like to have a resolution drafter by the next meeting.  Do you want to authorize the chair to sign in the interim or do you want one prepared for your next meeting.  Raley said he didn’t care.  The BOCC wouldn’t take it up for another week.  He doesn’t want us to get in the mode where you write a resolution and the chair signs it and I don’t see it.  F Taylor said let’s do it this one time.  They agreed.  So F Taylor will review and sign the resolution.  Taylor changed the order of the presentation to allow the Recreation and Parks Board to present the<B> Three Notch Trail.</B>  Bob Harper, chair of Recs and Parks,  came to the table to talk about the Trail along with Grimm and Phil Rollins.  Harper said the trail has 8 sections   Rollins said it runs from Charlotte Hall to Lexington Park on the Railroad right of way.  The first section is from Pegg Road to Chancellors Run Road.  The second section goes from Chancellors Run Road to Wildewood Blvd.   Next goes the fight of way from Wildewood Blvd to Hollywood Road.  The fourth section goes from Hollywood Road to Friendship School Road.  The fifth section if from Friendship School Road to Laurel Glen Park.  Section 6 goes from Baggett Park to Route 5.  Section 7 from Route 5 to Mechanicsville Road.  Section 8 is from Mechanicsville Road to the County Line.   Bob Harper said the public meeting in Mechanicsville raised a lot of concerns.  They were instructed to look at a different route.   They studied contiguous property and found it has no impact.  Property adjacent to that improves in value.  Crime appears on the trail is the same as the surrounding area or less.  They expect to meet with each property owner to see what kind of buffering is required.  Parking and illegal ATV usage were also issues.  Parking would have been John Baggett park and reach agreement with businesses and churches to use their parking.  They will recommend section 6 and alternately sections 1 and 2.  Larry Greenwell asked if the adjoining landowner asked for a survey, would you do it.  Rollins said he thinks the roadbed will be evident but they would do a survey where the roadbed is not apparent.  Greenwell said you will not use asphalt?  Rollins said not as this time.  You would asphalt for ease of maintenance.  You can use it for different uses if there is asphalt.  Lexington Park to California should be asphalt, said Rollins.  We will have to analyze.  Greenwell said he walked the trail in Easton, but our trail is probably not comparable.  He said if you had this package in Mechanicsville, you probably would have saved a lot of grief.  The property should be posted and adjoining landowners should be buffered.  Policing is Greenwell’s major concern.  Asked what the next step is, Harper said he plans to go the BOCC in December.  Raley asked how many access points will pass through this trail.  Raley said there are more driveways.  Harper said there are,  but the ones with easements are listed.  Raley said he thought there were two at San Souci.  Rollins said there is one between the shopping center and the subdivision.  In Sections 1 & 2 the rail bed is gone, said Rollins.  There’s a dirt road that runs along the right of way.  In Section 6 the rail bed is in place.  Raley asked the projected life cycle cost.  The attachment shows various surface and mileages.  Rollins said $200,000/ mile for asphalt.  Section 6 would be about $100,000 said Rollins.  Rollins said it depends on how you finish it.  Harper said it’s $200,000 per mile and 28 miles.  Rollins said parks staff would do maintenance with assistance from volunteers.  Rollins said Dyson’s joint resolution was to ensure that the right of way was not lost.  Julie King asked for coordination with the Historic Preservation Commission on the railroad’s history.  Greenwell said the BOCC asked them to look at the length of the trail with alternate sections.  Dan Daugherty said the trail brings in revenue in the form of tourism.  A trail in Baltimore County cost $1,000,000 and brings in $8,000,000 a year. Rollins said if funding weren’t an issue they would begin in Lexington Park.  Billy Higgs said it will go through his back yard.  He is concerned.  Crime will work its way up.  Kids skip school, hang out, strong arm robberies.  He said he’s heard of squatters’ rights.  He believes he has paid taxes on this right of way.  It crosses one paved road and two dirt roads.  He lives across from Oakville School.  Harper said the Recs and Parks Board will get back to him.  Rollins said no matter where they go there will be issues to work.  He thinks everybody ought to be involved no matter what section they begin on.  Lachelle from Leonardtown recommended that people go see examples.  Jon Grimm asked if the PC were inclined to give any direction to agencies for the Capital Improvements Program.  F Taylor said they gave input when the program was presented.  Grimm said the PC would get the Capital Program before the commissioners put it to public hearing. </div> <div> They next took up the<B> Callaway Plan.</B>  Grimm said the if PC is comfortable, he would take what they have to a public meeting.  He would need a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow  the Lexington Park Christian School on the map on page 54 in the Comp Plan.  Parcel 38 on tax map 50.  Only the conditional use area granted by the Board of appeals plus the 5 acres adjacent to the existing village area.  Grimm said he is not asking for a motion to support the inclusion;  they cannot do that until after a public hearing. He wants a motion to allow him to send it to the appropriate public agencies.  He wants to schedule a community meeting.  He would like to do something like Lexington Park.  F Taylor said the sooner, the better.  There was agreement from all present.  </div> <div> Larry Greenwell asked if the property has to remain posted during the public comment period.   A proposed amendment will require the posting to be maintained through the date of the hearing, said Grimm.  If I build on a building restriction line, do I have to get every homeowners’ approval in the subdivision.  No said Grimm, you can get everyone who is a party to the restrictions to sign the approval.  People who violated a permit are looking at ways to get around the violation.  </div> <div> The meeting was adjourned.  </div> </td> </tr></table></body>