The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, May 16, 2007, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center.

Members Present: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, Rhodes and Di Peppe.

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Schulte, Hornung, and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

OLD BUSINESS

1. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review – Smith Lake Point - A request for review to determine compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, for the extension of public sewer service outside of the County’s designated Urban Service Area to Assessor’s Parcel 21-5E within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: June 17, 2007)(Deferred to the May 16, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Pitzel asked how far the property was outside of the Urban Services Area.

Mrs. Ennis stated she did not have the exact distance.

David Garafalo, applicant, stated the property was 3,500 feet outside the Urban Services Area.

Mr. Rhodes stated the lines would pass through four other lots. He asked if the homeowners be able to connect to the sewer lines.

Mr. Harvey stated once there was a public line established it would be feasible for other citizens to connect. He stated this portion of Doc Stone Road had a number of extensions and explained this was why there was sewer outside of the Urban Services Area.

Mrs. Kirby stated the sewer was extended because of the proximity to Smith Lake.

Mr. Harvey stated there were a number of homes along the area which had failing septic systems.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the homes were built if the septic systems were failing.

Mr. Harvey stated there were a number of existing residences which were relatively old.

Mr. Garafalo stated he was told sewer could be extended. He stated the comments from the plat read sewer was not available to the parcel but additional low pressure sewer would be required and the use

of public system was permissible with the owner constructed low pressure sewer improvements. He stated he purchased the property based on the availability of public utilities and was not notified of the
Urban Services Area until December of 2006. He stated M&M Soils stated there were no drainfield sites and there was the presence of groundwater. He stated extending the Urban Services Area would protect the drinking water and benefit additional residences currently on drainfields. He stated the proposed subdivision was by-right and the sewer line would be installed at his expense.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this site was included in the Urban Services Area on the Comprehensive Plan revision.

Mr. Harvey stated no.

Mr. Mitchell stated he spoke with Mr. Garafalo prior to the work session. He made a motion for approval.

Mr. Rhodes seconded. He stated the Planning Commission tried to be consistent by not extending water and sewer outside of the Urban Services Area, but that was not always possible.

Mr. Cook stated he agreed with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Rhodes.

The motion failed 3-4 (Mrs. Kirby, Mrs. Carlone, Mr. Pitzel, and Mr. Di Peppe were opposed.)

Mrs. Kirby made a motion for denial. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 4-3 (Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Rhodes, and Mr. Cook were opposed.)

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Mr. Cook stated the Planning Commission had received a letter from the Economic Development Authority (EDA) appointing Wendy Sermon to the Ordinance Committee with the permission of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he did not know anything about this. He stated, in his opinion, it was not a good idea.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there was a charter for the Ordinance Committee stating who the members were.

Mr. Harvey stated that was at the pleasure of the Planning Commission Chairman.

Mr. Mitchell stated he would have liked to been contacted about appointing a new member.

Mr. Rhodes stated appointing a new member to the Ordinance Committee could be discussed as a future possibility.

Mrs. Kirby stated she agreed with Mr. Di Peppe.

Mr. Pitzel stated if the Chairman decided he needed more representation then he should make a request for more representation.

Mrs. Carlone stated she thought it was audacious that the EDA appointed a member to the Ordinance Committee without contacting the Chairman.

ITEM 1 – Floor Area Ratio

Mr. Stepowany stated the Ordinance was brought to the Commission on May 2, 2007 with a recommendation from the Board of Supervisors. He stated neither the Planning staff nor Code Administration had received any requests for an exception to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He stated he did not receive any feedback from the Board of Supervisors or the County Administrator’s office. He stated this could be a positive Ordinance for redevelopment and infill development. He stated the open space ratios would increase if the FAR increased.

Mr. Harvey stated House Bill 3202 allowed for an Urban Transportation Service District and the minimum FAR would be 0.4. He stated an increase in FAR would allow buildings to go up not out. He stated the highest ratio the County had granted was 0.85 for a hotel.

Mr. Rhodes stated the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would allow the Planning Commission to make a decision on a case by case basis.

Mr. Harvey stated yes.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the Ordinance was brought to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Judy stated at the May 2, 2007 meeting the Planning Commission was presented with a draft Ordinance Amendment.

Mr. Stepowany stated by law the Planning Commission has 100 days to make a recommendation.

Mr. Judy stated the statute requires the Planning Commission to act on the Ordinance within one hundred days or it would be deemed approved.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Planning Commission had to hold a Public Hearing.

Mr. Judy stated the Planning Commission could decide not to have a Public Hearing but after 100 days it would be deemed approved.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he would like to have a reason for the Ordinance and know what the implications would be.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Ordinance would require a CUP for the FAR.

Mr. Di Peppe asked how this would affect open space.

Mr. Stepowany stated there would still be standards for open space and parking.

Mr. Di Peppe stated, in his opinion, the Committee should wait until the Comprehensive Plan Revision was completed before making a decision.

Mr. Cook stated, in his opinion, the Planning Commission should schedule the Public Hearing.

Mrs. Carlone stated, in her opinion, scheduling a Public Hearing seemed premature.

Mr. Rhodes made a motion to schedule Item1 for Public Hearing. Mr. Cook seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, the change to the FAR needed to be part of the whole Comprehensive Plan process.

Mrs. Kirby stated she needed more information about how Bill 3202 would effect FAR.

Mr. Cook stated the Planning Commission could ask for more information regarding the Ordinance once it was sent to Public Hearing.

ITEM 2 – Private Access Easements

Mr. Stepowany stated the Planning Department had an interesting situation presented to the staff dealing with an ingress/egress easement that was recorded with Land Records at the Clerk of the Court. He stated the easement was 10 feet wide and the owner of the property which the easement travels through wanted to erect a fence on the line of the easement, which was lined with trees on the opposite side, making the easement very narrow. He stated the Deputy Fire Marshall felt the easement needed to be wider than 10 feet because the Fire Department needs 20 feet clear to operate their equipment. He stated the Family Subdivision the Ordinance reads the travel way only had to be 10 feet wide. He stated because of the variables it was not uncommon for an ingress/egress to be only 10 feet wide. He stated Section 22.5 of the Ordinance would read lots of less than 5 acres would be served by an ingress/egress easement of at least 20 feet clear of any structures and vegetation and the travel way shall be no less than 10 feet in width. He stated a Family Subdivision of 5 acres or greater shall be served by an ingress/egress easement no less than 50 feet in width and the travel way shall be no less than 10 feet in width. He stated Private Access Easement which serves 2 or fewer properties shall have a minimum roadway width of 10 feet and the amendment would add the same language which is in the Family Subdivision Ordinance.

Mr. Pitzel asked what the impact would be to citizens who currently have 10 foot easements. He asked if they could obtain building and occupancy permits.

Mr. Judy stated he had conversations with the Fire Marshall and a representative from the Board of Housing and Community Development concerning the issue of how the Fire Code was supposed to be enforced. He stated the Fire Code specified a minimum of 20 feet but that did not necessarily mean everyone had to have a travel way of 20 foot. He stated the representative from the Board of Housing and Community Development stated the real intent behind the Fire Code in general was to deal with buildings, structures, and housing where people were located closely together. He stated the representative from the Board of Housing and Community Development was under the impression that the real intent of the 20 feet access was not to require every driveway to be 20 feet in width. He stated in 2003 there was an amendment to the Fire Code to allow counties to have a written policy regarding fire access. He stated it appears counties do not have to establish a specific width of travel but could adopt certain standards that the Fire Marshall could apply so that when a citizen applies for a building permit they know what would be expected.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this Ordinance would affect someone who already has a 10 foot easement.

Mr. Judy stated it would not impact present easements; it would only effect easements which were constructed after the adoption of the Ordinance.

Mr. Pitzel stated this Ordinance would solve problems for future cases. He stated the particular problem that was created was the issue of someone wanting to put a fence directly on the line of the easement.

Mr. Judy stated the Fire Marshall would have the authority to say the citizen has blocked emergency access please take down the fence or if the fire department had to tear the fence down to access the easement the County would not be liable because the citizen had blocked emergency access. He stated if we follow the Fire Code to the letter, the enforcement would be against the person applying for the Building Permit.

Mr. Pitzel made a motion for approval. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Cook stated the Public Hearing would be scheduled for June 20, 2007.

Mrs. Kirby asked about an Ordinance requiring a landing at the foot of steep driveways.

Mr. Stepowany stated that issue was being discussed as part of the Design Standards Manual.

Mr. Harvey stated a Supervisor had asked him what concerns the Planning Commission had pertaining to the Family Subdivision Ordinance.

Mrs. Kirby stated, for example, what happened if a grandmother subdivided the property and gave a 1 acre lot to her granddaughter.

Mr. Cook stated the granddaughter would have to retain the property for 15 years.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Ordinance was to prevent citizens from circumventing the system and selling off the property.

Mrs. Kirby stated what happens if the family has to sell the property for financial needs.

Mrs. Carlone stated that would be a hardship.

Mr. Cook stated they would discuss this issue further at the regular meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.