The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, June 6, 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, and Di Peppe

Members Absent: Rhodes

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Schulte, Schultis, Ennis, Zuraf, Hornung, and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Mr. Cook stated Mr. Rhodes was excused from the meeting. He stated the Board of Supervisors sent the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Ordinance to the Planning Commission and asked that the Commission hold a Public Hearing on June 20, 2007 and the Board would like the TND Ordinance sent back to them no later than July 17, 2007.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was concerned about the lack of time available to address any questions from the citizens at the Public Hearing.

Mr. Harvey stated the time limit does not allow the Planning Commission to defer the Ordinance after the Public Hearing.

Mrs. Carlone asked about the sixty days policy.

Mr. Judy stated the Planning Commission did not have any enforcement capabilities. He stated the Board can set a specific time and the TND Ordinance has already been presented to the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing. He stated the Board referred the Ordinance back to the Commission because of a procedural issue. He stated the Commonwealth of Virginia requires certain language be included in the motion to initiate a Zoning Amendment.

Mr. Di Peppe stated there was a tremendous amount of discussion about the TND Ordinance. He stated, in his opinion, the current way it was written would be hard to get it passed. He stated to have an opportunity to make a technical change in the text would be better than having the Ordinance denied by the Board. He stated this would provide an opportunity to sit down with both sides.

Mr. Judy stated the Planning Commission could authorize a special meeting if they felt they needed more discussion time.

Mr. Cook stated a sub-committee meeting could be held with Mr. Di Peppe selecting the participants. He stated there could be a special meeting for a Public Hearing on June 27, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Harvey stated his concern would be meeting the advertising dates for the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Pitzel stated the June 27, 2007 Public Hearing would be prior to the first run of the Board of Supervisors ad on July 3, 2007.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to hold a Public Hearing on June 27, 2007. Mr. Pitzel seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

Mr. Di Peppe asked if each side of the TND Ordinance could appoint a representative. He asked when the advertisement for the sub-committee needed to be sent.

Mr. Judy stated the sub-committee would not require an advertisement in the newspaper because it was not a Public Hearing.

Mr. Cook stated he would continue with the Work Session Agenda as presented. He stated Living Hope Lutheran Church would have 10 minutes for a presentation and 10 minutes for discussion. He stated he would allow 10 minutes for each ordinance to be discussed.

1. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review – Living Hope Lutheran Church - 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 28-117 within the Rock Hill Election District. (Time Limit: August 7, 2007)(Deferred to June 6, 2007 Work Session)

Steve Grimes, Building Committee for Living Hope Lutheran Church, stated an architect firm was under contract to create the schematic drawings for the church and Welford Engineering was designing the site. He stated the construction loan was approved based on the Open Arms Child Development Center which was part of Living Hope Lutheran Church. He stated a survey was conducted of the citizens in Stafford County and the results affirmed the need for developmental child care center.

Pastor Gary Reeder presented background information about Living Hope Lutheran Church.

Mr. Grimes stated the loan was tied to the completed developmental child care center. He stated the site was located in a blanket of the Urban Service Area. He stated they were not asking for the boundary to be moved, but simply to fill in a hole in the Urban Service Area where the site was located. He stated each version of the Comprehensive Plan Revision incorporates the site into the Urban Service Area. He stated they were not sure when the Comprehensive Plan would be approved and that would affect the financing. He stated the need for childcare had been articulated, and the church requests the sewer extension be approved.

Mrs. Kirby stated the Planning Commission had not voted on the Comprehensive Plan Revision.

Mr. Grimes stated the site was surrounded by public sewer.

Mrs. Carlone stated the Planning Commission denied a request for extension of the Urban Service Area at the May 16, 2007 meeting. She stated, in her opinion, if the Commission approved this request it would make them look arbitrary.

Pastor Reeder stated, in his opinion, the Planning Commission considered the cases which came before them, so there was always a selection involved on the merits of each case. He stated the loan package could not be put together without the financing involved with the child care center.

Mrs. Carlone asked if employees would be from the community or from within the church.

Pastor Reeder stated the child development center would be staffed by citizens from outside the church as well as congregation members.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the applicant knew the property was outside the Urban Service Area when it was purchased.

Mr. Grimes stated the Lutheran Church had owned the property since 1991. He stated the benefits of public sewer outweighed a septic system.

Mrs. Kirby stated this was a very hard decision to make. She stated there were some cases where they go outside of the Urban Service Area, for example failing drainfields or threatening the water supply. She stated if the Commission starts going out of the Urban Service Area, than the next person wants the line extended. She stated if the Commission approved an extension of Urban Service Area to one person but not another, than they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Pastor Reeder stated he understands the Planning Commission reason’s, but Rodney Thompson Middle School and Winding Creek Elementary School were outside of the Urban Service Area and public sewer was extended to those sites. He asked the Commission how those school sites were different from the Living Hop Lutheran Church educational institution.

Mr. Grimes stated he understands the position of the Planning Commission. He stated the Urban Service Area was completely surrounding the site.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to retain Item 1 in committee. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

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

Members Absent: Rhodes

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Mrs. Kirby asked if Rachel Hudson was present.

Mr. Stepowany stated no. He stated Ms. Hudson was not a member of the Ordinance Committee but it was nice to have her available. He stated Mr. Ingalls was present.

Mr. Cook stated it would make sense to have the Acting Zoning Administrator present.

Mr. Harvey stated he would advise Ms. Hudson the Planning Commission would appreciate her attendance.

Mr. Stepowany stated Ms. Hudson was included in the Planning Commission mail out and was informed when there was an Ordinance Committee.

1. Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance - Amendment to Section 22-4, Definition; and, Section 22-5, Family and minor subdivision, of the Subdivision Ordinance, pursuant to O07-36. The amendment revises the definition of immediate family to include sibling, grandchild and grandparent. The amendment requires the owner of a property to have owned the property for at least fifteen (15) years prior to subdividing and conveying a portion of the property to an immediate member of the family, and the immediate member of the family shall retain ownership of the property for at least fifteen (15) years prior to transferring the property to any non-immediate member of the family. (Deferred until further notice)

Mr. Stepowany stated the Ordinance was amending Sections 22-4 and Section 22-5 of the Family Subdivision Ordinance revising the definition of immediate family to include sibling, grandchild and grandparent. He stated the amendment required the owner to have retained the property for 15 years before subdividing and conveying the portion of the property to an immediate member of the family. He stated the immediate member of the family must hold the property for 15 years before transferring the property to any non-immediate family member.

Mrs. Kirby asked how the Planning Department would know if the property was sold outside the immediate family.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Code of Virginia required a restriction on the deed and the plat, which was in the current Subdivision Ordinance.

Mr. Judy stated there was a provision put into the Code Section that would allow under certain hardship status for the person to be released from the restrictive covenant in the deed.

Mrs. Carlone asked if that needed to be put in the Ordinance.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was concerned there was no way to enforce the Ordinance.

Mr. Judy stated there was a deed restriction and a covenant which would run with the land so any time the deed was transferred the language would have to be transferred. He stated if the land was illegally transferred and a building permit was applied for, construction on the property could be prohibited.

Mr. Cook stated a title company would find the deed restriction.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the language was to conform to the State Code of Virginia.

Mr. Judy stated the only thing Stafford County has to do to conform to State Code was add siblings to the definition of immediate family. He stated the 15 years was optional.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the State Code specified how many years the property must be held.

Mr. Judy stated State Code specifies 15 years but it was an optional provision.

Mr. Stepowany stated paragraph 13 could state 5 year.

Mr. Judy stated tentatively yes.

Mr. Cook stated hypothetically if he purchased 20 acres, he could subdivide the property into five, 3 acre lots for his children, but each child would have to hold the property for 15 years before selling it.

Mr. Judy stated Mr. Cook would have to hold the property for 15 years before he could subdivide and convey the property to his children.

Mr. Cook stated he disagreed with that.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the new language was trying to prevent abuse of the Family Subdivision.

Mr. Judy stated, in his opinion, if someone challenged the Ordinance that had any other time limit besides the 15 years provision, and then the Commission may find the County has no authority to choose any other time period.

Mrs. Carlone asked if it would be possible to change the time limit to 10 years.

Mr. Judy stated the worst case scenario if the Planning Commission did anything other than the 15 year provision, since there was no enabling statute that provides for any other time limit, and under common law and restriction on the right of someone to alienate their property as in the statutory provision would be suspect in a court of law.

Mr. Pitzel asked what extra benefits there were by creating a Family Subdivision instead of a Minor Subdivision.

Mr. Stepowany stated the current requirements would allow a Private Access Easement (PAE) to serve only two lots and if there was more than that then it would be a Major Subdivision and the access would have to be a public road.

Mr. Pitzel asked if there could be an option for the property owners to upgrade the access and the benefits they received by creating a Family Subdivision and then apply for a Minor Subdivision.

Mr. Judy stated they could vacate the plat and re-plat under the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated that was one of the penalties for circumventing the Subdivision Ordinance.

Mr. Pitzel stated there was a way out of the Family Subdivision Ordinance.

Mr. Ingalls stated subdivisions cost a lot of money. He stated building a public road was expensive.

Mr. Judy stated that was the problem. He stated people know if they go through the Minor Subdivision process it will cost a lot of money and the way to save money was to circumvent the Family Subdivision Ordinance.

Mr. Ingalls stated Family Subdivision provides more flexibility. He stated lots could be set back off the road.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Planning Department had discussions with Code Administration about drainage and roads because it was a concern that the access easements were not reviewed for adequacy in drainage and other issues.

Mr. Ingalls stated most people do not even live in a house for15 years before they move.

Mr. Di Peppe stated, in his opinion, this was a good Ordinance.

Mr. Cook made a motion to retain Item 1 in committee. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion failed 3-4 (Mr. Di Peppe, Mrs., Kirby, Mr. Pitzel, and Mrs. Carlone were opposed) (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, the Commission needed to vote on the Ordinance. She stated she would like to make a substitute motion for approval of the Ordinance. Mrs. Carlone seconded.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would like to amend paragraph 13 to state 15 years so it would be consistent.

Mrs. Kirby stated she would amend her motion to include the amendment to paragraph 13.

Mr. Ingalls asked which 15 years could be waived.

Mr. Judy stated as far as he knew there could be a provision dealing with hardship.

Mr. Di Peppe stated a hardship was a hardship.

Mr. Judy stated his initial thought would be the second 15 years on which the deed restriction was placed.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, the Planning Commission should vote on the Ordinance as is.

Mr. Mitchell asked if the change in the Ordinance was a substantial change.

Mr. Judy stated there was not a substantial change.

The motion passed for approval passed 4-3 (Mr. Cook, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Ingalls were opposed) (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

2. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance – Amendment to Section 28-25, Definitions of Specific Terms; and, Section 28-122, Certain Types Prohibited in all Districts, of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to O07-46. The amendment clarifies that only signs visible from a public right-of-way are subject to Section 28-122. The amendment excludes signs erected and owned by the county, state or Federal Highway Administration from Section 28-122. The amendment prohibits signs in all zoning districts which present multiple views and objects that have realistic motion, high-resolution color images, complex visual arrangements, rich variation in color, and a vast amount of images similar to a television screen or computer monitor where the image can be changed periodically by electronic signal. The amendment prohibits signs in all zoning districts with multisided-vision signs; displaying device capable of presenting images sequentially by rotating multisided cylinders. (Deferred to June 6, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Stepowany stated there were revised changes to the Ordinance which would require a new Public Hearing. He asked if the Ordinance could be discussed as unfinished business at the regular meeting.

Mr. Cook stated that would be okay.

Mr. Stepowany stated any amendment to an ordinance that was not brought to the Planning Commission by resolution, would now have a scripted text the Chairman of the Ordinance Committee would read to approve or deny an ordinance for a Public Hearing.

Mr. Di Peppe announced the end of Ordinance Committee.

Mr. Cook stated he would give Deputy Chief Andrew Milliken, Fire and Rescue and Mr. Chuck Thompson, Fire and Rescue, 10 minutes to address the Commission. He asked Mr. Di Peppe to include Mr. Thompson and Mr. Milliken in the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) sub-committee.

Chuck Thompson, Fire and Rescue, stated he was not opposed to the TND. He stated years ago main street burned down on a regular basis because everything was clustered and they would not recommend the TND unless it proffers sprinklers in the Ordinance. He stated a benefit of clustering would make it easier for the Fire Department to get equipment to the site.

Andrew Milliken, Fire and Rescue, stated the clustering created by the TND creates a need for fire protection through sprinkler systems. He stated they would like the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the Ordinance as it stands to provide sprinklers in both residential and commercial structures.

Mr. Judy stated Zoning Ordinances were developed within the use of the property, not necessarily the construction standards. He stated he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Milliken that the building height was a construction issue, it is a use issue. He stated the County had no authority to alter the State Building and Fire Code. He stated he would check to see if the County had the ability to have rules that were stricter than the Building Code suggest. He stated as of right now, he was not sure if this could be a requirement under the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if sprinklers could be added to the Design Manual.

Mr. Judy stated that was possible.

Mr. Thompson stated in the Celebrate Virginia development any residential property has to have sprinklers. He stated the Building Code does allow the Commission to request sprinklers to be proffered under a reclassification application.

Mrs. Kirby asked if more hydrants would be required in the clustered areas.

Mr. Thompson stated they would require fewer hydrants because the sprinklers would be in place. He stated the developer would prefer hydrants because they are only about $2500 and sprinklers were $1 per square foot.

Mr. Di Peppe asked Mr. Milliken and Mr. Thompson to designate someone to be part of the TND sub-committee. He stated he believed in safety first.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the Fire and Rescue Department was notified of the TND Ordinance earlier.

Mr. Thompson stated he had a family emergency and Mr. Milliken was in training.

Mr. Mitchell asked if sprinkling houses would raise the costs of homes. He stated, to his knowledge, none of the homes in his subdivision had sprinklers. He stated the sprinkling of houses would run the costs up and the developer could pass the costs on, but it may raise the costs of each unit.

Mr. Thompson stated 3,000 people die annually from house fires in the United States. He stated the costs for residential sprinklers were not recognized immediately, but would be recognized in the fire station that does not have to be staffed or the fire station that the County does not have to build.

Mr. Mitchell stated in Washington, D.C. they lost a major museum because the hydrants were not working. He stated if one hydrant in Stafford County was not working, then the fire system would have been to no avail.

Mr. Thompson stated hydrants and the main feeding the system were not always one in the same. He stated of the 700 units in Dell Webb about 350 have residential sprinklers, which were proffered.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.