The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, March 5, 2008, was called to order at 5:32 p.m. by Chairman Peter Fields in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center.

Members Present: Fields, Di Peppe, Mitchell, Rhodes, Carlone, Kirkman and Howard

Members Absent:

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Zuraf, Hess and Hamock

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNIFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. SUB2700649; Poplar Hills Section 5, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A revalidation of an approved preliminary subdivision plan (220331) for 39 single family residential lots on well and septic, zoned A-1 and A-2 consisting of 182.99 acres, located on the north side of Brooke Road approximately 100 feet west of Marlborough Point Road on Assessor's Parcel 40-57 within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: April 14, 2008) (Deferred to March 5, 2008 Work Session) (Withdrawn by applicant)

Mr. Harvey stated that the applicant had withdrawn the preliminary subdivision plan. He stated that within the last several weeks there had been a number of people identify the need to look at their preliminary plans because they were either expiring or had expired. The Planning Department and the County Attorney’s office met with a number of people and they looked at their Code, as well as the State Statute and found that their local subdivision ordinance was incomplete and it does not have all the specifications in the State Statute that exist today. He stated that their current Code specifies that a preliminary subdivision plan was valid for a period of five years, where the State Code has another Code Section that states in addition to that, if you record a section of a subdivision, you have five years from the time that that final plat was recorded to complete the rest of your subdivision. In the case of Poplar Hills, the applicant had their preliminary plan in two sections, they recorded one section in 2004 so based on the State Code they would have until 2009 to record that second section.

Mr. Judy clarified that the additional Code Section that Mr. Harvey referenced stated that if the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plan with sections, the developer, once he records the first section, has an additional five years from the date of the recording to record the additional sections. It only applies in subdivisions where the preliminary plan was approved to be developed in sections. He stated that they may find that there are a number of subdivisions who think they are sectioned subdivisions that were not approved that way so there may be some balancing out.

Mr. Harvey stated that staff realized that their current subdivision ordinance was not fully complete. He had been advised, though it had not been verified, that the Governor would be signing a new Statute that would be vesting even further to specify that once you record a subdivision plat you have five years additional onto your preliminary plan extensions, so technically if you had a subdivision with five sections you could subdivide it over a twenty-five (25) year period. He stated that once the new Statute was adopted and staff has determined what it says they will come back to the Commission with a proposed ordinance to bring them into compliance with the State Code.

Mr. Fields asked if they were going to wait for the new section and put it all into one process.

Mr. Judy stated that once they see that the language was valid and it has been adopted, they will incorporate it.

Mr. Fields asked if that was a piece of legislation that just passed this session of the General Assembly.

Mr. Judy stated that according to the sources that are feeding them the information, yes.

Ms. Kirkman stated that the language seemed to indicate that they had five years from the recordation of the first section to record the subsequent sections, and it also seemed to indicate that when they recorded the subsequent sections they had to be in compliance with the ordinance that was current at the time of the second recordation and asked Mr. Judy if he had a chance to look at that.

Mr. Judy stated he wanted to take some time to review it.

Ms. Kirkman stated that if they do have to comply with the ordinances that are current at the time of the subsequent recordations that would make a big difference.

Mr. Judy asked if she was referring to 22-41, paragraph 5, subject to the terms and conditions of this subsection and subject to engineering and construction standards and zoning requirements in effect at the time that each remaining section was recorded.

Ms. Kirkman stated yes. She then stated to Mr. Harvey that she had asked specifically about the Storm Water Management Plan and, that given the history of problems with the build-out of that subdivision, if the most recent Storm Water Management Plan incorporated a pre-existing waiver and she was told by staff that it did not. It was very clear from the Storm Water Management Plan and from the notes on the plan that there was nothing done to update the Storm Water Management Plan other than add some Low Impact Development (LID) facilities along the roadside and that it still incorporated the waiver that was issued in 2002 based on an old piece of Storm Water Management Code. She requested that staff, in reviewing the construction plan, make sure that that section was in compliance. She stated that she asked about whether or not the Authorized Onsite Soil Evaluation (AOSE) for that project had ever had any troubles or issues and staff continually reassured her, and the Department of Health sent a letter stating, that yes, that AOSE was currently certified. The problem was not that the AOSE was currently certified, the problem was that the AOSE had their certification suspended in 2004 for a period of two years for substandard work. Staff was clearly aware of this because in the construction plan there was a note from the Department of Health that says no comments except that the developer had been advised concerning Phil Helms’ suspension and the benefits of hiring an AOSE in good standing. She state that just in case anybody had any doubts about the severity of the problems, when his certification was suspended it was because of work that was done. She stated that she would not read the entire fifteen (15) page single-spaced letter from the Department of Health but instead just a few choice excerpts. It states that Mr. Helm had submitted inaccurate certification statements for more than fifteen (15) properties or developments, these alleged failures to comply with regulations include actions taken and omitted since September 2001 in relation to onsite soil evaluations performed by Mr. Helm on lands in Fauquier, King George, Louisa, Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties. It goes on to say the evidence amply demonstrates that Mr. Helm frequently provided meager and inadequate documentation, disregarded sound soil analysis, casually engaged unsanitary surveying and perfunctorily designed onsite disposal systems. She stated his tolerance for inaccuracy and errors in his work, the ease with which it may be characterized as slipshod and the clear potential of his work to promote demonstrable and preventable risks to public health necessarily call into question his fitness to perform the activities of an AOSE. The consequences of Mr. Helm’s work posed a direct, demonstrable and significant threat to groundwater safety and to public health. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Helm’s actions taken in toto in certifying numerous slots for sewage disposal systems were performed in clear violation of Virginia law and regulations to the potential detriment of public health. She stated that these are very serious violations and the soil work that was done that was submitted for this preliminary plan was done in the period prior to his certification being suspended. When you look at the soil work and match it up with the types of violations that are documented you will see that there was a clear pattern of the same type of work being done. She consulted with the Department of Public Health, the County does have the ability to request that the County come out and do what was called a Field Level II Review of the soil work where they document that the soil work was adequate. She would really encourage staff to obtain that Level II Review since this work was all done prior to and when it was quite clear that these problems were in all of his work. She stated the main reason she raised these things was that staff was asked specifically about those two aspects of the work and the plan and there was public information available that made it clear that there was a Storm Water Management waiver that was still in the existing Storm Water Management Plan, that it was the same Storm Water Management Plan from 2002, and that the AOSE did have problems with his work.

Mr. Fields asked what the extent of the ability to follow up on some of these issues. He stated that both of those issues which Ms. Kirkman raised were a little troublesome. He then asked in the review of the plan as it sits will they have the ability to be somewhat proactive on seeing that some of those issues are addressed.

Mr. Harvey stated that since his discussion with Ms. Kirkman, he spoke with the Storm Water manager and asked that he take a look at the issue of the waiver and also that he and the plans reviewer physically go out to the site and look at it and look at how Storm Water Management and erosion issues have been dealt with or experienced out in the field. From some of the photographs a lot of the concern was erosion issues, as well as runoff issues, but a lot of it was erosion issues and there may be some properties in the soil that make it more erosive than standard practice dictates, that there might need to be some other measures that are required out in the field. He stated that the County relies on the Health Department to verify that the soils work was adequate. He stated that he would proceed with the Health Department and ask them about the Level II investigation of the field work since there are questions about the accuracy of the reports.
Mr. Fields stated that negligent work has allowed some subdivisions to be approved for X number of lots which as they have seen are, under the current rules, vested for their right to exist and will continue to be vested. He mentioned the insensitivity and difficulty in the Poplar Hills area. He asked that on the issue of the county’s authority in terms of approving onsite systems, does the county have the ability to go beyond the Health Department and add its own layer of standards to these systems.

Mr. Harvey stated that the Board of Supervisors was considering a number of Code amendments which would be more restrictive than the standards that the Health Department currently has now.

Mr. Judy suggested that they clarify the changes that the Board may be looking at that do not address the issues of soils analysis that was done by an AOSE. He stated that was completely controlled by the Virginia Department of Health, in fact, sewage disposal was their bailiwick. He stated that they should be focusing their attention on the fact that they had been forced into a system whereby the State Health Department has pretty much usurped the authority that they are suppose to have to protect the safety of the citizens and given it to these persons who become certified and, through clear actions, have failed to comply with the requirements that they are suppose to work under but yet somehow managed to get reinstated.

Ms. Kirkman clarified that although the county relies on the Department of Health for the soil work, if the work was done by a private AOSE, the sole role that the Department of Health has, and you will see this in the language of the letters that they send back to the county, was to say the work has been done and it has been done by a currently certified AOSE. She stated for the most part, they do not do any desk review. She stated that she took the health regulations and looked at each of the soil sheets and she identified numerous problems and they do not even do that level of desk review on what the AOSE has done and they very rarely do field reviews of the work. She stated she also learned our own local Health Department there was a mandate or suggestion that there be a ten (10) percent review of an AOSE’s work and even that minimal level of review did not get done for a period of time here in Stafford County. She asked if the County Attorney could look to see if there was something that can be done around the subdivision ordinance to regulate the county’s ability to accept or not accept the results as part of their review. She stated specifically, on this plan, was there any position that the county can take, given that this work was done in the same period that the other work was done and prior to his suspension.

Mr. Judy stated yes he will look into that.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

James Stepowany stated that there was only one item which was the continuation of the buildable area ordinance that was requested by Ms. Kirkman. He stated this ordinance has expanded into various sections and at the last meeting staff presented different options which talked about ten thousand (10,000) square feet, fifty (50) percent of the lot, twenty-five (25) percent of the lot, and to start from the beginning as to how they got Section 28-24 Measurements involved in this, when they got into how do you define the shape of a lot a question was what was the side lot line. He then gave a lengthy description of the effected Code sections and what those effects would be.

Mr. Fields asked in the section regarding elongation should there be an inclusion of what would be unusable for normal purposes and specify that no weird elongation be created to get a drainfield site on a piece of property.

Mr. Stepowany stated that was similar to what he had in the memo, but we had it as staff requests the ordinance committee consider clarifying that if the formation of the area was a result of the location of the drainfield then was that a normal purpose of the area. He stated it was because of the purpose of the drainfield that they come up with these peculiar shaped lots. He stated you cannot call that an unusable normal purpose of the property because it was a drainfield, it has a purpose for it and that has been staffs’ concern.

Mr. Judy stated that he was troubled by the phrase unusable area because anybody could design a lot and say well of course we are going to use it for something. He suggested taking that phrase out and, looking at what a couple other localities had done, he had incorporated language that stated lots shall not contain peculiarly shaped, elongated or numerous side lot lines which, as determined by the agent, are primarily incorporated on the lot for purposes of establishing minimum lot area, buildable area or to incorporate a non-contiguous site for a primary and/or reserved drainfield.

Mr. Fields stated that the creation of weird lots for drainfield purposes would be one of the main issues to be raised.

Ms. Kirkman stated that she liked the language with one exception of “as determined by the agent”. She stated she would like to see that remain a function of the Planning Commission review and, as the County Attorney informed them at the last meeting, if it states anywhere in an ordinance “as determined by the agent”, if the Planning Commission disagrees with the agent’s decision then they have no ability to override it. She stated she would like to accept Mr. Judy’s language with the deletion of that phrase.

Mrs. Carlone stated that the only thing was just to get rid of those intrusions into other peoples’ property for the sake of getting a drainfield and if this covers it, she said to go for it.

Mr. Rhodes stated that he would be curious to know if there would be a downside to taking out that portion of the phrase. He asked if there was an unintended consequence.

Mr. Judy stated that he was not sure if there was a necessarily unintended consequence. He thought the reason that it was found in the language in other jurisdictions was that when the Planning Department was going through the application they are the first ones who get to look at what was there and certainly would be the ones to identify these irregular lots and could advise the developer even before it gets to the Planning Commission that this will not fly because Mr. Harvey and his sound judgment has determined that they are irregular lots intended for the specific purposes enumerated there which would send the developer back to the drawing board.

Mr. Rhodes asked that if that language were to stay in there about the judgment of the agent, does it indeed preclude the Planning Commission from overruling.

Mr. Harvey stated that the appeal process was to the Board of Supervisors, if someone was to appeal the decision of the agent, then the Commission would have to appeal to the Board of Supervisors to overturn the agent’s decision.

Ms. Kirkman stated that keeping that language in would allow the agent to say to the applicant this does not meet requirements and would need to redo it, but asked was that not what the entire review process was about, that all of the staff review the plan and identify areas of the plan that are not in compliance.

Mr. Judy stated that was correct and that he was not trying to insinuate that he thought the line had to stay, he was just trying to suggest why he found it in other jurisdictions, why they would seem to feel the necessity to put it in there. He stated that he would certainly like the opportunity to look at that a little more. He stated that he does not see leaving it in or taking it out has any great impact one way or the other and that he would certainly look into it. He stated as to Mr. Rhodes’ question, he stated that even if Mr. Harvey were to be the one to look at it and say this was or was not an irregular lot, Mr. Harvey does not necessarily stop the Planning Commission from voting one way or the other.

Mr. Stepowany asked if the agent states it was an irregular lot and was not in compliance with this section of the Subdivision Ordinance would that give him two options, they could either go to the Board of Supervisors to appeal the agent’s decision or could they come to the Planning Commission and request a waiver from this section.

Mr. Judy stated that either one of those would be feasible.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that he shares Ms. Kirkman’s concerns because sometimes decisions are made in rooms that are regretted long afterwards by agents, and maybe there was a compromise here where if you allow the agent to make it then perhaps the Planning Commission could have the final word. He asked if there was any way that could be put into the document.

Mr. Judy stated no.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he would rather leave it in the hands of the Planning Commission than leave it in the agent’s hands.

Mr. Stepowany asked if the direction would be to strike that wording out.

Ms. Kirkman stated she thought they were talking about was eliminating under 22-143 (c) the section entitled Elongation, deleting what is in there now and putting in Mr. Judy’s language with the exception of the “as determined by the agent”. She stated that if that was done, then also on section 22-146, we could also eliminate that first sentence.

Mr. Stepowany stated it would be revised to go from street lot line to front lot line.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if more time was needed to reword this or could this be worked out.

Mr. Stepowany stated in his opinion the addition with “or to incorporate a non-contiguous site for a primary and/or reserved drainfield”, if it goes off to the side but you still have a fifty (50) foot wide stretch of property that you own between your house and the drainfield, it was contiguous. Non-contiguous would mean there would be a break in the property.

Mr. Judy stated that he used the same wording that was used in Section 22-143(a).

Mr. Stepowany asked if they needed more direction.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that he understood the confusion of the term contiguous and non-contiguous and, as Mr. Stepowany said, if it was attached then it was contiguous.

Mr. Judy stated that he understood his point but did not have the exact definition of the word contiguous in front of him, so he could not comment. He stated he was using that word because it was previously used to indicate contiguous, meaning all together, and he thought the purpose behind that was that the building area would be a symmetrical solid area and that was what they were trying to generate.

Ms. Kirkman stated that the language was incorporated in a number of different localities’ ordinances and that was where it came from. She then made a motion that this be sent to public hearing as written with the following changes: in Section 22-143(c) we strike the current language and substitute the language that Mr. Judy provided with the exception of the words “as determined by the agent”, and in Section 22-146 we strike that entire first sentence that was in the draft in front of them. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0 and was sent to the regular meeting.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE

Mike Zuraf stated that the Planning Commission had requested some specific information on Levels of Service (LOS), with more of the background and how it applies to comprehensive planning. He provided two (2) handouts, the first entitled Levels of Service Standards in Comprehensive Planning which was put together by Planning staff and the second entitled Proffers Converted to Levels of LOS or Levels of Service which was developed by the Fiscal Impact Model Subcommittee of the Steering Committee. He discussed the basic definition of Levels of Service Standards, the purpose and benefits, how Levels of Service are applied in Stafford County today, how you would apply Levels of Service to a Comprehensive Plan, showed examples from other localities on how they utilize Levels of Service Standards, and then a suggested approach for Stafford to move forward. He stated the simple definition for Levels of Service Standards was there are benchmarks with which to measure the quantity and/or quality of service provided by a government agency. He stated types of services that you would have are dealing with schools, transportation, roads, parks, emergency services be it Sheriff or Fire and Rescue, libraries, and waste management, to name a few. He stated LOS Standards can be in two different types, they can be related to capital capacity or recommended size of buildings or size of sites, or they can be based on operational effectiveness such as response times for Fire and Rescue. He discussed the purpose and benefits, if you establish those standards, would serve as a beneficial tool to provide adequate public facilities that would be consistent with citizen needs. He stated utilizing LOS Standards and having adequate public facilities would promote economic development for our county, along with fostering civic pride and a positive impression of the community. He stated that Stafford County does have certain LOS Standards, however, they are not fully addressed in the Comprehensive Plan in a collective manner. He stated some of the Standards are found in the various documents that the county has. He stated that LOS Standards can be based on facility size, carrying capacity, service provisions or facility siting. He stated typically, Stafford County’s LOS goals are mainly based on facility size such as building size and land area. He stated it does not get into where certain facilities should be such as limiting a facility to within the urban service area. He discussed one source of the most comprehensive location for the LOS goals was in the proffer guideline document. He stated here, the LOS goals are utilized to determine per unit cost to provide adequate public facilities for certain types of facilities. He went on to explain, for example, the library LOS Standards and its recommendations. He stated this can be used to compare how the county was doing against these standards and do an evaluation by looking at existing actual data and measuring them against the recommended standards. He again discussed the library LOS Standards stating he had information out of the second document which was developed by the Steering Committee which did an analysis on the library situation in the county. He stated what was determined was that currently there was a need for library space of seventy-three thousand (73,000) square feet and that was based on an estimated population of one hundred twenty-two thousand (122,000) and multiplied by the recommended .6 square foot ratio. He stated looking at existing facilities there are two libraries, the Porter Library in North Stafford and the main central library in the City of Fredericksburg, assuming that it serves the residents in South Stafford. He stated so that assumes there are two libraries in the county and they have an existing square footage of fifty-four thousand (54,000) square feet which means there was a current deficit of eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet as far as libraries go which would equal one library. He stated that there was a third library in England Run which was planned to be opened in 2010 which then the county will be meeting the LOS Standards for libraries.

Ms. Kirkman asked if he meant the main library in Fredericksburg where you have to go over the Falmouth bridge.

Mr. Zuraf stated yes.

Mr. Fields stated that forty (40) percent of the usage of the Porter Branch was Stafford and the system was a regional system.

Mr. Zuraf discussed what had been done in the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Steering Committee did an analysis of the current situation and how it related to some of the LOS Standards in place in the current proffer guidelines. He stated they utilized the current proffer guidelines, assuming those were the desired current service levels, and evaluated that against the current situation to determine whether there was a current surplus or deficit in the different types of public facilities and then projected out what future facility needs may be and also what their estimated costs may be. He stated that was determined by a land need by determining how much land would be needed on a county-wide basis. He stated the analysis presented assumed a full build-out of the county under by-right zoning and what would be envisioned was an additional analysis that would be done based on a future land use plan. He stated a future land use plan likely would recommend future densities that differ from the basic by-right zoning build-out and likely would be greater. He stated the document does not go into revising the established LOS or the next level of establishing any new location or service standards. He discussed how you might apply LOS to the Comprehensive Plan, stating you would first want to inventory what existing facilities you have, and then define the LOS Standards and determine what criteria you would want to use which would require a lot of work with different departments and agencies. He stated you would want to determine what projects would be needed where you would apply those LOS Standards to future build-out in your land use plan and you would need to prioritize projects and you can go about this through phasing of facilities based on future development. He stated then applying the list of needed projects to other documents to assist in funding which are the proffer guidelines, impact fees and Capital Improvements Program (CIP). He stated this would help to ensure that future development helps cover the costs of the facilities’ needs. He discussed some examples of other localities that utilize LOS are Spotsylvania County, which has a specific document entitled Levels of Service Standards for Public Facilities and was adopted in late 2006. He stated this gets into a specific listing of all service levels and policies that would help to achieve those levels. He stated the basis of that plan was a recommendation in the 2002 Spotsylvania Comprehensive Plan to develop LOS Standards where none existed, along with the authorization in the State Code that allows localities to develop LOS Standards. He stated there were a lot of different people and departments involved in that plan and it was noted that department ownership was very important in developing LOS Standards as planning may oversee development of this but they may not know the specific needs of each department and agency. He stated the facilities that are covered in the Spotsylvania County plan include Transportation, both roads and transit, Utilities, schools, the Sheriff, Fire and Rescue, solid waste, stormwater quality and quantity, Parks and Recreation, Libraries, and Administration. He stated the next locality was Chesterfield County and they have LOS specifically written into a Public Facilities Plan, which included specific type, location and number of future facilities that are determined based on the LOS that are utilized as the key to determine those facilities. He stated the types of facilities that they cover are Sheriff, Fire and Rescue, Libraries, Parks, schools, Transportation, Utilities, and Telecommunications. He stated the way their document was laid out, within each of those different sections they have a vision or mission of what they hope to achieve for each facility, they spell out their specific LOS, there was some specific site selection criteria, and they have facility recommendations. He stated they also get into timing and they map out where those facilities are recommended and this plan recommends review every five (5) years and was specific to say that these recommendations are general in nature as they move forward. He provided an example of one of the maps from Chesterfield County from the Public Facility document showing existing and proposed facilities based on the intention of meeting LOS Standards.

Mr. Fields asked if Chesterfield had been able to meet the location criteria because of trying to purchase public land, particularly in high growth, high demand counties.

Mr. Judy stated in Spotsylvania, the Plan was suppose to be here is where we might like to see it, that this would be a good location, not necessarily the specific location, but a general location of where we would like to see a school or a library or a water tower or that particular public facility.

Ms. Kirkman stated she had questions related to what the implications were, for instance, on specific rezoning applications, would it give them the ability to either negotiate specific proffers related to the levels of services in the area or to deny rezoning based on the lack of adequate levels of services. She then asked related to Chapter 896, do those level of services then become important and establish those ahead of time, should we move to model where we have the ability do impact fees outside the urbanized service area.
Mr. Fields stated that impact fees are similar to proffers but it was his understanding that, assuming they still have the authority to have impact fees after next year, the rational nexus standard states that the impact fee has to be very directly related to the impact of the property. He asked if they were charging an impact fee on a residential development in the agricultural area would they have to be a little more focused on their current proffer guidelines or would they be about in the same ballpark.

Mr. Harvey stated that it depends on how you break up the county as far as service areas. He stated with the road impact fees there are different fee rates based on service areas, so for other types of facilities such as schools they may break school districts down by high school attendance zones and if they did that they may find they have more capacity in one part of the county as compared to another, and the capital cost may be higher in one part of the county versus another so there would be some variation throughout the county unless you had a uniformed county-wide service district. The State legislature does not like the idea of a uniformed county-wide service district, they prefer to see it more site specific and more detailed.

Mr. Zuraf stated to end his brief presentation, if the Planning Commission wanted to move forward with the idea of more detailed levels of service then staff would recommend development of an element that would get at levels of service in public facilities as a separate element of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated this would expand on the work conducted by the Steering Committee and the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff would note that the time and effort to develop this plan may extend beyond the timeframe for the draft Comp Plan as they have it now, but it may be appropriate as a subsequent element of the overall plan.

Ms. Kirkman asked why it would have to wait until after the Comprehensive Plan and, in fact, it seems like it would be a very important part of the Comprehensive Plan because part of what it does was designate where public facilities are to be located ideally.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that they are coming up on almost two years of working the Comprehensive Plan and no part of the plan was more important than Level of Services. He stated it was the main way so that your Comprehensive Plan does not have just a shelf value even though it is designed to be generalizations about where we would like to go and how we would like to go there, make sure you can do them or see what it costs to do them and whether they are realistic or not and then you can go back and measure whether your Comprehensive Plan was any good or not. He stated that he would insist that LOS be part of this document.

Mr. Harvey stated there are two types of LOS that could be pursued, one was for capital facilities, which the Comprehensive Plan typically deals with those types of issues and also State Codes that we have to address as issues. He stated there was also the operational side of LOS, which sometimes feeds into the capital needs and sometimes not, depending on which approach you take. He stated that for the Comprehensive Plan, they need to discuss, at least at the capital facility LOS Standards, the operational side was going to get into a broader policy issue that maybe can be addressed in a time frame that has been given for the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the County Administrator recommended that as part of their work plan that they have the Comprehensive Plan done by the end of the year and, more specifically, the Planning Commission have their part done by July.

Mr. Zuraf stated that they would have to re-evaluate the time frame that was presented in anticipation of having it completed by July.

Mr. Fields asked if completion by July was a possibility.

Ms. Kirkman stated that it looked like a lot of the work had already been completed.

Mr. Harvey discussed the amount of data they have, comparing the current proffer guidelines and the existing LOS, that additional policy may get more involved and take more time, and that the more difficult guidelines deal with LOS Standards for Public Safety. He stated that those type of issues may need to be delayed for further discussion.

Mr. Fields stated that in all the discussions of LOS and impact fees that Public Safety was one of the most complicated. He stated there was a fairly large disconnect between the recommendation and what they could afford in terms of personnel.

Mr. Harvey stated, as an example, that Fairfax County has a LOS policy for Fire and Rescue that they should have a maximum seven minute response time and to get to that seven minute response time there may be several ways of doing it which could mean building a new fire station or fix certain road intersections or have pre-emptive devices that signalize intersections. He stated that was more of an operational standard than a capital facility standard.

Ms. Kirkman stated that her understanding of the Comprehensive Plan was that it was a guidance document which guides land use, capital improvements and the policies enacted through legislation, i.e., ordinances, etc. She stated that there would be a lot more work to be done after the Board adopts a Comprehensive Plan because legislation and drafts of legislation would be needed to enact the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked about feasibility and stated she was trying to figure out what the limits of their responsibility were. She stated that it does seem like making recommendations about the standards would fit within their purview but she failed to see why it would be up to them to make recommendations about the number of personnel needed to implement those policies.

Mr. Judy stated that the key was whose responsibility it was and that it was not the Planning Commission’s job to make those standards. He stated that would be up to the safety offices, the Fire Marshall and the Sheriff, to bring those standards to us and for us to determine how we get them as part of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Planning Commission was not the one to adopt those standards, those are normal standards that all areas use. He stated that it is important that the Fire Marshall and his folks make the input so they know what they need to be working with as opposed to them trying to figure that out.

Ms. Kirkman stated she was not suggesting they would not do that.

Mr. Fields stated he did not want to start implying that somebody gets a quicker response time. He stated that it did point out that one of the issues that LOS would help guide in the Comprehensive Plan was how complex and generally not good planning practice it was to have lots of low density far flung houses. He then asked the Planning Commission how they felt about this LOS at least at the first level as being necessary to finishing up the Comp Plan that they present to the Board.

Mr. Howard stated that it must be part of the Comprehensive Plan and was something that was missing in Stafford for several years. He asked if they should request an additional thirty days to do a better job in terms of making sure the LOS Standards exist within the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that crossing the bridge to get to the library was kind of silly.

Mr. Fields stated that it was easier to cross the bridge to get to the library in Fredericksburg than it was to get to the Porter library or to get to the Plantation Drive library.

Mr. Harvey stated that staff believes it was doable to approach LOS from the policy standpoint in the Comprehensive Plan at this point in time but the drilling down to specific siting recommendations for different types of facilities may be beyond their scope and where they may need to have their public facilities plan element.

Mr. Fields stated even though there was a requirement to review the Comprehensive Plan every five years, the Comprehensive Plan was a living document. He stated they need to make a presentation to the Board of Supervisors with a timeline that includes our firm belief that a significant LOS Standard was included in the plan that was presented to them. He stated they need to know what their tiered options in terms of LOS are under timelines and that they will have the Standards to a large degree addressed in the first draft that was presented to the Board.

Mr. Howard mentioned that they could avoid the tower and concerns once again if, within this Comprehensive Plan, they clearly point out to all the residents in Stafford where the easements currently exist and what the plan was originally for.

Mr. Zuraf stated that they were planning on making that change.

Mr. Howard stated that he hoped that would be part of the LOS Standards.

Mr. Fields stated that just because we do not control electricity or gas lines, they are a part of our LOS that “X” number amount of build-out would require and we need to know how that was going to be addressed.

Mr. Mitchell stated that he thought it was a very good point but he was hearing that they would have a massive amount of input in a very short period of time. He stated he was not sure they could put all of what some of the Commission members want to present into the Comprehensive Plan to present to the Board of Supervisors as he does not think there was enough time. He stated this has been a two year journey and he did not think the Board of Supervisors was going to allow it to be a three year journey.

Ms. Kirkman stated that they do have a Comprehensive Plan Committee and, in order to meet the public notice requirements and to get this process started, she strongly urged the Chair of that committee to schedule the meeting and subsequent meetings.

Mr. Di Peppe asked to bring this back up in the regular session.

Ms. Kirkman stated that they would need to come up with a standing meeting time.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that would be fine with him and he would be happy to entertain any suggestions.

Mr. Fields stated that Mr. Mitchell’s points were well taken and requested Mr. Harvey to give a two or three tier menu of LOS detail and timeframe.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m.