Dr. Horton moved and Mr. Shewbridge seconded to approve the Minutes of September 15, 2016 with the change and if any additional pumps were needed.

Transcription

1 At a regular meeting of the Caroline County Planning Commission, held Thursday, October 20, 2016, in the Community Services Center auditorium, located at Richmond Turnpike, Milford, Virginia, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. Present Absent Also Present Bob Fiumara Dr. Carol Horton Percell Minor Charles Shewbridge Les Stanley Leon Smith Michael A. Finchum Director of Planning & Community Development Lisa Zech Administrative Assistant/Planning Tech. David Nunnally Environmental Planner Christopher MacKenzie County Attorney 1. CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Stanley called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 15, 2016) Dr. Horton noted changes to the minutes on Page 5, her comment should read she asked Chief Loftus if he could provide her a description of the pumps on site and if any additional pumps were needed. Dr. Horton moved and Mr. Shewbridge seconded to approve the Minutes of September 15, 2016 with the change and if any additional pumps were needed. Voting yea: Fiumara, Dr. Horton, Minor, Shewbridge, Stanley * Motion carries * 3. SB Moss Neck Holdings, LLC: Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat, Tax Map 4-A-10; create one 30 acre parcel The following Staff report was provided: The applicant is requesting subdivision of a thirty acre parcel from a 292 acre parcel. The property was previously divided (Minor Subdivision) and the creation of a third lot qualifies as a major subdivision. The original submittal of this subdivision included a request for an exception to allow the applicant to use the existing entrance and continue to own and maintain the access as a private right of way (EX ). The Planning Commission denied the request at the October 15, 2015 meeting and the subdivision was subsequently removed from consideration. The applicant then filed for a special exception permit as per Article IV, Section 5.3 to allow use of the existing entrance as a private road to serve the 30 acre parcel. At the June 14, 2016 meeting the Board of Supervisors granted the special exception with conditions (attachment 1). -1- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

2 Staff believes the plat is in accordance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance as well as Article XII Section 1 (Lot Area) and Article XV Section 19.6 (Resource Sensitive Area Overlay District) of the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with several of the special exception conditions for the private road is required prior to approval of the preliminary/final subdivision plat: Condition 2: Road Construction Plans shall be reviewed and approved by VDOT and the cost of construction of such road shall be bonded prior to release of the plat for recordation. Alternatively, the owner may construct the road to the approved VDOT plans/standards, provided such construction is inspected and approved in accordance with VDOT inspection Procedures, and the Owner satisfies the conditions in paragraphs 5 and 6 below prior to construction. Thereafter, the road shall be inspected annually in accordance with the inspection/certification procedures set forth in condition 7, to ensure the road continues to meet the construction standards to which it was originally built. A copy of such inspection/certification shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Community development upon completion. Failure to maintain the road to VDOT standards shall void this Special Exception Permit. In their August 23, 2016 letter, VDOT states there were no further comments on the subdivision plat or site plan, and the construction plans are approvable. Road Construction Plans have been submitted to VDOT for signature. Condition 5: The owner shall prepare and submit Articles of Incorporation for the Property Owners Association, and a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions applicable to all parcels identified in paragraph 3 above that shall be reviewed by the County Attorney at the Owner's expense to ensure compliance with Article XV, Section 8, Paragraph L, Standard 6 prior to approval of the Preliminary/Final plat by the Planning Commission. The Applicant has complied with this condition. Condition 6. The documents required in paragraph 5 above, shall be filed at the SCC and recorded in the clerk's office, as appropriate, prior to or in conjunction with the recordation of the plat, which shall remain in full force and effect for as long as the road is held privately. Thereafter, the owner shall be relieved of any bonding obligations for the required road/maintenance improvements, provided VDOT or an acceptable third party, certifies that the road meets VDOT construction standards for acceptance into the secondary road system. The Applicant has complied with this condition. Condition 8. The Private Road Maintenance Agreement shall be amended to include Caroline County and VDOT as third party beneficiaries of the Agreement, with the right to enforce the parties' obligations to them under the Agreement in a court of law." The Applicant has complied with this condition. The plats have been revised to include the Health Department statement and AOSE certification as noted in the Health Department comments. There were no concerns from other agencies other than the Sheriff s Office which was for clarification of the use of the new parcel. Chairman Stanley stated that since he has been on the Planning Commission, they have not had a large number of subdivision requests. He said he only brings this up because this is different than a Special Exception or Rezoning and asked Mr. Finchum to explain that to the Planning Commission. -2- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

3 Michael A. Finchum, Director of Planning & Community Development, stated as Commission members review different types of development applications, generally, there is different guidance or statutory provisions in the State Code that apply, depending on whether it is a Special Exception, Rezoning, Site Plan or Subdivision. He said there are certain actions of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors where there is some judgment required in the application, such as a Rezoning or a Special Exception. You have conditions, you have your Comprehensive Plan, you have standards, and at the end of the day, you have the Public Hearing process and the Commission and ultimately the Board, makes a judgment decision on those applications. He explained that there are other applications such as site plans and subdivisions that are called, ministerial acts. The specific standards are spelled out in the ordinance and if those standards are met with the plat or the site plan, the Planning Commission doesn t have the judgment or the discretion that you might have with denying a rezoning application. He said subdivision plats fall under the ministerial act provisions, whereby you have a subdivision ordinance if the subdivision meets those ordinance requirements, you do not really have the discretion to say, no, even if you did not like that particular request. He said, generally speaking, this is not an application, unlike the rezoning that is left over in Unfinished Business, where there is some discretion on the part of the Planning Commission in terms of whether you think that application meets the rezoning standards, et cetera. Chairman Stanley stated he knows a Special Exception was granted by the Board of Supervisors on this and he would like to defer action on this until the next meeting of the Planning Commission so they can have further discussion. Mr. Fiumara moved and Mr. Minor seconded to defer SB Moss Neck Holdings, LLC: Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat, Tax Map 4-A-10; create one 30 acre parcel to the November meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting yea: Fiumara, Dr. Horton, Minor, Shewbridge, Stanley * Motion carries * UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. RZ Garry Gray, Owner / Milford Terminal Co, LLC (John Blysniuk), Applicant: Request a Rezoning from RP-Rural Preservation (with a density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres of land) to M- 1, Industrial (no specified density) on Tax Map # 56-A-13, consisting of 3 acres, more or less. This property is adjacent to Industrial Drive, approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Nelson Hill Road and Industrial Drive, Mattaponi Voting District. Proposed Use: Expansion/Upgrade of an existing propane storage facility to include a new rail spur and additional tank car storage capacity. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being located within the 100 year Flood Plain and designated as Rural Preservation (with a density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres of land). Michael A. Finchum, Director of Planning & Community Development, stated as Commission members recall, they had an extensive discussion of this application at the last two meetings. He said Chief Loftus was present and addressed a number of questions that the Commission had. He said in summary, the application is for a rezoning to M-1 Industrial to add some land to an existing M-1 zoned piece of property where the Milford Propane Terminal is located at the end of Industrial Drive. He said the Development Plan has been modified several times; however, they are now back to the point of the plan that was initially discussed with Staff a number of months ago where they are requesting the addition of two trains, one for additional railcar storage and one to assist with the switching operations at the plant. -3- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

4 He stated there was a lot of good discussion about what is there now, existing facilities, expansion, et cetera. The Commission has some language from Chief Loftus related to what he is requesting related to the expanded fire suppression capabilities at the site. He said it was discussed at the meeting, the possibility of basically running a dry hydrant to one of the ponds in the area that has more than adequate capacity to meet the fire flow requirements that Chief Loftus is concerned about. He said again, Chief Loftus main concerns are not really related to a fire, per se, but if there is a gas leak at the facility, the method of dispersing any leak at the facility is basically going to be hosing the area down with water to disperse any vapors. He said representatives from Milford Terminal are here tonight if he misspeaks on any of the technical aspects. He said Chief Loftus concerns was related to the additional capacity within the plant, more rail cars would be there, more product there that they have got access, both in terms of a road, which is being provided by the applicant, as well as an appropriately located dry hydrant that they could draft an adequate volume of water from. He said this was really Chief Loftus only outstanding concern and based on discussions, he prepared a proffer to present to the Commission. It has been shared with the applicant and the applicant can address that with the Commission. Mr. Finchum stated he was not aware of any outstanding issues. He believes Staff, with the modifications, and Chief Loftus with the fire suppression concerns addressed, is comfortable with this application. Chairman Stanley read the language: The owner and/or applicant shall construct a water supply line/dry hydrant from a secondary water source to a location identified and approved by the Fire Chief to provide suppression capability for the expanded hazard. The secondary water source and dry hydrant must be capable of maintaining a water supply of 600 gallons a minute for a period of not less than 120 minutes throughout the year and during periods of extreme drought. Mr. Finchum reminded the Commission that this is a rezoning, so this would be a proffer and the applicant has to offer that proffer. Chairman Stanley stated that he likes the fence and the video surveillance. He said he would like to commend Staff and the Planning Commission because they have really vetted this case. Dr. Horton asked if the newest map was what was discussed on site. Mr. Finchum said yes. He said he thinks Dr. Horton s question was answered with this language that Chief Loftus has requested. Dr. Horton said yes, it was. He said she thinks that this would possibly improve the safety of the facility. Mr. Fiumara asked if the applicant wanted to comment on the two additions. John Blysniuk, Applicant, stated that they take no exception to the language. He said they have been in Milford for 12 years and they want to be there for many more years and they want a safe and efficient operation and will do anything they need to do in order to meet the Commission s conditions. Mr. Shewbridge said a few members were not at the last meeting on this and asked if the members present now had any questions or comments, he would like to hear them at this time. Mr. Minor stated that the Fire Department was his concern; however, if the applicant is willing to work with them, he is good. -4- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

5 Mr. Shewbridge moved and Mr. Minor seconded to approve RZ with added proffer as presented. Voting yea: Fiumara, Dr. Horton, Minor, Shewbridge, Stanley * Motion carries * 5. ANY & ALL MATTERS Updates to Comprehensive Plan and Resource Sensitive Area Overlay Zoning District Regulations Mr. Finchum stated that Staff has been working on an update to the Comprehensive Plan. He said Ms. Crowder got a lot of that done before she left the County, but they have actually had some pressing issues in the northern part of the County that the Commission is aware of and has been involved in a number of those discussions over the last couple of years. He said at the request of Supervisor. Long, they have pulled out Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan to discuss and work on, specifically, the Resource Sensitive Area Designation along the Route 17/Rappahannock River Corridor. He said they have been working on updates to that section to reflect all the development activity that has occurred in that area, the Boundary Agreement between the County and the Town of Port Royal to reflect their new boundaries, and also to amend the boundaries of the Resource Sensitive Area (RSA) in the Zoning Ordinance to reflect what the Comprehensive Plan describes. He said the original RSA boundary was different than what is in the Comprehensive Plan now. He said as part of the zoning updates, they are proposing to amend the boundaries so that they are actually consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which is based on the Fort A. P. Hill boundaries, the other jurisdictional boundaries, as well as watershed boundaries. He stated as part of that discussion, there is discussion about uses that are not compatible with the RSA and the tenants of that RSA designation. He said his proposed changes are in blue and in red and have been highlighted so the Commission could see the changes that Staff had worked on related to mineral resources, development, et cetera. He said you have one set of zoning regulations to go with the Comprehensive Plan provisions related to the RSA designation. He said Supervisor Long requested that they work on this and they have the other chapters of the plan that Staff has been working on and are going to start giving to the Commission as well. He said this one had a little more urgency and at Ms. Long s request, they brought that forward. He stated the second set of regulations come to the Commission courtesy of their friends at the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD). He said they went through one of the three types of program reviews that they do for local governments he s not quite sure what all the differences are. Suffice it to say, that neither he nor Mr. Nunnally were particularly happy with the process, the length of time that it took to go through the process and the lack of coordination between Chesapeake Bay, Stormwater and E&S. He said this needs to be integrated together. Having said that, there were certain deficiencies or corrective actions that the CBLAD Staff requested the County undertake by the end of the year. One was to amend the Subdivision Ordinance requirements to include specific language related to septic pump out. He said it requires a note on a plat that says if you have a drainfield or septic system, then it has to be pumped out every five years. He said that somehow never made it into the Subdivision Ordinance and they have included that to meet their comments. He said they also have some proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to what actually constitutes a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area or the features that are included in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area designation and this is where it gets a lot of background. He said when Chesapeake Bay Regulations were adopted by the County in 1992, we, along with a number of other localities, basically utilized the model ordinance that had been prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. -5- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

6 He said they have found that there is a lot of language in that ordinance that exceeded the authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Act itself. He said so the model ordinance was gray, it was written from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department s perspective, but there is a lot of language and requirements in there that were not supported by the law. He stated they are in the process and they had the discussion from their Environmental Consultant a couple of meetings ago - of amending the entire set of Chesapeake Bay Regulations to more accurately reflect what the State Law itself says and what processes, procedures, requirements, et cetera. He said one of the areas that Staff still get questioned about relates to language that should not be in the ordinance, yet the reviewers are still saying, but it is in your ordinance, you should be doing that. He said they need to clean that up because, again, statutorily, what is in the ordinance is not supported by the State Code. He said they are cleaning that up but in the meantime, what they have done is gone back through the factors or soil types, et cetera, that the Bay Act asked them to look at and have tried to refine their maps to better reflect for public review, what Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas are. He said they clearly defined RPA based upon perinniality and wetlands; a 300-foot RMA buffer, which is actually in their ordinance right now, but there is a bunch of other things like highly erodible soils for which there are really no calculations out there from the soil map to map those. He said so what they are suggesting is, they have a general map to between with, which is then the basis of their Chesapeake Bay required septic pump out clearly defined lines. He said the remainder of the County areas that might just fall out of a boundary, are evaluated at the time of development. So if you have a site plan or a rezoning, those areas then are evaluated as to whether it should be in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area or not. He said so this cleans things up, it addresses CBLAD s concerns about our maps, and still keeps the potential for including land areas in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area based on site specific analysis, which is what the regulations offer. He said they still have a County-wide septic pump out right now, it is just the pump out mandated by the Chesapeake Bay Regulations themselves will be clearly articulated based upon the suggested revised maps. He said that then allows the County to go back and reestablish the septic pump out program. He said they had the program, they started it, CBLAD was concerned about the maps six, seven years ago. He said maps were updated but never actually reapproved by CBLAD, so they have gone through that process yet again and they think it is much cleaner this time. He said now they can start that process again, which they have committed to doing starting the end of this year or first of next year and this is where they are at now. David Nunnally, Sr., Environmental Planner, said he believes that Mr. Finchum has covered everything. He said if the Commission looks at the information that was provided Chairman Stanley asked if the map was pretty easy to follow. Mr. Nunnally said yes. He said he thinks what this map does that is so much better than the other map is that when you look at this, you readily recognize where the water features are. He said the other map, by virtue of including all the soils and everything else, you were all over the place and it didn t make much sense. He said in short, by going to this map, it focuses efforts and resources on the water resources that this program is intended to protect. Mr. Finchum said there is no legend on this map, but that will be added. He explained what the colors mean, RPA and RMA Buffer and addressing concerns from CBLAD about what constitutes an RPA. David Nunnally explained how the map was created. He said the RPA is very restrictive. The RMA is adjacent to the RPA; you can build in the RMA but there is more stringent criteria because of the potential to affect water quality. -6- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

7 Mr. Finchum said the 2007 guidance expanded what constitutes an RPA. Staff felt as part of the evaluation that going to this concept would be more palatable to incorporate the expanded definition of an RPA; hand in hand is the expanded RMA buffer around the RPA. To address comments from staff about how those interpretations were adopted, administered, etc, Staff felt comfortable using the more expanded definition using this model. He suggested that a work session could be held to continue discussion prior to the November Public Hearing. Dr. Horton asked if this, overall, strengthened the regulations. Mr. Finchum said he believes it strengthens the regulations as to what constitutes an RPA. He said the RPA is more expansive using the new definition. It comes down to surface flow versus non surface flow and connectivity Mr. Nunnally said comparing the previous map to the new map is like comparing apples and oranges because this map uses the wetlands data set and they did not have that in Dr. Horton asked if the changes were in yellow. Mr. Finchum said the changes are in yellow and you will see some new language in blue and some reddish brown changes as well. Mr. Fiumara said as far as Lake Land Or is concerned, this is something that just went by the wayside. He asked if there was some way after all of this is done that they could go to these subdivisions and send them a notification that this is now required, every five years you have to have your septic pumped out and they are responsible for it and not the County. Mr. Finchum said yes, for properties outside the Chesapeake Bay area, they could do that and put the onus on the POA. He said Lake Caroline still does the pump out. He does not think that would be an issue with the Board in Land or. Staff has been working on notices to re-establish the pump out. Mr. Minor asked about the time frame. Mr. Finchum said the time frame was early next year. He said they are going to reinstitute the pump out probably the first of the year and will be sending out notices. He said they are not going to be sending them out countywide and it is not going to be 5,000 notices at one time, because they are not staffed to do that. He said utilizing the Chesapeake Bay designations, he thinks they can get a pretty good idea of what the required notices will be and get them on a regular notification schedule. Mr. Nunnally said their plan is to do, basically, a five year cycle for a septic pump out, 20% per year. Dr. Horton asked if this would be required for everyone in the County with a septic system. Mr. Finchum said yes. He explained currently, under the ordinance, septic pump out is countywide, even outside of the Chesapeake Bay areas. He said he likes the concept and he supports the concept; however, he and Mr. Nunnally both have issues with how it is administered at the State level. He said the State would not want them to change the pump out requirements because they actually get a credit for a septic pump out with EPA as part of the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program. He said so even if you are outside of a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, if you pump out your septic system, which nobody disagrees that you should do that just for the health of the system, but the Commonwealth of Virginia is taking credit for that. He said you, as a property owner, are not getting any credit whatsoever and they expect you to do it and they take the credit. He said it is issues like that that they take issue with because there should be some benefit to the homeowner. He said this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the General Assembly level as they go through this review and consolidate the programs. Chairman Stanley stated that November 3 rd they will have a work session. He thanked Staff and the Planning Commission for their work on the Milford Terminal, et cetera. -7- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes

8 Dr. Horton asked if they should direct any questions on the Moss Neck Holdings to Staff. Mr. Finchum said yes. 6. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Stanley moved to adjourn to the November 3 rd Work Session at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Michael A. Finchum Director of Planning & Community Development -8- October 20, Planning Commission Minutes