MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

October 12, 2006

A meeting of the Westminster Planning and Zoning Commission was held in the Public Hearing Room of the Carroll County Office Building, 225 North Center Street, on the evening of October 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Chairperson Bair; Members Albert, Beaver, Graham, and Palmer; City Attorney Walsh; Manager of Planning and Development Davis; City Planner Fisher; County Planner Graf; and members of the public were present.

The minutes of the September 14, 2006 meeting were approved as presented on motion of Mrs. Palmer.

Mr. Fisher presented Sign Permit No. 1193 – Petsmart.  The applicant seeks approval of replacement signage on the front façade of the Petsmart store located in the Crossroads Square Shopping Center.  Mr. Fisher stated that the new signage would total 170 square feet, approximately the same square footage as the existing sign.  The Commission approved the sign permit on the motion of Mrs. Graham.

Ms. Bair opened the public hearing for the 3rd Amended Development Plan for Wakefield Valley at 7:10 p.m.   Ms. Bair announced the order of presentations and other guidelines for the hearing.  Mr. Davis summarized that the applicant requests the assignment of 157 dwelling units of un-built density on Parcel ‘H’ to land currently improved as the Wakefield Valley Golf Course.  He explained that development on the 167-acre property is subject to a development plan rather than zoning because the Wakefield Valley Development Plan was approved prior to the introduction of zoning controls in the City.  That Plan assigns three dwelling units to the subject property.  Mr. Davis then presented a staff analysis of the project.  He cited a 1989 decision of The Mayor and Common Council that appears to show a forfeiture of the remaining density for Parcel ‘H’ when that property was developed.

The applicant presented evidence in favor of the amendment.  Mr. Martin Hackett of CLSI, Inc., explained that the project would result in the conversion of the White Course at Wakefield Valley Golf Club into 320 age-restricted cottages.  Mr. Hackett advanced his position that the assignment of 157 dwelling units, plus the three dwelling units with prior approval, multiplied by a factor of two because of the age restriction would allow the project to move forward.  Mr. Hackett described the design of the condominium community and stated that all infrastructure internal to the subdivision would be privately owned and maintained.  Mr. Hackett testified that 200 acres of open space would remain in the area upon completion of the project.  He remarked that this project would not eliminate any remaining density from Wakefield Valley parcels with buildable land.  Mr. Hackett presented selected cross-sections of the finished grades of the area and represented that the views of existing homeowners would not be blocked by the new cottages.  In response to a question from Ms. Bair, Mr. Hackett described the location of the floodplain.  Mr. Shep Tullier of LandVisions, Inc. presented his credentials as a professional land use planner.  Mr. Tullier testified that the proposed plan is consistent with the surrounding area and with the population projections of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Wes Guckert of The Traffic Group, Inc., presented his credentials as a professional traffic engineer.  Mr. Guckert represented that 320 age-restricted cottages would generate less traffic than a standard 160-lot subdivision.  Mr. Guckert testified that the traffic impact of the project could be mitigated.  He submitted a preliminary traffic analysis to support his finding, which he noted had not been reviewed or approved by the City of Westminster.  Mr. Mark Eisner of Advanced Land and Water, Inc. testified that the project would increase the City’s water supply.  Mr. Eisner explained that a 120,000 gallon-per-day water appropriation held by the golf course could be transferred to the City if treated wastewater effluent was made available for irrigation of the golf course.  Mr. Eisner estimated that the development would use approximately 40,000 g.p.d., increasing the City’s supply by approximately 80,000 g.p.d.  Mr. Jack Lyburn of Lyburn Associates submitted an economic impact analysis prepared by the Sage Policy Group, Inc.  Mr. Lyburn highlighted various findings of the report, summarizing that the project would result in a net initial surplus and net annual surplus of funds to the City once all municipal costs were taken into account.  Mr. Elmwood Swamm, legal counsel for the applicant, stated his belief that the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; that the Development Plan for Wakefield Valley was meant to be flexible; that the prior decision of The Mayor and Common Council only reduced the allowable density for Parcel ‘H’, not the entire plan; and that the City has the authority to move density from one parcel to another.  In response to a question from Ms. Bair, Mr. Martin Hill, the applicant, stated that the development would be restricted at age 55 because that is the standard for ‘active adult’ projects.

Ms. Lura Griswold of 105 Bell Road recounted that her family was the original owner and developer of much of Wakefield Valley.  Ms. Griswold stated that the amendment runs counter to the original intent of the Development Plan. 

Mr. Charles Cull of 50 Blue Swallow Court, representing the Fenby Farm Homeowners Association solely on the issue of stormwater management, refrained from speaking favorably or in opposition to the amendment.  He requested that stormwater management receive the utmost attention during design review if the project moves forward. 

Mr. Paul Smulian, President of the Fairways at Wakefield Homeowners Association and resident of 1211 Fairway Drive, presented his neighborhood’s opposition to the Plan.  He cited concerns regarding sinkholes, mass grading, losses in property value due to the severance of the golf course from the neighborhood, information missing from the proposed plan, and losses in aesthetics.  Mr. Smulian disputed the trip generation rate used by the applicant’s traffic consultant and asked if the covenants of the new development would be as strict as those in place in his neighborhood.

Mr. Isaac Menasche, counsel for Carroll Lutheran Village, testified in opposition to the amendment.  He described a number of agreements and decisions pertaining to the Wakefield Valley Development Plan, including the 1989 decision of The Mayor and Common Council.  Mr. Menasche stated his position that the density of the overall plan is based solely on the assignment of dwelling units to individual lots.  Mr. Menasche stated that, based on his research, the amendment proposes the development of a parcel with no development rights, using other rights that have been relinquished.  He then argued that a “no adverse impact” finding would be necessary to increase the density of the Development Plan.  Mr. Menasche suggested that a re-assignment of development rights from Parcel ‘H’ would be unorthodox because the owners of Parcel ‘H’ have not given their consent to the request.

Mr. Nick Delia of 101 St. Paul Court testified in opposition to the amendment, citing numerous concerns with the development and questioning the trip generation rates used by the applicant.

Mr. Leon Thomas of 331 Innisbrook Lane expressed his opposition to the amendment, arguing that the cross-sections of viewsheds presented by the developer were not representative of the conditions in much of the area.

Mr. Wayne Weller of 191 Bell Road echoed the concerns of previous speakers in regard to traffic, the water supply, and the loss of viewsheds.  He testified that he designed the original 18 holes of the golf course and that elimination of the White Course & driving range contradict the developer’s stated goal of creating a championship-caliber course.  Mr. Weller also remarked that the request does not meet the test for a re-zoning.

Mr. William Miller of 189 Bell Road expressed concern regarding the security of the area if the development is constructed.

Mr. Geary Milliken, President/CEO of Carroll Lutheran Village (CLV), reported that the Board of Directors of CLV voted unanimously to oppose the project.  Mr. Milliken related the concern of the Board that the development would place burdens on the area’s infrastructure to the peril of CLV’s own master plan.

Mr. Donald Chapman of 194 Bell Road stated that damage to the environment and a loss of community character formed the basis for his opposition of the plan.

Mr. Thomas Diehlmann of 193 Bell Road opposed the amendment, stating that the City’s use of the golf course’s water allocation could cause residential wells in the area to go dry.

Ms. Carol Plunkert of 1188 Long Valley Road testified in opposition to the request, citing concerns about flood control if the development is constructed.

Mr. Roy Chiavacci of 403 Cobbs Choice Lane stated that he had officially recused himself from all duties related to the amendment in his capacity as City Council President.  He further stated that he was appearing before the Commission as a representative of Carroll Lutheran Village and as a local resident.  Mr. Chiavacci then related his opposition to the request.

Mr. Alan Stottlemyer of 195 Bell Road testified that his view of the golf course would be compromised and suggested that the contours provided by the developer were selective.  He also cited negative impacts to water quality in local streams and the Chesapeake Bay as grounds for his opposition to the amendment.

Ms. Tanya Shewell of 1190 Long Valley Road stated that she was appearing before the Commission as a local resident, not in her official capacity as State Delegate.  Ms. Shewell expressed concerns in regard to the capacity and odor at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, as well as the impact of the development on traffic patterns, the environment, and Carroll Lutheran Village.

Ms. Rebekah Orenstein of 64 Pennsylvania Avenue argued that the development would not meet the need for senior housing shown in the plan because a majority of the local senior population would not be able to afford the units.  She then expressed her opposition to the amendment in rhymed verse.

Mr. Daniel Strickler of 546 Roops Mill Road asserted that the development plan had created a reasonable expectation of development permissions in the area, and that the proposed amendment was inconsistent with that expectation.

The applicant presented closing remarks in favor of the amendment.  Mr. Eisner stated that State law protects residential well capacity and that the overall water appropriation would not increase due to the development.  Mr. Guckert noted that he had included seven nearby intersections in the preliminary traffic analysis.  In response to a question from Mr. Beaver, Mr. Eisner stated that the golf course uses 70-90% of their allocated water in any given year, and that the golf course had never exceeded its permitted usage.  Mr. Hill represented the following: that an agreement is in place to fix stormwater issues in Fenby Farm; that the type of housing would be similar to the units constructed at Masters Retreat; that covenants for the new development would be at least as strict as those in Fairways at Wakefield; and that the age restriction would be permanent and prevented the residency of children.  Mr. Hill stated that the deed restriction preventing development of the golf course applied only to Parcel ‘M3’.  Mr. Menasche responded that the restriction surfaced based on the deed cited by Mr. Hill on the application for plan amendment.  Mr. Hill maintained that the project was consistent with Smart Growth and was not a high-density project.  He stated that he is not seeking a transfer of density; rather, the application of unused density.  Mr. Hill cited the age restriction as evidence that the project would not be detrimental to the community.  He concluded by stating that the development would generate the capital necessary to invest in the improvement of the remainder of the golf course.

Ms. Bair closed the public hearing at 9:34 p.m.  The Commission left the record open for the submission of written testimony until the close of business on Tuesday, October 31, 2006.

Representatives of Frontier Development, Inc. gave a conceptual presentation in regard to development of the Stoler Property, located at the northwest corner of MD 140 & Hemlock Ln.  The plan included three freestanding pad sites accessed by a right-in/right-out driveway on MD 140.  Ms. Bair expressed concern with a direct access point to MD 140.  Ms. Graham requested that the design of the site minimize the expanses of flat walls exposed to traffic on MD 140.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. on motion of Ms. Graham.

Respectfully Submitted,

Erik N. Fisher
Secretary