(sign up to speak at 5pm), Winchester Hall (12 E Church St, downtown Frederick).

Global Mission Church/David Severn, land use attorney, submitted two proposals:   UR 41 (parcel 36) and UR 42  (parcel 109)

GLOBAL MISSION PROPOSALS

There are 2 pieces of each of these parcels that are currently zoned Resource Conservation.

• In UR 41:   8.5 acres are currently zoned Resource Conservation.  Requested change of 3 acres (of the 8.5) from RC to Ag
• In UR 42:   the request is to change all of the 78.87 acres to Agricultural Zoning (currently 6.3 acres of the total are zoned Resource Conservation)

Some points to consider

• parcel 36 is by the creek
• parcel 36 is  100% forested   Pre-2010 zoning was about 60% RC and 40% Agricultural.  The change made in 2010 was to add RC zoning to the northern portion of parcel 36.
• Parcel  36 has 1.1 acres of PFO1A wetlands:  Palustrine, forested, broad-leaf deciduous, temporarily flooded wetlands.  This type of wetland is rare in Frederick County,  (historically most of the wetlands were cleared, filled and cultivated for agriculture.
• The Dept of Natural Resources shows a large swath of these forested wetlands along the entire length of Little Bennett Creek. The county added additional RC zoning on this property due to the wide, extensive forest buffers that exist along this creek system.  RC zoning category is entirely appropriate and consistent for functional purpose of protecting the wetland and watershed.  Additionally the  Natural Resource land use plan designation (a change made in  the 2010 plan supports the Resource Conservation zoning.
• To rezone a portion of this parcel back to Ag is contrary to county policies. The zoning ordinance definition of RC is totally consistent with the resources that exist on this parcel.
• Any changes from Resource Conservation to Agricultural Zoning may facilitate the construction of a road “driveway” for development of that land parcel.

Letters to Frederick County Planning Commissioners

• John McClurkin, Chair, samjbm@verizon.net
• Richard Floyd, Vice-Chair, rmfloyd1@aol.com
• Robert Lawrence, Secretary, Boblawrence5753@comcast.net
• Catherine Forrence, 404westmain@comcast.net
• Robert White Jr., bobwhitejr@mac.com
• Audrey Wolfe, al_wolfe@verizon.net
• Cc:  Jim Gugel, Chief Planner      jgugel@frederickcountymd.gov

Number of proposals:  46

Agriculture/open space acreage under discussion:  2769 acres

Agriculture/open space properties requesting reclassification and rezoning

for residential development:  2380.7 acres

Approximate number of homes to be constructed:  5189

Approximate number of new school children:  2818

Approximate number of additional car trips each day on local roads:  49,667

Download letter as pdf file here.

Frederick County zoning to allow bigger buildings

Originally published May 18, 2011

By Meg Tully

The Frederick County Commissioners were torn Tuesday night between helping property owners in Urbana and protecting the historic nature of Jefferson.

The commissioners opted to only slightly increase allowed building size in land designated with “village center” zoning — which includes properties in Urbana, Jefferson and other unincorporated areas such as Adamstown.

As part of a package of zoning changes, they had been considering a change allowing those properties to have building footprints exceeding the current 8,000-square-foot limit.

That change brought objections from Jefferson residents, who feared that without the footprint limit, development of a 30,000-square-foot supermarket could be approved.

In the end, the commissioners voted 4-1, with Commissioner David Gray opposed, to allow building footprints up to 10,000 square feet if the planning commission agreed that exceeding 8,000 square feet would be compatible with the area.

The village center change was proposed along with six other zoning changes that came out of meetings with the business community. The commissioners had sought input regarding how to make the zoning ordinance more business-friendly. The seven unrelated changes were identified as a priority and proposed as a package.

On Tuesday night, the commissioners’ vote — which takes effect in 10 days — included the change to village center and the six other changes — including one allowing private entities to build parks in the agricultural zone.

In discussion, the commissioners also vowed to re-examine the zoning of parcels in Urbana as part of a comprehensive rezoning consideration slated to be discussed Thursday morning.

That move came in response to property owners and the volunteer fire department in Urbana, who had wanted the commissioners to change the village center footprint requirement to make it more desirable to develop their properties.

The village center change would also affect Jefferson’s village center properties, including one parcel near Md. 180 and Holter Road where a developer had tried to change the zoning in order to build a Food Lion or other supermarket.

Jefferson residents packed the first-floor hearing room in Winchester Hall on Tuesday night, wearing red shirts to signify their opposition to such a change.

Mike Middeke, a Jefferson resident of the Cambridge Farms development, said he was not against developing the land as zoned.

“However, to change the guidelines in order to line the pockets of developers and ruin our quality of life is not acceptable,” Middeke told the commissioners.

Many residents said they did not think Urbana and Jefferson should be treated the same. They expressed support for Hood Geisbert, an Urbana property owner who hopes to sell his land and retire.

“Give our friends in Urbana what they need and deserve and give the Jeffersonians what we need and deserve,” Jefferson resident Patrick Allen said.

Many Jefferson residents brought up concern for the small businesses in Jefferson. They said they were happy with the Jefferson Market, the Jefferson Pastry Shoppe and Hemp’s Meats.

Susan Hanson, who owns Catoctin Pottery at the Lewis Mill building off Poffenberger Road, said her business would be negatively affected by a big-box store.

“Obviously people are not going to drive down an old gravel road, which they often do, when they can go to a big store and get a box of candy and some flowers,” Hanson said. “I know that other businesses in Jefferson do feel the same way.”

Residents said the town’s roads and limited water supply also posed challenges to larger development. They urged commissioners to preserve the community feel of the small town.

After listening to several hours of public testimony, several commissioners said they agreed that development at a larger scale in Jefferson was inappropriate.

But they said they didn’t agree that property owners in Urbana should be subject to the same restrictions.

Commissioner Kirby Delauter said he wanted to be able to help Geisbert, who has had trouble selling his 31Ú2-acre parcel in Urbana because of the restriction. Geisbert said the footprint requirement was added a few years ago — his existing buildings are actually bigger.

Delauter said he’d like to allow Geisbert to be able to build a building with a 20,000 square feet footprint. But he didn’t want to see the same thing in Jefferson.

“We’re pretty much in a dilemma,” Delauter said. “It just aggravates me to sit here and not be able to help someone that I want to help.”

But Gray argued that the commissioners needed to protect the integrity of planning policy for the entire county.

“We have 230,000 residents in Frederick County, not two landowners,” Gray said. “We don’t tear apart the zoning code because somebody’s in front of us tonight.”

Link to online FNP article.

Congratulations to the many many citizens throughout the region who worked hard for 2.5 years to point out the fallacies and issues with the PATH project.  Notably:  Doug and Peg Kaplan and Chad and Karen Baker.

In October 2009 the Frederick County Planning Commission voted to deny the Global Mission (GMC) Site Plan because, according to the Health Department’s regulation GMC’s plan would exceed the septic capacity of 4,999 gallon per day.  GMC had time to bring their plan into compliance but did not do so.

In March 2010 the Frederick County Board of Appeals (BOA) voted 4-1 to send the GMC site plan decision  back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings and to give the GMC additional opportunity to discuss their site plan with county staff.

In July 2010 Judge Dwyer, Frederick County Circuit Court, GMC July 2010 Dwyer decision.

On January 19, 2011 2pm Frederick County attorney, Wendy Kearney, will present the county’s appeal to the BOA March decision and support the Planning Commission’s 2009 decision in the  Frederick County Circuit Court .    Please try to attend;  if you can’t make it check our website afterwards for a report.

Thanks to all Frederick and Montgomery County residents, specifically the Montgomery Countryside Alliance (http://mocoalliance.org/2010/11/global-mission-church-update/) for  participation and excellent testimony at the many public meetings on this issue. Please continue to speak out on behalf of clean air, water, public health and safety, open space and the flora and fauna that depend upon it.

In September one county board will consider whether the PATH project is consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan; another will consider a zoning exception to permit a substation near Mount Airy. This “Kemptown” substation will be the terminus of a 275-mile transmission line from a coal-burning plant in West Virginia.No PATH energy is for us; it will pass through the county, headed farther east. But we’ll pay in loss of scenic views, lowered property values, and runoff from its 200-foot-wide right of way. Over 1,300 households near the Kemptown substation may also lose peace of mind, worrying that their water wells would be ruined if fire should cause a transformer meltdown.

We will pay plenty out of pocket, too. Federal law gives Allegheny a 14.3 percent return for PATH, paid by all customers, not just PATH users. It’s also ironic that we’re all paying already, through add-ons to our bills!

For example, Allegheny is recovering $2.1 million from us for its ads in 2008 and 2009 to sell us on PATH! So we’re paying to be lobbied for something that gives us no benefit — some deal!

NICHOLAS CARRERA

Urbana

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=109340

Global Mission Church, with current perish in Silver Spring, wants to expand to Frederick County , clear forest and farmland, to build a 140,000 ft 2 complex at the base of Sugarloaf Mountain.  This megachurch would be built on well and septic;  local residents and professionals alike have expressed concern that this development would greatly impact the area’s wetlands, the Little Bennett Creek and the Piedmont Sole Source Aquifer.

In October our Frederick County Planning Commission denied the Global Mission Church (GMC) site plan.  Their denial was based primarily on Frederick County public health and emergency professionals’ legitimate concerns about having this large complex septic sytem-dependent  and the on inadequacy of planned fire precautions.

GMC has appealed that decision – and were heard before the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals on  hold a special hearing on case B-09-16 on Wednesday,  January 20th starting at 1PM in the 1st Floor Hearing Room at 12 E. Church St. [Winchester Hall] in Frederick.

GMC lawyers are working to discredit Frederick County health and emergency safety staff opinion, and have complained that they were not permitted to cross examine citizens who attended the public hearing in October.  GMC is also proposing to pave a road to access Dr. Perry Rd and satisfy emergency issues.  The road would require woodland clearing and paving across a floodplain, Little Bennett Creek and just feet away from an existing home.

Why is the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to uphold Planning Commission decision relevant?

“This case affirms that GMC must work within the 5,000 gpd septic capacity. With the size of their buildings and congregation, this seems impossible without seriously scaling down their proposed footprint and programming, no such backtracking has happened in the 2+ years of hearings on this issue. With this decision it seems more likely than ever that the site plan will be denied.

 The court case challenging the FredCo Board of Appeals ruling is still pending, we can expect it to begin in earnest in September. The full Petition for Judicial Review of the BOA decision can be found here..  Read Full court decision here.

To read all past posts on the GMC issue, click here and scroll down.”  Source of information: Montgomery Countryside Alliance website.