Commission Minutes

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, August 7, 2003, in the County Commissioners Hearing Room at 400 High Street, Chestertown, Maryland, with the following members in attendance: Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman; William S. Sutton; Rev. Ruben Freeman; Jay Lancaster; Patricia Langenfelder; J. Francis Hickman; G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney; Gail W. Owings, Planning Director; Carla A. Martin, Community Planner; Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner; and Elizabeth Carroll, Secretary.

MINUTES - The Minutes of the July 3, 2003 meeting were approved after making a correction to page four, paragraph four adding "...not taking the large tree down..."

#03-66 Arthur & Anne Foster / Herschell Claggett - Zoning Map Amendment - Herschell B. Claggett, Chestertown, and Arthur Foster, Cordova, Maryland, were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the staff report advising Arthur and Anne Foster, and Herschell Claggett, are requesting approval of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning on a 66-acre parcel currently owned by the Fosters from "RR" Rural Residential to "Community Residential". The property is primarily farmland and has a large utility easement. A portion of the proposed right-of-way for the proposed Chestertown Bypass is also on the property.

Mrs. Owings referred to pages 12 and 13 of the County's Comprehensive Plan which addresses growth in and around towns. Applicable law is found in Article XI, Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance which establishes procedures and requirements for zoning text amendments.

A Guide to Maryland Zoning Decisions describes the "change - mistake rule." In general, Maryland Courts have presumed that the original zoning was well planned so to approve a piecemeal or spot rezoning, either a mistake was made in the original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood changed to an extent which justifies the proposed amendment.

Staff feels this parcel is clearly within the area which acts as a transition between the town of Chestertown and prime agricultural land. Staff does not believe that the character of the area has changed since the adoption of the Land Use Ordinance. It is also felt that there was no mistake in the original zoning, therefore Mrs. Owings recommended denial of the proposed amendment.

No correspondence has been received in the Planning Office regarding this application.

Chairman Morris invited Mr. Foster and Mr. Claggett to present their case. Mr. Claggett advised he is a real estate agent representing Mr. Foster. Mr. Claggett presented his case for the proposed amendment, advising this farm is only a few hundred yards from the town limits. When Mr. Foster purchased the property the zoning was "RR" with a density of one dwelling per acre. Therefore, he feels they are not asking for a change, but to just keep the zoning as it was when Mr. Foster purchased the property. Mr. Claggett continued with his presentation emphasizing his reasons for maintaining the "CR" zoning with one dwelling unit per acre.

Mr. Foster advised the Planning Commission that he is not a developer, however he feels he has to subdivide this property to provide income. He believes this is a good location for development since it adjoins the corporate limits of Chestertown. This property was perked by the Health Department in 1995. Mr. Foster feels the "CR" zoning with a one dwelling unit is appropriate for his property, not one dwelling unit per three acres.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment. Mr. Ken Noble, Chairman of the Chestertown Planning Commission, voiced the concerns of his commission, recommending the Planning Commission not support a zoning change from "RR" to "CR". The commission encourages growth within the town's corporate limits as emphasized in their comprehensive plan. Mr. Noble referred to Article 66-B Land Use regulations and Maryland zoning laws. The town and county planning commissions have worked together over the years to address zoning issues with the Gateway Committee being a part of this process. Mr. Noble again emphasized the Chestertown Planning Commission's recommendation to deny Mr. Forster's application to amend the zoning of his property.

The Planning Commission reviewed the zoning map and discussed the fact that the Land Use Ordinance Work Group worked for several years preparing the text for the ordinance and carefully reviewed each map. In no way did they act arbitrarily in this review process.

After review and discussion, Mr. Sutton made a motion to recommend the County Commissioners deny the Arthur Foster zoning map amendment request, finding:

-That a mistake was not made by zoning the property "RR" Rural Residential with a density of one dwelling until per three acres.
-The "RR" zoning meets the vision of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
-The "RR" zoning allows for a transition between the Town of Chestertown, that is more densely developed, to the county with less density for development.
-There has been no change in the area to warrant rezoning of this property.

#03-71 Richard F. Roy, Jr. & Darcy Lebau - Variance - Richard Roy and Darcy Lebau were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Mrs. Owings informed the Planning Commission that the applicants are requesting a variance of the front yard requirements to allow them to build a home on their 2.61 acre parcel, which is Lot 3 of the Frank Brown Subdivision. The property is located on Turners Point Road, in the Second Election District, and is zoned "CAR."

Mrs. Owings reviewed the history of this property. She also noted that in July 2003, the zoning administrator issued a zoning certificate for an approximate 50 by 50 foot building envelope on this property. There is a steep ravine on the southern part of the lot which continues northward on the adjacent property.

Staff reviewed applicable law found in Article V, Section 4.5 which establishes setback requirements for the "CAR" District, and Article IX, Section 2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which sets forth the criteria for granting a variance. Mrs. Owings recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request because without a 35 foot variance, the applicants could still construct a dwelling similar to other dwellings in the Kentmore Park area.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to comment on their variance request. Mr. Roy pointed out there is a 50 foot right-of-way that goes through his property, although the private road is physically only 12 foot wide. Development is limited also because of the ravine and steep slopes. Mr. Roy wants to preserve as many trees as possible.

Mr. Roy submitted design plans and reviewed his site plan with the Board. After reviewing his proposal with the Planning Commission, Mr. Roy said he feels he could move the dwelling back a little further from the road requiring a 25 foot variance rather than a 35 foot variance.

The Planning Commission asked staff if Mr. Roy's change would affect staff's recommendation. Mrs. Owings advised she would recommend approval of a 25 foot front yard setback.

There were no public comment nor were any negative comments received in the Planning and Zoning Office prior to this meeting.

Hearing all testimony and completing review of this proposal, Mr. Lancaster made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals, recommending approval of a variance to allow Richard Roy and Darcy Lebau to construct a dwelling 25 feet from the front property line of the private right-of-way, based on the following finding:

-A variance will not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent or neighboring properties, and will not change the character of the neighborhood or district.
-The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
-A practical difficulty may exist because of the steep slope and ravine limiting the location for the dwelling as well as the well and septic.
-The applicants have adjustment the setback variance from 35 feet to 25 feet, lessening the variance impact.

Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner - Ms. Moredock commented on the Draft 2002 Annual Report that was included in the Planning Commission's packet and asked for input from the Board.

A Septic Information Forum is in the works which may be a tour of nitrogen removal systems in use or possibly a joint meeting at Chesapeake College. Ms. Moredock is working out the details with the Tributary Strategies Team. She will keep the Planning Commission informed.

Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director - The County has received a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Grant for the Upper Chester River in partnership with Kent, Queen Anne's Counties and the Chester River Association. This is expected to be a 2-3 year project.

The County has been awarded a Hazard Mitigation Grant. The County is required to prepare and adopt a Hazard Mitigation Plan by November 2004. This must be done in order to be eligible for disaster grants.

Mrs. Owings informed the Board that the County Commissioners are working on goals and strategies for Kent County. The Commissioners encourage county personnel to improve relationships with the public. Staff will be reworking instruction sheets for property owners and developers to make the permitting process more user friendly.

Mrs. Owings informed the Planning Commission that it is time to begin the mandatory review process of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff will be collecting preliminary data. Mrs. Owings reviewed a possible time schedule. Discussion followed.

Staff is making a more concentrated effort to cite property owners of zoning violations and improve the follow-up process.

Mrs. Owings advised the Board of Appeals denied the Caldwell's variance request to increase the walkway around their house, finding the applicants did not meet the criteria for granting a variance.

There being no further business, Chairman Morris adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

KENT COUNTY, MARYLANDPLANNING AND ZONING

KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING