KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, 400 High Street, Chestertown, Maryland, with the following members in attendance: Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman; William S. Sutton; Patricia Langenfelder; Rev. Ruben Freeman; Marjorie Brown; F. Joseph Hickman; G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney; Gail W. Owings, Planning Director; Carla A. Martin, Community Planner; Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner; and Elizabeth Carroll, Secretary.

MINUTES - The minutes of the November 4, 2004 meeting were approved after making corrections.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

#04-17 Reed's Meadow - Major Subdivision, 26 lots - Final - Churn Creek Land Associates are requesting final approval for a 21 lot subdivision which accesses onto Smithville Road (Route 297). The 10.7 acre parcel is zoned "V" Village, and is located in the Third Election District.

Michael A. Scott, surveyor was present on behalf of his client and was sworn in with staff.

The Planning Commission at its September 2004 meeting granted preliminary approval, provided:

• Additional landscaping to screen Lots 23-26 from adjacent properties
• Submission of deed restrictions which include provisions for use and ownership of Lot 1
• Location of any non-tidal wetland buffers that extend onto the property from adjacent properties
• Submission of final plans and letters-of-credit for forest conservation, stormwater management, road improvements and other utilities
• Submission of open space and water and sewer allocation fees.

Ms. Martin advised the conditions of the preliminary approval have been met, in that letters-of-credit have been submitted to the County Commissioners; Planning Commission attorney has approved the deed restrictions; all fees have been paid; and technical corrections have been made to the plat. However, stormwater management plans are still under review by the Soil Conservation Service.

Mr. Scott said he thought everything was complete including the stormwater. Ms. Martin informed him that Nancy Metcalfe is currently reviewing the stormwater management plan and will advise staff of her findings.

There were no public comments and staff received no written correspondence on this proposal.

After some discussion and review by the Planning Commission, Ms. Brown made a motion to grant final subdivision approval for Reeds Meadow 26-lot subdivision, finding this proposal complies with the county design standards and is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; meets the criteria of the Land Use Ordinance; and letters-of-credit have been submitted. Final approval is contingent upon approval of the stormwater management plans. The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

Jerry Smith, Jane Hukill & Raymond Richard - Zoning Text Amendment - Clayton A. Mitchell was present on behalf of his clients Jerry Smith, Jane Hukill, Raymond Richards, Jack Barringer and Robert Steinwurtzel.

Ms. Brown advised she worked with Mr. Smith and Ms. Hukill on a project several years ago, but does not feel this will affect her review of this application.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the staff report with the Planning Commission noting the proposed amendments as requested by the citizens mentioned by Mr. Mitchell.

ADD TO Article V, Section 2.2.17 Permitted Uses in the Resource Conservation District

The expansion of conference centers, resorts, and retreats existing and in use as of August 1, 1989 in the Resource Conservation District shall not exceed the limits and standards set forth in Article VII of the Ordinance. Detailed limitations and standards for these uses may be found in Article VII of this Ordinance .

ADD TO Article 7, Section 13.2.11 Permitted Uses in the Marine District

The expansion of conference centers, resorts, and retreats existing and in use as of August 1, 1989 in the Resource Conservation District shall not exceed the limits and standards set forth in Article VII of the Ordinance. Detailed limitations and standards for these uses may be found in Article VII of this Ordinance.

ADD TO Article 7, Section 7.13 Retreat Special Exception Conference Center

u. In the RCD and Marine Districts, the conference center structures that existed prior to August 1, 1989. Structures are limited to a 50% expansion for the gross floor area of each individual building above that which existed as of August 1, 1989.

ADD TO Article 7, Section 7.47 Retreat Special Exception for Retreats and Resorts

u. In the RCD and Marine Districts, the conference center structures that existed prior to August 1, 1989. Structures are limited to a 50% expansion for the gross floor area of each individual building above that which existed as of August 1, 1989.

ADD TO Article 7, Section 7.49

b . In the AZD, RCD and Marine Districts, the retreat uses structures that existed prior to August 1, 1989. Structures are limited to a 50% expansion for the gross floor area of each individual building above that which existed as of August 1, 1989.

Mrs. Owings read applicable law found in Article XII, Section 6 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance which establishes the standards for review and approval of a zoning text amendment. Mrs. Owings noted the Planning Commission must find this proposal is in the public interest. Staff believes that establishing limits on the permitted expansion of retreats, etc. and some clarification of the retreat special exception is in the public interest. The County Comprehensive Plan encourages development of tourism facilities.

Mrs. Owings stated that staff believes these sections need additional review. The proposal addresses many of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, but does not address the issues raised by the definitions. The proposed amendment will also require the Zoning Administrator, Board of Appeals, and/or Planning Commission determine a category - is it a retreat, conference center or resort for existing facilities? The amendment to the marine district does not address hotels or motels which may be of concern.

Chairman Morris asked if there is any correspondence regarding this proposal. No new correspondence has been received on the proposed amendments. Attorney Mitchell advised he submitted a letter dated October 18, 2004 to the Commission which explains the reasons for the proposed amendments. On October 7, 2004 his clients voluntarily withdrew their previous text amendment to address the Planning Commission = s comments, and have submitted the amendments before the Planning Commission today.

Attorney Mitchell pointed out that the Technical Advisory Committee, at its August 24, 2004 meeting, found that establishing limits on permitted expansions of retreats, etc. and some clarification of the retreat special exception is in the public interest. His clients believe that the standards set forth in Article 7, which are the special exceptions criteria would set a uniform standard across the board throughout these districts to definitively show how far under 2.2.17 expansion may occur. His clients feel the language is clear and uniform in nature and request consideration by the Planning Commission. He further explained the amendments.

Discussion continued regarding limiting expansion of existing structures. Attorney Mowell said his interpretation is that the proposed amendment would limit expansion. Attorney Mitchell advised his clients intent is to A incorporate by reference Article 7, Standards and Limitations to the other sections uniformly across the board. Whatever Article 7 provides, under the various sections is the intent of what is being incorporated by reference. @

He further noted, the criteria will define the limits of expansion.

Mrs. Owings understands the text to read that any new retreats must use existing structures and there can only be a 50% expansion of those structures. No new retreat, conference center, resort would be permitted in the RCD District, Marine District and Agricultural Zoning District. Attorney Mitchell argued his case. Discussion continued.

Chairman Morris invited the audience to speak. Attorney C. Daniel Saunders, representing the contract purchasers of Drayton Manor, opposes the text amendment. He noted there are only two properties that would be affected by the proposed text amendment - Great Oak and Drayton Manor. Attorney Saunders does not feel there is a public need for this amendment. He feels this proposal is just another attempt to kill his client = s project. Attorney Mitchell advised the amendments are a response to the Planning Commission = s previous meeting. The proposed amendments make sense if the Commission desires to place limits on expansion and make uniformity throughout the code.

Richard Feeney, after being sworn in, noted he is confused. He heard the Planning Commission's comment in October and he thinks the changes made to the text was what the Planning Commission wanted. He pointed out that all the people in the room have vested interest in this project, not just Mr. Petro.

A discussion ensued with regards to special exceptions and permitted uses, and whether to place a limitation on size and new construction for retreats, resorts and conference centers.

Following a lengthy review and discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to deny the text amendments as proposed by Jane Hukill, Raymond Richard and Jerry Smith, and to notify the County Commissioners the Planning Commission recommends denial based on the following:

• A public need to look at the issues of expansion of conference centers, resorts, retreats, hotel and motels in the Marine District and the RCD District, and to look at the issues of expansion of existing facilities.
• The proposed amendment does not address the need to review the definitions of these facilities.
• A comprehensive review of these sections is required before amending the Land Use Ordinance.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

#03-85 Drayton Manor - Preliminary Site Plan Review - Attorney Clayton Mitchell informed the Planning Commission that he filed a A Protestants "Notice of Stay and Motion for Postponement of the December 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting." Chairman Morris asked the Board's Attorney Mitchell Mowell to explain the Motion to Stay. Attorney Mowell explained his interpretation of the document. Attorney Mitchell argued his case and further noted the site plan before the Board should be considered "concept" not "preliminary." Attorney Mitchell continued to object to any review of the site plan referring to his Motion to Stay. Attorney Saunders commented on the Stay and sited applicable law. He also feels the concept plan was reviewed in accordance with regulations. After further argument, Attorney Mowell advised the Board of Appeals has stated this is an appropriate use confirming the Zoning Administrator's decision. No injunction has been issued. He advised the Planning Commission to go forward with preliminary review.

Supplementing Attorney Mowell's recommendation to take action to deny the request to stay, Mr. Hickman made a motion to follow legal counsel' s advice and deny the Stay. The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous. For the record, Attorney Mitchell noted his objection.

Continuing with the meeting, Chairman Morris invited the applicants to come forward. Kent Abraham, John Petro and Charles Winecamp were present with their attorney C. Daniel Saunders. Applicants and staff were sworn in by the Chairman.

Mrs. Owings read the staff report noting John Petro proposes an expansion of Drayton Manor on Coopers Lane in the Third Election District. The 33-acre parcel, zoned " RCD," is currently owned by the Peninsula Annual Conference Methodist Church and is operated as a conference center. Mr. Petro's proposal includes additional guest units, meeting rooms, spa treatment rooms, exercise areas, pools, chapel, dining facilities, conservatory, and offices. The plans propose to:

• Redevelop the existing manor house to hold, small meeting rooms, living spaces, dining room/kitchen, 6 guest units and recreational space. A 500 square foot addition is proposed for this site.
• Construct 24 guest units in three buildings clustered around a courtyard.
• Construct 8 to 10 units in a building near the site of the old tennis courts overlooking Still Pond Creek.
• Construct a 970 square foot chapel in the courtyard area.
• Replace existing barn to house the conference center, dining, spa and fitness areas. The new building will be 17,290 square feet.
• Renovate the existing farmhouse as administrative offices.
• The small building behind the manor house which is currently used for housing will be renovated into treatment rooms for the spa.
• Restore the formal gardens.
• Construct new tennis courts, indoor pools and gate house.
• Construct a maintenance building and conservatory.
• Provide 110 parking spaces and bicycle parking.

At its October 2, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the conceptual site plan and offered their comments. On July 2, 2004, The Board of Appeals determined that the proposal is an expansion of an existing conference center/retreat and granted a special exception. That decision has been appealed to the Circuit Court of Kent County.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the lengthy staff report noting applicable law and relevant issues, along with staff comments on the various issues. Mrs. Owings noted, that since conceptual review, the applicants have amended the site plan by moving some guest units, changing parking areas, adding a 300 foot buffer, moving and reducing the size of the chapel, adding a conservatory, and working with the Maryland Department of the Environment to determine the size and location of septic disposal areas. The application has not received growth allocation and the water and sewer plan has not been amended. The office has not received comments from the fire department and the applicants have not indicated the proposed method of fire suppression. The applicants should contact the fire marshall concerning building design and fire suppression treatments.

Mrs. Owings read a copy of a letter dated November 24, 2004 sent to John Petro from Maryland Department of the Environment, which states MDE, " ...the available data indicates the project is technically feasible." (a copy of the letter is attached to the original minutes.)

Attorney Saunders said they were before the Planning Commission to answer questions and bring the Board up to date. John Petro, the developer of the project and contract purchaser of Drayton Manor, reviewed the site plan noting the changes from last year. Three major changes include: relocation of the chapel and reduced from a 150 seats to 50 seats; the ten units from the village green are moved to the previous location of the chapel; a 300 foot buffer was created in accordance with Technical Advisory Committee comments; tennis courts were moved; and added a conservatory (greenhouse.) Mr. Petro pointed out the septic reserve area and noted it is twice the amount of area needed to provide a 100% recovery area. They would like to replace the old barn with a new structure that will resemble an old pavilion located at the Tolchester Amusement Park.

Kent Abraham, project architect, advised parking areas have been reduced minimizing the amount of impervious surface to 8-percent. They plan to augment the existing walking trail. It will have ground level lumination with a natural surface path. A 5-foot easement will be deeded along Coopers Lane for pedestrian walk and bike path. Mr. Abraham went on to explain the proposed suites/villas and cottages. There will be ten suites in the Manor House. There will be an indoor pool and outdoor pool. Elevations for the buildings have been submitted and were reviewed. At present they propose ten units in the villas, ten in the manor house, and twenty cottages. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed buildings.

Charles Winecamp, biologist, defined the drip irrigation system proposed for this site and how it will work on this property. He feels the soils are good at Drayton for this type of system. Discussion continued about this system. The Planning Commission discussed other elements of this proposal with the applicants.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment. Mrs. Joan Smith, Indian Run Court, was sworn in and asked for clarification of the number of swimming pools. Mr. Petro replied, the existing pool is 35 x 75 feet; and indoor pool 30 x 60 foot, there is a lap pool 12 x 60 feet in the spa area; and jacuzzi type spas. Mrs. Smith asked the average number of guests expected. Mr. Petro responded 22,000 guests per year, 60 daily average.

William C. Barron, Indian Field Court, asked the ratio of current to future total square footage of development. Mr. Petro said he did not have that information available. Mr. Barron feels his question is relevant to verify the amount of development since1989. Mr. Barron said it appears that the proposed development is much more than 50% as noted in the proposed text amendment, possibly as much as 300%.

John Jopling, Coopers Lane, asked the total occupancy of each building for fire protection. A card is usually posted noting the figure in accordance with fire code regulations.

Attorney Clay Mitchell, representing Jerry Smith, Jane Hukill, Ray Richards, Jack Boeringer and Robert Steinw, noted he did not recall any testimony regarding water capacity or the water system. He asked the applicants to provide information on availability and capacity for water on this site. Mr. Petro replied they have a 20,000 gallon water tank, a new well 450 feet deep with a 5-hp pump, which will be able to supply all the water needed on this project when built out. Discussion continued.

Attorney Mitchell asked if there have been any archeological or historic studies done on site? Mr. Petro said his staff has done their own studies. Mr. Mitchell asked if new structures will in any way block view from the Manor House. Mr. Petro said, no. Mr. Mitchell asked about kitchen facilities in the units. He asked if a room could be leased for a 2 to 4 week period. Mr. Petro reply, a room could be reserved the same as a hotel. The exact use of the rooms other than retreat and spa have not been finalized.

Attorney Mitchell asked about the drip irrigation system and if there are any similar systems in use in the area. Asked about a letter dated September 13, 2004, from Earth Data's preliminary investigation quotes different figures, why? Attorney Saunders replied, that letter is a revision from an earlier report based on additional, intensive studies at the site. He objected to continued questioning regarding the Health Department and Maryland Department Environment reviewed.

Attorney Mitchell asked the purpose of the ballroom. Mr. Petro replied the room is for dining and meeting. There are a lot of uses possible for this room.

Jerry Smith, Coopers Lane, was sworn in and noted he is a concerned neighbor. He gave the Planning Commission a handout advising he wanted to address the general requirements and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance. Mr. Smith said he wanted to point out the need and rights of property owners to develop and the rights of neighbors. Mr. Smith recommended parking spaces be moved away from the road closer to buildings. Need additional information regarding impervious surface. Water supply is another issue. What effect will this project have on the ground water supply that provides water to homes in the area. It would be helpful if the local fire company would comment on this project. Stormwater runoff is a concern and must be addressed. Some buildings are proposed to be 38 feet in height, yet the existing barn at the site is only 28 feet. Because of the historical nature of the Manor House, there should be no buildings permitted larger than the existing house. It appears to Mr. Smith that expansion will be from 300 to 500 percent. A study is needed of the forest interior dwelling birds along with protection of the wildlife. Creeks need to be protected. Mr. Smith said the traffic study needs to be expanded. In summarizing, Mr. Smith stated the proposal is not compatible with the local neighborhood.

Attorney Saunders, in clarifying some opponents statements, noted the Manor House is 36 feet 6 inches in height from the ground to the top of the roof. The extensive landscape plan will help screen parking areas from view of the road or adjacent properties. Mr. Petro expanded further on the parking.

Discussion ensued regarding the villas/guest units - size, style, etc. The Board reviewed the plans prepared by the applicants. After comments were expressed by the Planning Commission, Attorney Saunders argued that he feels what has been presented by the applicants is sufficient to grant preliminary site plan approval and is in conformance with the Land Use Ordinance. It was noted the Growth Allocation request has been forwarded to the County Commissioners however it is not known exactly why the proposal has not moved forward.

After additional discussion, Ms. Brown asked Mrs. Owings if she had a staff recommendation. Mrs. Owings responded that at preliminary, a project is pretty clear what is proposed, but it really is not clear in this case. Attorney Mowell informed the Planning Commission that they need to determine if this proposal is an expansion of what is on the property now, or is this a hotel complex on Coopers Lane. He feels the size and location of the rooms must be considered. Architecture and elevations is necessary to determine if this is an expansion of what is at Drayton Manor. Attorney Mowell does not feel enough information is available. Attorney Saunders argued that the section of the ordinance does not say expansion of the existing facility. It permits expansion of conference centers, resorts, retreats and hotels within this zoning.

The Board members discussed what has been presented by the applicants and whether or not they can approve the preliminary site plan.

The Planning Commission took a five-minute break and upon returning each discussed their thoughts on the project. Following review and discussion, Mr. Hickman made a motion to approve the proposal by John Pedro for the expansion of the Drayton Manor Retreat Center since the County's Comprehensive Plan encourages retreats and conference centers and we lack that amenity. Before final approval can be granted the following must be addressed:

1) Issues related to design, parking and environmental standards must be completed before final approval can be granted, which include:

• number of rooms, location of rooms and provide interior design of these rooms.
• elevation of heights of buildings with drawings to show views from the street, from neighboring properties and from the water.
• specific building materials, colors and specific designs and styles
• parking and lighting - lighting should be dark-sky compatible
• landscaping

2) Need a determination by the local fire departments servicing the Drayton Manor area to verify they can handle this facility, and any recommendations the fire department has for fire control and emergency services.

3) Need information from MDE regarding water usage and the drip sewage system.

4) If there will be hours of public day use of the property, hours of usage should be set.

The motion was seconded. Discussion regarding the motion included Ms. Brown expressing concern about scale of the guest rooms and some of the other amenities is not flushed out enough for her to be able to approve the preliminary plan. Chairman Morris noted the focal point is the Manor House and its architecture should be replicated and buildings should fit together on the site.

After some discussion, Mr. Hickman made an amendment to his motion to say "approve the preliminary site plan for Drayton Manor." The amendment was seconded and the vote unanimous.

Chairman Morris called for a vote on the motion. The vote was 4 to 1. The motion carried by a majority vote.

#04-114 Village of Kennedyville - Major Subdivision, 67 lots - Preliminary Plat & Road Waiver - Wright Land Development has submitted an application for preliminary approval of a 67-lot subdivision on a 25-acre parcel currently owned by MWP Properties. The parcel is located on Augustine Herman Highway (Route 213) and Turners Creek Road in Kennedyville, Second Election District and is zoned Village.

Developers Stuart Sirota, Bradley Madgette and Carl Wright were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Mrs. Owings read the lengthy staff report explaining the proposed subdivision, noting the history of the property, commenting on relevant issues and applicable law. It was also noted that a road waiver is needed for the lots that do not abut upon a public road, a waiver is needed because the roads do not meet the 50-foot width requirement, and a waiver for the alleys that abut the public roads.

Mrs. Owings noted the applicants have responded to the Planning Commission's comments of October 2004 regarding the concept plan. Staff recommended approval of the road waivers and approval of the preliminary plat contingent upon:

• Addressing the drainage from the pond to Route 213
• Work with the county engineer concerning road design
• Discuss the phasing of the subdivision

No new correspondence has been received.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to speak. Mr. Sirota noted the developers took into consideration the Planning Commission's comments and made changes for the preliminary plan, explaining the Village of Kennedyville is proposed to be a traditional neighborhood development with 84-dwelling units consisting of 50 single family dwellings and 34 semi-detached units. He showed two entrance roadways. This will be a walkable community. The developers feel the roads will be wide enough to handle emergency traffic. "T" head roads will serve the subdivision better since cul-de-sacs are more urban. Mr. Sirota reviewed the large colored plan with the Board explaining the design.

Question was raised about the 3.5 acres of open space. Open space seems to be reduced because of the enlargement of the stormwater management pond. What happens with stormwater run-off going under the road? The developers noted their engineers are working on stormwater management plans. Should the stormwater pond be fenced? Discussion ensued. They are working with the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Board asked about the parcel on the corner of Route 213 and Turners Point Road. Developers are trying to determine the best use of the property.

The subdivision will be phased with 25-units being in the first phase. Water and sewer allocation is available for these 25-units. Dwellings in this phase will probably cost $170,000 to $200,000. Local contractors will be used if possible. Construction is expected to be in two phases with a mix of housing types and cost. Dwellings may begin around 1200 square feet. Tree line buffers are proposed along existing property lines.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment. Mr. David Baker, Augustine Herman Highway, was sworn in. He referred to the site plan and boundary lines, noting his property comes further back than shown. He asked what protects the buffer from being cut down. He was told subdivision deed restrictions can protect the buffer. Mr. Baker said to his knowledge the Kennedyville Fire Company has never been advised of this project. He was assured the fire department has been sent a plat but no comments have been received from them. Mr. Baker noted stormwater is a concern as well as road maintenance. Mr. Baker also questioned the availability of public sewer and water. It is his understanding that there will be no hookups available until 2006, at which time the lagoon repairs are to be completed.

There being no further public comments, Chairman Morris invited Mr. Sirota to give closing comments. Mr. Sirota said he feels they have addressed the Technical Advisory Committee comments. They are now ready to work on final engineering plans and making additional changes based on today's comments. A traffic study was completed and level of service is expected to remain Level A.

After review and discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to approve the road waiver request for the Village of Kennedyville major subdivision for Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15, and Lots 35, 36, 37 and 39 which abut upon a road which does not meet the minimum 50-foot right-of-way, and for the proposed alley. The Planning Commission found:

• The granting of a waiver will not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent or neighboring property.
• The waiver is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and general intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

Ms. Brown made a motion to grant preliminary approval of the Village of Kennedyville major subdivision for the creation of 67 lots on a 25-acre parcel in Kennedyville. The Planning Commission made the following findings:

• This proposal complies with the County's Comprehensive Plan in that it is in-fill in and around an existing town
• The proposal is under the maximum density allowed within the Village Zoning District.
• Lots conform to the minimum lot size and lot frontage requirements.
• There are single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings which are permitted within the Village District.
• Approximately 8.4 acres of open space is required. The proposal provides 3.5 acres of open space. The developer will be required to pay a fee in lieu of open space.
• The developers are considering using a part or all of the lot at the intersection of Routes 213 and 448 for open space.
• There are no rare, endangered, or threatened species residing on the site. It is not a forest interior dwelling bird site.
• Stormwater management plans need to reviewed and approved by Kent County Soil Conservation Service before final subdivision approval can be granted.
• Developers need to address the drainage from the pond to Route 213.
• Contact county engineer regarding road design.
• The subdivision will be developed in two phases.
• There will be two entrances to the subdivision, one from Route 213 and the other from Turners Creek Road. The entrance from Route 213, a primary road, is allowable in that it provides safety for the vehicular access.
• A landscaping plan has been prepared showing street trees as required. More trees are needed between Lots 35, 36 and 37 and the Pinder property.
• Need comments from the Kennedyville Volunteer Fire Company regarding this 67-lot subdivision.

The motion was seconded. There being no discussion on the motion, Chairman Morris called for the vote. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

Chairman Morris reminded the developers that a lot of work needs to be done before the Planning Commission will review the final plat.

#04-140 Frederick & Erlena Linthicum - Major Subdivision, 14-Lots - Concept Mount Chase Corporation has submitted a concept plan for a 14 lot subdivision on a 6-acre parcel owned by Frederick and Erlena Linthicum. The property is located on Cross Road in Georgetown in the Sixth Election District, and is zoned "V" Village. The property is currently a field with woodland to the rear of the property. This woodland is part of a larger forest in the Georgetown area.

Bill Carroll, surveyor and Eric Zoellner of Mount Chase Corporation were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris. Chairman Morris advised she works with a neighbor to the proposed subdivision, but does not feel that will influence her review or decision on this proposed subdivision.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the staff report noting applicable law and relevant issues. She noted the following;

• The Comprehensive Plan encourages development in and around existing towns and villages. It identifies Fairlee/Georgetown as a village with public water and sewer and thus a growth area. The plan continues to state that new development complements and enhances the character of the existing village and avoid sprawling subdivisions.
• The proposal complies with the density and bulk requirements of the Land Use Ordinance, and in general complies with the design standards of the ordinance.
• The development has considered both pedestrian and vehicular movement. A 5-foot pedestrian easement is proposed along Cross Road.
• The applicant needs to work with the Department of Water and Wastewater to determine the availability of public water and sewer. The site is included in the 10-year water and sewer plan. Staff has forwarded information concerning the development to the Kent County Board of Education, Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department for their review.
• More open space must be provided, specifically 1/10 acre per lot.

Mrs. Owings noted the only correspondence received in the office is a letter from the Linthicums authorizing Mr. Carroll to apply for the concept plan.

Mr. Carroll reviewed the site plan with the Planning Commission. He noted the 550-foot one-way road concept is copied from Dorlan Drive in the Edesville East Subdivision. By reducing the width of the road and limiting traffic to one-way, impervious surface is reduced and stormwater also. The stormwater will be channeled into a stormwater management area within the open space south of the road and Lots 11 and 12. Stormwater will be handled with swales and evaporation and absorbsion by natural plant life. Stormwater will be reviewed at the preliminary stage of the project. Every effort is being done to preserve the forest area.

Mr. Zoellner presented some photo samples of homes to be built in the subdivision noting the cost of the homes to be in the $125,000 to $160,000 price range.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment on the proposed concept plan. Salone Cooper, 22431 Cross Road, noted she lives directly across the street from the subject property. She is concerned about additional stormwater runoff with the creation of additional lots. She asked if the tar and chip road will be widened. Will emergency vehicles be able to get through to homes. Will street lighting be improved and who will pay for the lighting.

Jervis Walter Blake, Sr., 8989 Georgetown Road, and a life-time resident of the area, expressed concern for the integrity of his community. Is there sufficient public water and sewer for additional homes. He is concerned about increased stormwater runoff since they already have problems with water now. What type of homes will be built? Will they be affordable? He likes the community the way it is now and with the wildlife in the area.

Mr. Bill Carroll advised he has a letter from Wayne Morris dated August 3, 2004, advising there is sufficient allocation for 14-lots, but asked that the developer study of the water and sewer lines to make sure they are sizeable enough to handle the additional usage. With regards to drainage, Mr. Carroll noted the natural drainage is towards the woods using the existing swale. He feels the one-way road will be more effective for emergency vehicles and large trucks. Mr. Carroll noted Jim Wright and Ed Spry will be looking at the one-way road in Edesville to see how it functions. Chairman Morris stated the Planning Commission will want to know if Cross Road is adequate to handle the increased volume of traffic from this subdivision. Discussion continued with regards to the road and to drainage.

Julia Black Griffin, 25402 Cross Road, asked about any in-fill of soils. She, like others, like the community as it is now without any development. Ms. Griffin asked about the uses permitted in the Village District. She asked what negative impacts the community can expect from the proposed subdivision. Ms. Griffin asked numerous questions. Discussion continued.

Eric Zoellner of Mount Chase Corporation, noted he has built a similar home in Georgetown that he plans to build in this area. He expects the cost of the homes in this area to begin at $125,000. Mr. Carroll noted the project will be phased with construction expected to begin late Spring 2005.

Eugene Griffin, 22402 Cross Road, noted this is really a wet area. Mr. Carroll advised he has been in contact with the Army Corps of Engineers for a wetlands delineation. Mr. Griffin does not want to see the community change.

Charles W. Hutchins, 22418 Cross Road, advised he has lived in this area since 1962. He is concerned that there is nothing available for young people. He also noted they have a high water table and stormwater just lays in the area. How will increased traffic be addressed?

Richard Van Stolk, 8188 Rock Hall Road, noted his property adjoins the subject property. A blue-line stream and non-tidal wetlands go through this area. Stormwater from the proposed project will drain into the woods on his property. He believes stormwater management should be implemented before any housing construction begins. The water in the wooded area is the headwater to Fairlee Creek. Mr. Van Stolk is concerned about trespassers on his property and feels this development may add even more problems. He feels this development is out of character for the area. He does not believe the road can handle increased traffic.

Janice Fisher, Georgetown Road, is concerned about traffic and any negative impact on the existing community. The residents like their quiet community as it is, why change it.

Verna Clarkston, 8803 Georgetown Road, asked how the community can stop this development since they do not feel it is in character with the existing area. She was informed that the development is in keeping with the Village Zoning. Will property taxes increase because of this development? Water and sewerage bill has increased, can they expect additional fees?

The Planning Commission's comments and suggestions included the following:

• The Comprehensive Plan directs growth to occur in and around existing communities in a manner that complements their character.
• The area has severe drainage problems. Drainage on the parcel should be check. Any improvements to the site must not cause additional runoff onto neighboring properties.
• Cross Road is a narrow tar and chip road. Improvement to Cross Road may be necessary to handle the proposed subdivision. Contact County Roads concerning Cross Road and road requirements.
• Contact Wayne Morris concerning availability of water and sewerage service.
• Lighting in the area is a concern. Any proposed lighting should be dark sky compatible.
• Georgetown does not have an area for children to play.
• New development should reflect and complement the character of Georgetown in terms of lot size and shape and style of homes.
• Provide street trees. Plantings should include Bayberry.
• Address the percentage, ownership, maintenance, and uses of the open space provided on the site.

#04-67 Alger Oil Company / Lot 1 Worton Project - Final Site Plan - KRM Development Corporation and Alger Oil, Inc. Are requesting final site plan approval to construct a 4000 square foot office building with an attached 4000 square foot warehouse area and fuel and propane storage area on their 3417 acre parcel located on Commerce Drive & Worton Road, Third Election District. The property is zoned Industrial.

Bruce Wright was present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the staff report noting the Planning Commission approved the preliminary site plan at their July 1, 2004 meeting with conditions. Mrs. Owings noted applicable law and recommended final site plan approval be granted.

Mr. Wright noted the site plan has not changed other than including additional landscaping. He noted he has not been able to obtain the NPDES permit (discharge permit) as yet, but knows it will be soon forthcoming, therefore he is asking for final approval. Letters-of-Credit for sediment control and stormwater management have not been filed as yet because the NPDES permit is needed first.

There were no public comments and no correspondence on this proposal.

Following further discussion and review, Ms. Brown made a motion to grant final site plan approval for Alger Oil Company and KRM Development Corporation for a 4000 square foot office building with an attached 4000 square foot warehouse siting:

• The proposed site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance
• The project conforms to the provisions and applicable regulations of the Federal and State agencies
• Both vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site is adequate
• Off-street parking and loading exceeds the requirements

This approval is contingent upon the following:

• Issuance of the NPDES permit by the Maryland Department of the Environment
• Letters-of-Credit submitted and accepted by the County Commissioners
• All proposed plantings must be a minimum of three-gallon landscape material.

The motion was seconded. The vote carried by an unanimous vote.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Staff will be working on comments from the public meeting and make them available to the Planning Commission at their December 14 workshop. Transportation and Housing will be the next topics of discussion. Jack Canan, Housing and Community Development, will be invited to attend the next meeting. Staff setting up dates for town meetings.

There being no further business, Chairman Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:35 PM.

____________________________________

Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman

____________________________________

Elizabeth E. Carroll, Secretary

Home | Business | Community | Government | Top

© Chesapeake Bay Internet Associates - 1996-2000: All Rights Reserved.