KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, May 5, 2005, in the County Commissioner=s Hearing Room, at 400 High Street, Chestertown, Maryland, with the following members in attendance: Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman; William S. Sutton; Patricia Langenfelder; Marcy Brown; Jay Lancaster; Rev. Ruben Freeman; Joseph Hickman; G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney; Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director; Carla A. Martin, Community Planner; Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner; and Elizabeth Carroll, Secretary.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

#05-33 John L. Plummer - Major Subdivision (1 lot) - Mr. Plummer is requesting final approval for the creation of one 2.0 acre lot from his 30.72 acre parcel located on Gregg Neck Road in the First Election District.  The property is zoned ARR@ and ARCD@. 

Mr. Plummer was sworn in with staff.  Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report noting applicable law and relevant issues.  The Planning Commission granted preliminary subdivision approval at their April 7, 2005 meeting.  Since the Intra-Family Declaration of Intent for Forest Conservation has been submitted and signed by the applicant and the standard Stormwater form has been signed and approved, staff recommended final approval of the subdivision.

Mr. Plummer informed the Board that the new entrance has been approved by the County Roads Department and has been constructed.  The new parcel is for his mother-in-law. 

No correspondence has been received regarding this subdivision, and there were no comments from the audience.

After a brief review by the Planning Commission, Mrs. Langenfelder made a motion to grant final approval for the John Plummer major subdivision creating one 2.0 acre parcel with access onto Gregg Neck Road.  The Planning Commission finds this subdivision has met the zoning regulations and all required submittals have been completed.  The motion was seconded and the vote was unanimous.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Comprehensive Plan - The next workshop meeting will be Tuesday, May 17, at which time the Planning Commission will review the AVillage District@ and the ACommunity Facilities@ section of the Comprehensive Plan.

Development Rights & Responsibilities Agreement - The Planning Commission commented on the draft ordinance that would establish the procedures and requirements for considering and executing development agreements.  The Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement is used to provide guarantees to both the county and the developer.  The proposed document conforms with the requirements of Article 66B. 

During discussion, Attorney Mowell pointed out, this is an effective tool for the county.  Following review and discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to recommend the County Commissioners approve a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement for Kent County.  The Board feels this is a good tool for dealing with developers.  This agreement is a means of accomplishing orderly development and adequate facilities for development.  The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

Kent County Council of Governments Informational Meeting on Impact Fee  - The Council of Governments has invited municipal and county officials and boards to attend a meeting May 5, at 7:00 PM. Bruce Galloway will review various mechanisms available to gather funding to accommodate the demands of growth for the municipalities and the county. 

STAFF REPORTS

G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney - Attorney Mowell reported on court case against Craig Joiner.  Mr. Joiner has to date, not cleaned up his property. 

Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director - Mrs. Owings noted Inspector Rick Myers is meeting with various people who move boats to finish up the violation on Eastern Neck Island Road.  A court order requires the county to assist in the removal of the old boat from the side yard to the rear yard. The property owner is responsible for expenses.

Mrs. Owings advised the Planning Commission of the Board of Appeals decisions on recent applications.  Copies of future decisions will be provided to the Planning Commission as requested.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Mr. Sutton asked staff about AOpen Space in Lieu of@.  What happens to the money paid in lieu of open space?  Mrs. Owings advised the money goes to a dedicated fund for acquisition or improvement.  The Planning Commission has the option to require open space or allow the developer to pay into the fund. A discussion followed.  With regards to Forest Conservation, the developer has to prove that on-site may not be the most appropriate location.  Landscaping is still a Amust.@ Discussion continued. 

Mr. Hickman noted that sometimes there is a need for more information regarding roads when reviewing a subdivision.  It would be helpful if the county engineer would attend the planning commission meeting to answer questions regarding roads and drainage issues.  Comments from the volunteer fire companies is also needed and it would be helpful if they were represented at the meeting. A Health Department representative  attending the meeting would also be helpful.   After some discussion, Mr. Hickman made a motion to forward a letter to the County Commissioners requesting county agencies and departments that are members of the Technical Advisory Committee, keep the  Planning Commission  monthly meeting date open when their expertise is needed.  The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous. 

Draft Comprehensive Plan - Staff reviewed the procedure for adoption.  The Planning Commission noting the remaining sections to be reviewed.  A brief discussion followed.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

#05-44  William & Arlene Kraft - Buffer Variance (Wetlands) - The Krafts are requesting  variances to construct a replacement dwelling and deck within the 100 ft Critical Area Buffer and 5.5 and 13 feet from the side property lines.  The proposed replacement dwelling has a 1120 sq ft footprint; the existing dwelling with deck has a 1358 sq ft footprint.  The Krafts propose to demolish the existing dwelling but keep the 400 sq ft deck.  The existing dwelling was damaged during Hurricane Isabel in September 2003.  The 0.23 acre parcel is located at the end of Hillmont Drive in the Fifth Election District, and is zoned ACAR@ Critical Area Residential.  The entire parcel is within a tidal wetlands buffer. 

Mr. and Mrs. Kraft were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Moredock reviewed the staff report noting relevant issues and applicable law found in Article Five, Section 2 of the Land Use Ordinance, as well as Article IX, Section 2 which addresses requirements for granting variances.

Ms. Moredock recommended approval of the buffer variance, provided: 1) Mitigation of 3:1 for disturbance within the buffer should be required consisting of a mix of native trees and shrubs; 2) Stormwater runoff from proposed structures should be directed to stabilize vegetation in the form of rain gardens (bio-retention areas); and 3) A Buffer Management Plan must be completed for any tree removal.

Staff also recommended approval of the side yard setback variances.

Ms. Moredock read a letter from the Critical Areas Commission which states they do not oppose the granting of a variance and recommend mitigation at 3:1 ratio on the site to the extent possible.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to speak.  Mrs. Kraft said they plan to keep the same footprint only extend towards the back three more feet.  The house will be 26 by 40 ft which is much less than any other structures in the area.  Mrs. Kraft noted their contractor suggests moving the house back 3 ft and then 3 ft would be added to the back of the house.  They want to preserve the deck. Discussion followed.

The Krafts were asked about the existing shed which is shown to be straddling the property line. The Board informed the owners it must be moved.  The deck as well appears to be over the property line.  The existing deck will have to be brought into compliance or the size of the deck reduced.  Staff could find no permits for either the deck or the shed.  Because of several issues, the Krafts were advised they had the option to table their application until outstanding problems could be resolved.  After some discussion, Mr. and Mrs. Kraft agreed they wanted to proceed with their application.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment.  There were no comments from the audience.

After review of the Kraft=s application and much discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals recommending approval of a buffer variance for William and Arlene Kraft based on the following findings:

• The entire parcel is located within the Critical Area Buffer
• The proposed replacement dwelling is located within the approximate footprint of the existing dwelling
• The variance will not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties
• The variance would not change the character of the neighborhood
• The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and general intent of the Land Use Ordinance
• The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general spirit and intent of the Critical Area Law and Kent County regulations.

 The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

Ms. Brown made a motion to amend her motion to include there be:1) Mitigation of 3:1 for disturbance within the buffer should be required consisting of a mix of native trees and shrubs; 2) Stormwater runoff from proposed structures should be directed to stable vegetation in the form of rain gardens (bio-retention areas); and 3) A Buffer Management Plan must be completed for any tree removal.

The amendment motion was seconded.  The vote was unanimous.

Ms. Brown made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for William and Arlene Kraft recommending approval of side yard setback requirements to construct a replacement dwelling 10 ft from the west property line.  The side yard setback recommendation is  based on the following findings:

• The existing deck must come into compliance with the setback variance
• The shed on the side should also come into compliance with accessory structure regulations
• The proposed replacement dwelling is located within the approximate footprint of the existing dwelling.
• The variance will not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties
• The variance will not change the character of the neighborhood
• The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and general intent of the Land Use Ordinance.
• The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general spirit and intent of the Critical Area law and Kent County regulations.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

Ms. Brown made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for William and Arlene Kraft recommending approval of the side yard setback requirements to construct a replacement dwelling 5 2  ft from the east property line.  The findings of fact were the same as for the west side variance recommendation.  The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

The Planning Commission found the practical difficulty to be Hurricane Isabel, and the size of the property.

#05-39 Duane Lindstrom - Special Exception (Gravel Pit) - Mr. Lindstrom is requesting an amendment of his approvals to operate a sand and gravel pit on his 36-acre parcel located on Harry Clark Road and his excavating contractor=s yard on his 122 acre parcel located on Still Pond Neck Road in the Third Election District.  The parcels are zoned AAZD@ Agricultural Zoning District and are surrounded by farmland.

Mr. Lindstrom was sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report noting the history of the properties.  Conditional use approval has been granted five times since 1989 for the operation of a gravel pit at the Harry Clark Road property.

Conditions were placed on the approvals in 1992 and 1996, specifically:

• Construction rubble or other refuse will be stored in the gravel pit or surrounding property.
• The project is in compliance with requirements and standards set forth in Kent County Zoning Ordinance.

With regards to the contractor=s yard, in 1996 the Board of Appeals granted a conditional use to operate a contractor=s yard, with conditions, specifically:

• A three year limit on the conditional use
• The contractor=s yard is limited to the requested 4.84 acres as delineated.

The only condition placed on the approvals in 1999 and 2002 for the gravel pit and the contractor=s yard was the regulatory time limit on the granting of the conditional use.

Ms. Martin reviewed applicable law regarding the contractor=s yard and gravel pit, found in Kent County Land Use Ordinance.  Staff finds Mr. Lindstrom meets the requirements of the ordinance and recommended approval.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comments.  There were no comments from the audience.  No correspondence has been received on this proposal.

Following review and discussion, Mrs. Langenfelder made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals, recommending approval of an amendment to Mr. Lindstrom=s special exceptions to allow the washing and screening of gravel with a mobile screener at both his gravel pit and contractor=s yard, finding:

• Washing and screening is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Ordinance
• A water appropriations permit has been issued
• The water will be recycled 

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

#05-41 P. Thomas Mason - Major Subdivision (134 units) - Barry and Stacey Feaga have submitted a proposal to develop a 41-acre parcel, creating 86 single family dwelling lots; 48 townhouses; and 2 lots for commercial development.  The property is located on Porters-Grove Worton Road and MD Route 297 in Worton, in the Third Election District.

Barry and Stacy Feaga of Church Hill, Maryland were present along with the surveyor Kevin Shearon of DMS Associates, Centreville, Maryland.  The applicants were sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Brown asked Attorney Mowell what vested rights does the hearing of a concept plan give to an applicant?  Attorney Mowell replied, none.  Having read over the draft Water and Sewer Plan, it seems as though after a concept plan is heard there is then the possibility to go for sewer allocation.  Attorney Mowell noted the plan reads, Aproject with concept plan approval for which sewer allocation will be required.@  There appears to be an inconsistency with the documents.  Ms. Brown noted when looking at the plan before the Commission, it appears there are many things missing and it is not an adequate concept plan and feels the Planning Commission should not review the plan at this time.  Discussion ensued. 

Mr. Hickman made a motion to forward a letter to the Kent County Commissioners advising them that the Planning Commission=s concept plan review is a review process only and does not allow for any rights for water and sewer allocation. The motion was seconded.  The vote unanimous.

The Board members agreed that the concept plan as presented does not come close to meeting the Village District design regulations and standards set forth in the Kent County Land Use Ordinance and suggested the applicants table review at this time.  Mr. and Mrs. Feaga said they wished to proceed with concept review of their proposal.

Mrs. Owings read the lengthy staff report noting relevant issues and applicable law.  Staff does not feel this proposal meeting the Village Design Standards. Mrs. Owings report provided an extensive list of comments and outstanding issues regarding the proposal (staff report is attached to original minutes.)

No correspondence has been received on this subdivision proposal.

Kevin Shearon admitted this exercise before the Planning Commission today is solely driven by the available sewer allocation.  They are aware that the proposal is not consistent with the Village Design Standards, however they needed this review in order to secure the sewer and water allocation.  Mr. Shearon said they need the assurance they can have the allocation and then they will proceed with the design in accordance with the Land Use Ordinance.

Mr. Feaga apologized for the design as submitted.  He advised they want to work with the county. They were told in conversations with Jim Wright and Wayne Morris to take the project before Planning and Zoning first, before going before the County Commissioners requesting the twenty-five allocations available. Mr. Feaga said he certainly wants to do a good project.

Chairman Morris again told the applicants the Planning Commission is upset with the design as presented.  Time is valuable and the Board does not feel a project that is inconsistent with the design standards should be brought before the Planning Commission. 

Ms. Brown feels this proposal is inappropriate and inadequate as a concept plan and must come back for review at a concept level and is not eligible for anything at this time.  Discussion continued with all board members agreeing this design is inadequate. 

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment on the proposed subdivision, swearing in each person as they spoke.  Bill Crowding, Porters Grove Road, and a resident of Worton all his life, noted the 1996 Comprehensive Plan encourages growth towards existing community.  The Comprehensive Plan also states that the County will provide a Village Master Plan, which to date is not available.  He suggested the Planning Commission go before the County Commissioners recommending a moratorium on any development in a Village Center until Master Plans are completed.

John Nunn, resident of Worton, advised he supports Bill Crowding=s comments for completion of Village Master Plans.  A moratorium on development is needed until the Master Plan is completed.  He is willing to meet with the developer.  He does not feel the design fits into the character of Worton.  Mr. Nunn appreciates comments from staff and the Planning Commission. 

Dorothy Smith, a long-time resident of Worton, expressed her concerns regarding loss of farmland.  It is her understanding there are only 23 allocations available.  Where will the funds come from to upgrade the sewerage plant?  Increased traffic may require a traffic light, in an unincorporated town.  The Worton area needs a volunteer fire company to provide emergency service to their area.  Insurance companies are not accepting properties that are over five miles from a fire house.

Lori Clayton, a resident of Worton for eleven years stated, she too is aware of escalating insurance rates because there is not a fire company within five miles.  She agrees with previous public comments. She urges a meeting with the community and to come up with a better design.

Craig O=Donnell, Still Pond resident and reporter for the Kent County News, is aware affordable housing is a priority of the County Commissioners and noted there is a project at the other end of Worton that is planning affordable housing, and he wonders just where the available twenty-five allocations will go.

After a lengthy review and discussion Ms. Brown made a motion, that due to the incompleteness of this concept plan, this project should be redesigned.  The applicants have no vested rights for sewer allocation based on today=s review.  The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous. 

The Planning Commission offered the following comments for consideration:

• The Comprehensive Plan directs growth to occur in and around existing communities in a manner that compliments their character
• The proposal does not reflect the design standards set forth in the Land Use Ordinance and does not recognize the character of Worton 
• All projects are encouraged to meet with surrounding community and prepare a community participation plan.
• The applicants should submit a revised concept plan for review.

Kent County Water & Sewer Plan - Draft - Staff reviewed the draft with the Planning Commission and after some discussion, the Planning Commission made the following comments:

The granting of allocation and water and sewer plan amendments for specific projects should not be tied to concept review by the Planning Commission. Due to the nature of the plans submitted for concept review, the Planning Commission does not approve or deny concept plans but rather provides comments on the feasibility, design, and environmental characteristics of a project.  This process of connecting concept review to discussions of allocations has resulted in the Planning Commission=s review of proposals prepared simply for the purpose of getting a foot in the door of the allocation process.

The allocation policy should include criteria for granting allocations when a system nears capacity.

Before considering enlarging existing community systems, particularly in Worton, a Village Master Plan should be completed.  Proposed projects should not be included in the update until preliminary approval is granted by the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission feels a workshop with the County Commissioners to strengthen the plan=s role as a growth management tool.

 

There being no further business, Chairman Morris adjourned the meeting at 5:45 PM.

_________________________________

Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman

 

_________________________________

Elizabeth E. Carroll, Secretary