KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S

Code Home Rule Bill No. 10-2001

A Public Hearing was held on Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, County Government Center, Chestertown, Maryland on Code Home Rule Bill No. 10-2001 which is: an Act to repeal and reenact with amendments the Zoning Ordinance for Kent County and amendments thereto, Zoning Maps and Part III of the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County, revising, recodifying and consolidating all of the regulations governing land use in Kent County; adding new statements of purpose as follows: to enhance the Kent County employment base, provide efficiency in the process of development, protect the county's significant historic structures and areas from destruction or encroachment; creating a provision for Transfer of Development Rights; creating four (4) new zoning districts - Rural Character, Intense Village, Employment Center, Industrial District Critical Area - LDA; changing conditional uses to special exceptions; replacing Limited Marine District with Marine District; removing the Planned Industrial and Intense Marine Districts; removing authority for private piers on parcels of more than twenty (20) acres where there is no main dwelling, except in the marine district; removing affordable housing district; classifying the dates used in determining density in and outside of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area; establishing a buffer modified map, Flood Plain maps, Airport Safety Zone Map and to be known collectively as the Land Use Ordinance for Kent County, Maryland, to be Part III of the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County, Maryland.

County Commissioners Ronald H. Fithian, Larry B. Beck, and W. Michael Newnam were in attendance as well as Ernest S. Cookerly, County Attorney, T. Edward Robinson, County Administrator, and Gail Owings, Director, Planning and Zoning Administration. Approximately 45 interested persons and members of the media were also in attendance.

Notice of the public hearing was read into the record by Commissioner Fithian. Commissioner Newnam read the Procedure for Testimony into the record. It was also announced that written comments on the proposed local law will be accepted up to Friday, September 28, at 12:00 noon.

An executive summary and a summary of substantial changes to the 2001 Draft Land Use Ordinance were made available for distribution.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the ordinance which was developed by the Land Use Workgroup and endorsed by the Kent County Planning Commission. She advised that the proposed ordinance added four new zoning districts and described the (total) sixteen different zoning districts which are:

1) Agriculture Zoning District - AZD (Intended to encourage the use of land for primarily agriculture/animal husbandry use and allows for 10% development)

2) Resource Conservation District - RCD ( Intended to preserve wildlife habitats, woodlands, forest and overall ecological values to the Critical Area; the least developed district)

3) Rural Character District -RC (new district) (Intended to provide rural lots that minimizes conflict with agriculture)

4) Rural Residential District - (Intended to provide low density single family development)

5) Critical Area Residential District - CAR (Intended to allow low density residential development with minimal impact on natural environment)

6) Village District -V (Intended to provide high quality residential, neighborhood business and office development - served by public water and sewer)

7) Intense Village District - IV (new district) (Intended to provide a mix of commercial, office, residential areas limiting sprawl)

8) Intense Village Critical Area District - IVCA ( Intended to provide a mix of commercial, office, residential areas limiting sprawl in the Critical Area District)

9) Crossroads Commercial District - CC (Intended to provide a broad range of wholesale, retail, and contracting services typically located on major highways)

10) Commercial District - C (Intended to provide commercial and service activities not normally located in central business concentrations)

11) Commercial Critical Area - CCA ( Intended to provide commercial and service activities located on major highways)

12) Marine District - M ( Intended to provide full service marinas and services associated with marinas; may be expanded into conference center)

13) Employment Center District -EC ( new district) (Intended to provided areas for light industry)

14) Industrial District - I (Intended to provide a range of industrial uses; the three industrial districts differ only in the applicable environmental standards and buffer requirements)

15) Industrial District Critical Area - LDA (new district) (reflect the requirements of the Critical Area for Limited Developed Areas)

16) Industrial District Critical Area - IDA (reflect the requirements of the Critical Area for Intensely Developed Areas)

Mrs. Owings advised that each district has design standards for building mass and scale, landscaping, parking, and associated features.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the proposed Transfer Development Rights (TDR) Program. She advised that TDR programs are designed to preserve and protect agricultural land while directing development into defined growth areas. Under a TDR program, landowners property rights could be sold such as with a utility easement or mining lease. She reported that with a TDR program zoning districts are designated as sending areas and receiving areas.

Testimony was then entertained by those individuals who had signed in to speak.

District 1

Richard A. Rosan, Georgetown, requested further protection of northern Georgetown from commercialization. He mentioned the use of private docks being used for commercial gain and requested specific language that would limit the landowner to personal water craft at a private dock.

Constance Berg, Georgetown, thanked the Commissioners for removing the adaptive reuse of historic structures that will protect Georgetown. She requested that the Commissioners protect what she felt was the prettiest entrance to Kent County by giving waterfront the same protection as homes from commercialization.

Jim Hurtt, Map 8 Parcel 5,owner of 220 acre farm between Galena and Sassafras, advising that the proposed zoning would create a financial hardship if his land could not be developed in the future. With the 1-30 acre ratio for development proposed, it would not provide adequate land to build homes for his four daughters.

Donald Reed, Map 7 Parcels 156A, 224,308,339 Gregg Neck, landowner of 100 acre parcel, requested his land be zoned as Residential, as it was when it was purchased in 1986, not Rural Character as proposed. Correspondence was received today from Mr. Reed expressing his concern with the new zoning district, Rural Character District. He believes that property in this zoning classification will decrease in value. He advised of the history that this area was anticipated to have increased residential development. Mr. Reed requested that his parcel be placed in the adjoining Rural Residential Zone.

Robert Hodge, Map 7 Parcel 112, 113, Map 8 Parcel 4, 168, Map 15 Parcel 273 advised that it is he, who Mr. Rosan referred to as having more than one boat at his dock as it belongs to a Limited Family Partnership; he has no intentions of starting a marina.

He advised of inconsistencies over the years by him receiving both encouragement and discouragement in developing his land and read contradictory advice from the Technical Advisory Committee and Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Mr. Hodge expressed concern of too much detail included in the plan such as the Planning Director having the ability to waive waste management plan for 4-H projects.

He recommended that the Commissioners not adopt the proposed Land Use Ordinance including the TDR Program since there is not a successful history in other communities and a clear definition of the process was not apparent.

Mr. Hodge requested his correspondence of June 15 be entered as part of the record requesting that his 48.17 acre parcel (Map 8 Parcel 4) not be included in the Proposed Rural Character Zoning.

District 2

Clayton A. Mitchell, representing the Mitchell Family Trust, Map 6 Parcel 108,110, 218, requested the Commissioners not to adopt the proposed Land Use Ordinance. He advised that the TDR program was replete with problems. He expressed concern that the TDR program would become a statute and not readily revokable should the program not be viable. Mr. Mitchell stated that in his opinion, the program was counter productive for the County. He reiterated the purpose of the Zoning Plan as being a standard to meet the health safety and welfare of the County, therefore, allowing increased density, through the TDR program, does not meet those standards.

Mr. Mitchell requested his correspondence of May 30, relating to the Mitchell Family Trust and correspondence of June 7 relating to Kingdon Gould property/ Teel's Lake Ltd. Map 8 Parcel 9, near Galena/Sassafras, be entered into the record as part of this hearing in opposition to the proposed TDR program.

District 3

John Nunn, Worton, expressed concern that the proposed ordinance did not provide enough time period for notice to be sent to property owners and requested the notice procedure be modified. He also noted that the ordinance refers to the Village Master Plan, and with no such plan in place, there is no standard.

District 4

The following correspondence was received the day of the hearing:

Correspondence was received from Robert and Doris Clark, Map 37, Parcels 40, 174, 232 expressing desire to have their property developed as an active adult community. In that light, they forwarded a map illustrating the parcels to be designated as Rural Residential, Critical Area Rural Residential and Intense Village District.

District 5

Gerald Barry - Map 46 Parcel 68, Edesville, Rock Hall, requested the parcel he originally purchased as Commercial zoning, be reclassified as Cross Roads Commercial. He expressed concern that since he purchased the property and the zoning changed and the property value has decreased. He stated that if small family businesses/stores lose their Commercial Zoning and were zoned as village, the old time flavor of the community would be lost. Mr. Barry also noted that he is billed for public utilities under commercial status, however, the proposed ordinance has his property zoned as Village. He requested this proposal be further considered.

Robert Greenwald - Map 46 Parcel 115, Rock Hall, requested his property (residence and business) to be zoned as Commercial, the same zoning as when it was purchased. Mr. Greenwald advised that he must remain residing at his current location, for both his residence and business, as it is zoned Residential. He expressed his desire to move his residence, however, if the zoning is not changed to Commercial he will not be able to move and retain his business at this location.

The following correspondence was received the day of the hearing:

Correspondence was received from Franklin T. Hogans, Map 46 Parcel 168, Edesville, Rock Hall, requesting his twelve acre parcel be zoned Village District rather than the current zoning Rural Residential. He advised of his intention to develop a trailer home facility in this location.

District 6

Cynthia Mulligan, Esq., of Stevens and Associates, L.L.C., representing Mears Great Oak Landing Marina, Map 26 Parcel 4, Handy Point Road off of MD 298, requested clarification of the language of permitted use in the Marina District. She requested specific clarification relating to the expansion of "existing" marina motel into conference center. She advised that if a current marina hotel were destroyed (by fire or act of God, etc.) the hotel would not be considered "existing" and therefore could not be expanded into a conference center. Ms. Mulligan also expressed concern of the ambiguity of Section 12.2.11 as to whether an existing hotel could be expanded into a conference center.

Ms. Mulligan also requested to view the modified buffer area maps when available.

The following correspondence was received the day of the hearing:

Correspondence was received from Cynthia M. Mulligan, Joseph A. Stevens, Stevens and Associates, L.L.C., representing Mears Great Oak Landing Marina, with concerns relating to the language in the proposed Land Use Ordinance. Great Oak representation expressed concern that the ordinance did not clearly define if an existing hotel may be expanded into a resort/conference center and to the language does not allow the creation of a new conference center/hotel should the existing one be destroyed.

General Comments

Jan Graham, Galena, expressed the opinion that the TDR program is not a viable program for Kent County and expressed caution for a program that is not revokable should it not be successful. She advised that the "streamlining" referred to in the ordinance was not necessary. She also stated that the Stormwater Management be strengthened in the Marine District.

Mike Johnson, of Chestertown, requested a Right to Fish provision, similar to the Right to Farm provision be added to the ordinance. He also requested the addition of substantial language to penalize offenders of sewage/pollution spills into the Chesapeake Bay.

Carter Brice, representing he and his wife, and Bonnie Anthony, Airy Hill Road Chestertown, expressed his concern as a local builder, of the high purchase price of building lots in Kent County. There are few affordable building lots in Kent County and he feels the TDR program would exacerbate the problem and not provide any benefits.

Bob Myers, (Broadneck) Chestertown, advised of three areas that he believed needed clarification in the proposed ordinance. He suggested language be added to require all lot line adjustments be recorded. He stated that examples of shoreline cliffs be reinstated to the ordinance and advised that in his opinion TDR programs do not work. He specifically noted page 407 which infers purchasing and selling TDR's, which he feels the County should not be involved with this type of commerce.

Mr. Myers spoke a second time, questioning if Agricultural District land owners who participated in Agricultural Preservation could be considered as a Sending Area.

Mr. Myers forwarded illustrations and notes representing his concerns.

Elizabeth Hodge, Georgetown/Sassafras, expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only permitted mobile homes in designated park areas. She felt it unfair to not permit someone to place a mobile home on their property.

This hearing was taped for reference and adjourned at 8:10 p.m.