Commission Minutes

The Kent County Planning Commission met on Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 9:30 a.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; Marcy Brown; Rev. Ruben Freeman; Jay Lancaster; F. 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.

MINUTES - The Minutes of the January 8, 2004 meeting were approved as written.

#03-84 Peninsula Conference Methodist Church / John Petro - Special Exception - A special exception is requested to operate a 40-unit retreat at Drayton Manor. The 33-acre property is currently owned by the Peninsula Annual Conference Methodist Church and is operated as a conference center. Mr. Petro proposes to expand the facility from 20 guest units to 40 guest units, and to include a 5500 square foot conference facility, a 8000 square foot spa and fitness center, a new chapel, and two tennis courts.

John Petro, Ken Abraham, John Fedas, Charles Winecamp were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Mrs. Owings reviewed the staff report reading in detail Mr. Petro's proposal for the site. Mrs. Owings reviewed the history of the Drayton Manor property. She further explained the review and approval process for this proposal noting the county agencies and departments involved.

Mrs. Owings addressed relevant issues. She noted the County's Comprehensive Plan and applicable law found in Article VII, Section 7.49 of the Land Use Ordinance which authorizes the Board of Appeals to grant a special exception for a retreat in the Resource Conservation District provided specific standards and conditions are met. Article VII, Sections 2 and 3 permits the Board of Appeals to impose conditions and restrictions. Article XI, Section 2.267 defines a retreat, and Section 2.317 defines a structure.

Upon completing review of the lengthy preliminary staff report, Mrs. Owings recommended approval contingent on:

Chairman Morris advised the public that after review and discussion, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the special exception to the Board of Appeals, and a recommendation to the County Commissioners regarding the growth allocation, with the Boards findings.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to comment. Mr. John Petro advised there have been changes from the conceptual plan and reviewed them with the Planning Commission. He referred to the site plan pointing out and commenting on the various structures. They are currently waiting for perc approval by the Health Department. Substantial buffering is proposed. Mr. Petro explained the design for the cottage suites. Discussion ensued regarding the suites. Mr. Petro advised further design plans will be submitted at the site plan review process.

Mr. Petro presented a large aerial photo from the early 1950's of Drayton Manor and the land around the facility before homes were built in the area. Drayton Manor was built in 1937. He noted it has always been a commercial business and church retreat center. Although non-profit, a business has operated from this property. Mr. Petro expanded on the size and activity at the present facility. Today's proposal is an increase of only 30-percent. A chapel is a very important part of their retreat. Mr. Petro presented a copy of the Drayton Manor flyer that is used by the church to advertise their facility.

Discussion ensued regarding the use of the chapel and weddings as well as outside receptions and the noise that can be created by outside activities.

Mrs. Langenfelder asked who will own the units? Will they be time-shares? Attorney Saunders replied there will be no sale of ownership of units. Anyone who stays at the facility will pay an overnight charge. The entire facility will be owned by the company, and the company may consist of shareholders. Discussion continued.

Mr. Hickman asked the expected number of employees. Mr. Petro advised a range of 50 to 100 people will be employed depending on the season.

Chairman Morris asked if the local fire department has commented on the project. Staff noted a letter was sent to the fire company but no comments have been received from them.

Water and sewer must be addressed. Mrs. Owings advised an amendment to the county water and sewer plan may need to be amended. Attorney Saunders said his applicants will comply with whatever is needed.

Mr. Sutton noted there are times when a larger facility may be needed. Mr. Petro replied that it is his understanding that the size they propose is what the county has expressed interest in. Mr. Sutton asked about the availability of the facility for public use. Mr. Petro advised, except for the dining facility, other structures will be available to the public by membership. Mr. Petro continued with explanation of the proposed facility. Mr. Fedas added comments.

Ms. Brown asked the level of occupancy currently at Drayton Manor. Jack Shitima, Director at Drayton Manor, advised current occupancy is approximately 10%. The Manor is occupied every weekend but rarely during the week. Mostly church groups use the facility but the neighbors and general public use the facility as well. He expanded on their current operation.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment. Attorney Chris Drummond, advised he represents the Smiths, Ms. Hukill, and others who live in the Coopers Lane area, all who object to the proposal and request the Planning Commission recommend denial of the special exception. He feels there is confusion with the application and what is actually being requested. From comments mentioned earlier, he feels it sounds more like a country club or hotel which he believes are not permitted. The Planning Commission should not make any recommendation until more information about the use before making any recommendation.

Attorney Clayton Mitchell, attorney representing the Kinnairds Point Homeowners Association, advised his clients support the comments made by Attorney Drummond. They too feel it is not clear what the applicants are requesting. He questioned the number of buildings? Ten buildings are permitted but it appears there are more than ten structures on the property. Attorney Mitchell referred to a their letter of January 5, 2004 and ask that it be reviewed before making any recommendation. The Board should not make any recommendation without clarification of what is actually requested.

Fred Washington, Coopers Lane, advised he walks Coopers Lane daily. He feels the road is not the best road and the increased traffic will only deteriorate the roadway further.

Dick Feeney, Waterview Drive, advised he participated in the citizens group meeting with the applicants After reviewing the applicants' submittal, he found the proposal was different than what was presented to the group. He feels the size and scope of this proposal does not fit in the general plan of Kent County.

Jack Shitama, Director of Drayton Manor and President of the International Association of Conference Center Administrators, noted whether you call it a conference or retreat the objective is the same. It is important to have groups staying at the facility to make it profitable, but it is used by residents of the area who want to stay overnight. Mr. Shitama noted a few years ago Drayton Manor submitted a plan very much like the one presented today, but decided they did not have the finances to proceed with the project. He feels the best use of the property is as proposed.

There being no further public comments, Chairman Morris invited Attorney Saunders to summarize his proposal. Attorney Saunders reviewed wording of the zoning ordinance arguing the special exception proposed is appropriate for this site. The County Commissioners are encouraging more tourism which will generate more jobs and bring more money into the county. Attorney Saunders argued in support of his project. Discussion continued about the intent of the ordinance.

After a lengthy review and discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals recommending approval of the Drayton Manor Special Exception application, based on the following findings:

The Planning Commission found some problems with the application in that the application does not describe the proposed building and structures as accessory uses for a retreat.
The application does not define exactly what the proposed use is, although testimony by the applicants states that there will be meeting rooms and there will be accessory uses to the meeting aspect of a retreat, such as: the pool, the tennis courts, the spa, the pier and the dining hall.
The chapel would not be an accessory use to a retreat, although if the Board of Appeals determines that it is an accessory use to a retreat, then the Board should place a condition of use on the chapel, and this condition for use would be that if there be weddings on site that there would be no outdoor receptions and all entertainment music would be inside the building.
The dining room will be restricted to guests of the retreat.
There will be no fuel service and no pump-out for the five-slip pier. Lighting on the pier shall be minimal, only what is needed for safety.
The ordinance defines a spa as an accessory use to a retreat.
There was testimony that all the retreat facility will be held under one deed. There will be no time sharing or co-opting. The units or pieces of land may not be deeded out or be condominiums.
The definition of retreat is limited to ten structures. The intent of the ordinance was that it be ten buildings, therefore the Board of Appeals needs to make a finding as to whether there are less than ten buildings.
The hours of out-door activities should be limited to respect the residential quality of the surrounding neighborhood.
Existing landscaping should be preserved as much as possible. Applicant noted only four or five trees will need to be removed in as designated on the plan.
Fifty foot of buffering should be preserved between the retreat and the neighborhood on the northeast area of the property.
The new buildings reflect the historic quality of the existing buildings
The county engineer has found this road to be adequate for the additional traffic.
At site plan review, the applicants need to address issues of a pedestrians easement and bike path along Coopers Lane on the applicant's property.
No report has been received from the fire company and the rescue department.
All buildings are shown on the proposal to be less than 38 feet in height.
The principle use is as a retreat, especially if the chapel is not included.
The accessory uses, the rooms, the spa, the pool, the tennis courts and the pier, are to be used by those attending meetings, but it is not limited to those attending a meeting.
We find that the project consists collectively of more than 15 acres.
The retreat has at least 10 but not more than 40 guest rooms. Forty guest rooms are shown.
There is nothing in the application that this would be theme park, amusement park or stadium, which is prohibited by the zoning ordinance.
The applicants have applied for growth allocation
The Board of Appeals needs to make specific findings on the availability of public and government services.
We find historic structures are incorporated into the overall project.
We find that the significant view corridors both off the site and onto the site have been preserved as much as possible.
It is not indicated that there will be any residences for employees on the application.
Testimony indicates the dining facilities will be used for guests only, of the retreat.
There is to be no trap-skeet, clay birds, paint ball or other fire arm activities.
The number of slips shown on the pier will not exceed five.
All structures comply with the minimum 100-foot buffer other than the pier which is water-dependent.
It appears that at least 60% of the property is in open space, though that is not on the application, and should be delineated on the application for the Board of Appeals.
Parking - there are 140 spaces required, there are 105 shown which due to the nature of this project makes sense.
The Board of Appeals needs to take into consideration the fact that this is a residential area and therefore any limiting of the yard requirements from lighting, landscaping and screening and the outdoor activities needs to be taken under account.
There are no churches, schools or other places of public gathering near by. There is preservation of the building and its gardens.
The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed development has designed bio-retention basin for water quality.
There can be no more than ten buildings.
Although not on the proposal, the zoning regulations allow for staff housing limited to one unit in the main structure.

The motion was seconded. Chairman Morris called for the vote. The motion carried by a majority vote of six to one.

After a 20-minute break for lunch, the Planning Commission reconvened the meeting at 1:50 p.m. with all members present. Chairman Morris explained "Growth Allocation"

#03-86 Drayton Retreat Center - Growth Allocation - Same applicants and attorney were present for review of the growth allocation application as for the special exception request. Mrs. Owings referred to the staff report noting the property is zoned "RCD" Resource Conservation District. According to Article III, Section 1 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance, retreats that receive growth allocation will be considered "Intense Development Areas" of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. As a maximum 79 acres of growth allocation will need to be allowed for this site. This growth allocation is not entirely due to the proposed development, but reflects the growth allocation necessary for the three lots that were created from the original parcel at the Drayton Manor site and the amount of growth allocation required may be reduced due to clustering on the site.

Mrs. Owings went on to explain the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area legislation provides for three types of designated areas: Intense Development Areas; Limited Development Areas; and Resource Conservation Areas. In 1985, Kent County had 1399.42 acres of growth allocation available. To date, approximately 247 acres of growth allocation has been granted to the towns and 132 acres has been used for marinas and other business uses in conjunction with the adoption of the 2003 Land Use Ordinance. Kent has 1019.092 acres remaining.

Mrs. Owings noted the County's Comprehensive Plan "advocates the development of tourist facilities." She went on to review the lengthy staff report and Growth Allocation criteria.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to speak. Attorney Saunders feels that granting of growth allocation for this project would be 22.5 acres of growth allocation and the balance is a result of prior subdivisions of the former Drayton Manor property which occurred previously but never assigned growth allocation.

Attorney Saunders referred to the Growth Allocation policy noting this project meets the criteria specifically, man-made structures on the site are clustered; public access to natural and physical amenities is provided; the development uses both in-fill and existing structures; historic structures are restored; and the buildings will be designed to reflect the heritage of the Drayton Manor Retreat and Kent County.

Attorney Saunders noted this proposal would be an economic benefit to Kent County. There could be a minimal impact on schools by the creation of more jobs for personnel who have children. Income to the county would occur through property tax since the church does not pay property tax. Additional income will come from tourist dollars spent in the county. It is felt environmental impact will be minimal with a net improvement to the site.

Ms. Brown asked for a clarification of the growth allocation figure. Mrs. Owings explained growth allocation counts from 1985 when the Critical Area regulations were adopted and explained what happened with this property. Discussion ensued.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment. Attorney Clay Mitchell of Hoon and Associates, representing the Kinnairds Point Homeowners Association, referred to a letter of January 5, 2004 and asked the Board to take that under consideration. The community is concerned about the slope of the property and increased impervious surface and its effect on the environment.

Chairman Morris asked about correspondence. It was noted the same letters received regarding the special exception included the growth allocation proposal as well.

Attorney Saunders noted the issue of run-off into the creek will be addressed at site plan review.

After some discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners recommending growth application request of the Peninsula Conference Methodist Church and John Petro, based on the following

The Comprehensive Plan clearly describes a need for meeting and conference facilities as a means to enhance both tourism and economic development. The Plan also identifies the goal to reuse and restore historic structures and to maintain the unique character of the County.
The Drayton Manor proposal complies with these goals and needs.
After completion, the project will have a net fiscal benefit to the County by bringing a waterfront property back onto the tax roles, the increase in room tax, and increased employment.
The project will have minimal impact on the environment as habitat will not be disturbed, at least 60% of the property is in open space, and uses bio-retention.
The project is compatible with the surrounding area with the addition of conditions limiting outside activities.
The project complies with several of the additional standards including the use and restoration of historic structures, the clustering of buildings, and that new buildings will reflect the character of Kent County.
The project will require approximately 79-acres of growth allocation. Approximately 46 of these acres are due to a 1986 subdivision from the original parcel.

#03-100 Chestertown Realty Co., Inc. - Major Subdivision (32 Lots) Concept - Kay Lochary and Maurice Sanger are requesting concept review for a 32-lot subdivision. The property is located on Rock Hall Road in the Fifth Election District. The 12-acre parcel is zoned "V" Village.

Kay Lochary, Maurice Sanger and Surveyor Harry Smith were sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report noting relevant issues and applicable law found in the Kent County Land Use Ordinance.

Mr. Smith reviewed the plat with the Planning Commission. He noted the existing trailers and dwelling located on this property are served by public sewer system. Public water may not be available thereby the subdivision will be served by individual wells. Minimum lot size will be 9500 square feet, but most of the lots will be 10,000 square feet. The Planning Commission questioned having 32 individual wells on a 12-acres and suggested investigating the possibility of a community water system.

Mr. Sanger advised the cost of lot and home is expected to be moderate in price - $190,000 to $250,000, with minimum square footage of the homes being approximately 1500 square feet and attached garage. House designs are still being considered but because of lot size garages will probably be in the front.

Mr. Smith said they plan to retain as many trees as possible. A forest conservation plan will be submitted in accordance with regulations. Landscaping is proposed along Route 20.

Stormwater run-off is a concern. Mr. Smith feels the subdivision, through a stormwater management plan, should not add to the existing run-off problem. The Board asked about possible wetlands and Mr. Smith said there are no wetlands on the site, however there is a wetland adjacent to the property. Further delineation will be done.

The Rock Hall Fire Company has been made aware of the project but Mr. Smith said he has received no comments from them.

The Board asked about the existing private road next to the subject property and serves whose property? Mr. Smith replied the road/driveway serves Josh Dowling property and noted it is shown as a private road on the record plat. It was suggested Mr. Smith discuss the roadway with Mr. Dowling.

Chairman Morris asked for public comments. Mr. John William Thompson, Rock Hall Road, sais he is aware of the zoning and the density permitted but asked about open space and entrance into the subdivision.

Mr. Josh Dowling, Rock Hall Road, noted several issues. He would like to see a 50-foot buffer rather than a 20-foot buffer proposed. He pointed out the proposed residential development will be between two businesses. He would like to see a 6-foot vinyl fence between the businesses and residences. Stormwater run-off is a concern. Is the cul-de-sac road suitable for emergency equipment? Street lighting is needed. He would like to see a variety of house designs.

Preston Jacquette, Rock Hall Road, advised he lives directly across the road from this property and is concerned that the subdivision entrance will cause lights from vehicles coming directly in his windows. Discussion ensued regarding the roadway, entrance, open space and subdivision design.

Mr. Smith noted they have heard concerns of the citizens and the Planning Commission and will address issues when submitting the preliminary plat.

#03-132 William Taylor - Buffer Variance & Variance for Slopes > 15% - Mr. Taylor is requesting two variance to permit a 400-square foot deck extension to an existing deck within the Critical Area Buffer and on slopes greater than 15-percent. The 4.98-acre parcel is located on Coopers Lane in the Third Election District and is zoned "RCD" Resource Conservation District.

Attorney Saunders was present with his clients, Melissa Taylor Sean, Newark, Delaware, Mark Taylor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Applicants were sworn in with staff by the Chairman.

Ms. Moredock reviewed the staff report noting relevant issues and applicable law found in Article V, Section 2. of the Land Use Ordinance which addresses development in the Critical Area Buffer. Artricle IX, Section 2.2 sets forth criteria for granting variances. Staff feels the granting of a variance will not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties, nor will it change the character of the district. The Comprehensive Plan encourage the maintenance of buffers. Staff feels that an addition to a deck does not constitute an unwarranted hardship, nor does it deny the applicant of uses generally shared by neighboring property owners. Ms. Moredock recommended denial of both variances.

The Critical Areas Commission has recommended denial of the variance and the existing deck be removed, however if the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend approval, that recommendation should be contingent upon mitigation of 3:1 in the Buffer. The mitigation should be directed to non-forested areas within the Buffer and then to other areas on the property.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to speak. Attorney Saunders advised his clients are the children of Mrs. Taylor who resided at the subject property for many years. Attorney Saunders noted the house was built in 1985 with a deck with a rear yard variance granted. In 1991 the house was enlarged after receiving another variance. A tornado damaged the deck which was repaired with an expansion around 1995. Her children inherited the property when Mrs. Taylor died. Attorney Saunders reviewed the site plan with the Planning Commission pointing out the topography. It is not felt this deck is a threat to the environment. He also had photographs showing the deck and existing vegetation. Attorney Saunders presented a letter from David Hardin, Environmental Resources, Inc. in Salisbury, who states there is no evidence of erosion from this deck.

Attorney Saunders summarized his presentation noting he feels a variance is a reasonable request in this case. The deck is 130 feet back from the water. There is no environmental impact and a variance should be granted. Attorney Saunders referred previous legal cases.

After lengthy discussion and hearing evidence presented by the applicants, Ms. Brown made a motion to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals recommending they deny two variances to bring a deck extension on the Taylor property in compliance with the Land Use Ordinance. A Critical Area Buffer variance and a variance to construct on slopes greater than 15-percent are needed. This recommendation is based on the following findings:

Ms. Brown further stated, should the Board of Appeals approve the application, approval should be contingent upon the following: 1) Mitigation of 3:1 for disturbance within the buffer should be required consisting of a mix of native trees and shrubs; and 2) Stormwater runoff from proposed structures should be directed to stable vegetation in the form of rain gardens and bio-retention areas.

The motion was seconded. Chairman Morris called for the vote. The motion carried by a three to two vote.

ZMA #04-01 Enos & Susanne Bontrager / Chris Shorter, Sr.- Zoning Map Amendment - Chris Shorter is requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning on a half-acre parcel from "V" Village to "CC" Crossroads Commercial. The property is zoned by Enos and Susanne Bontrager and is located at the corner of Routes 292 and 298 near Still Pond. The property has been used for the last 10-years as an auto repair shop which is not a permitted use in the Village District.

Mr. Shorter and Mr. Bontrager were present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report noting applicable law found in Article X11, Section 6 of the Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Martin advised that during the most recent comprehensive rezoning, the Land Use Ordinance Workgroup felt it was important to eliminate as many nonconforming uses as possible by changing the zoning of parcels where appropriate. This corner was overlooked. The property would be suitable for many of the uses permitted in the "CC" District. Any change in use requires site plan review.

Ms. Martin advised with rezoning to "CC", auto repair becomes a permitted use while the apartments currently in the building become non-conforming.

Chairman Morris invited the applicants to speak. Mr. Shorter said he has been operating his auto repair business for ten-years. Other past business uses at this site have been a restaurant, furniture repair, and motor repair. He wants to continue using this property for his repair shop.

Mr. Bontrager said the two apartments in the building are a source of income for him and he wants to continue that use. A discussion ensued regarding the apartments and the repair shop and their continuance under the zoning.

Chairman Morris asked for public comments. Gran Murer, Still Pond, said Mr. Shorter does a good job and he depends on him and hopes to see him stay. Mike Brunner, Still Pond, stated Mr. Shorter is an asset to the Still Pond community and does a fine job with auto repairs.

Ms. Martin read a letter from Brenda Brown who has no objection to the proposal but has a few concerns. She does not want to see a junk yard. Vehicles should not be left at site for days on end. She is concerned about parking of vehicles in the front. Mr. Shorter replied that vehicles will be kept in the rear. Sometimes it takes extra time to get parts. He is willing to screen vehicles from the road. Mr. Bontrager does not want vehicles in the front.

After review and a lengthy discussion, Mr. Lancaster made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners recommending approval of a zoning map amendment to rezone a half-acre of land owned by Enos Bontrager to from "V" Village to "CC" Crossroads Commercial. This decision is based on the following findings:

Carla A. Martin, Community Planner - Ms. Martin invited the Planning Commission to attend the County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 1:30 p.m., at which time Amy Owsley of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy will update the Commissioners on the Eastern Shore 2010 process and present them with the findings of the Land Protection Task Force.

Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director - Mrs. Owings noted the Chester River Association is requesting a grant from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for watershed restoration on Radcliffe Creek. Staff is also working on an Upper Chester River watershed restoration action strategy. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan staff and Planning Commission will be working on the Land Preservation, Open Space and Recreation Plan.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Mrs. Owings advised the County Commissioners asked the status of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff informed them the revised plan should be available in June 2005. A discussion ensued with the Planning Commission deciding to meet again on Tuesday evenings beginning March 9 at 7 p.m. Meetings will be held in the County Commissioners Hearing Room unless in use by the Commissioners.

A joint planning cog meeting, with the incorporated towns, was discussed and it was decided to meet on Tuesday March 30, inviting boards of incorporated towns to attend.

GENERAL DISCUSSION - Mrs. Owings asked Board members if they wished to be notified of outstanding violations on properties before the Planning Commission. It was agreed that staff should include any violations with regards to a property being reviewed and include such in the staff written report.

KENT COUNTY, MARYLANDPLANNING AND ZONING

KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING