KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 2:15 P.M., in the County Commissioners’ Hearing Room at 400 High Street, Chestertown, Maryland, with the following members in attendance: Elizabeth Morris, Chairman; William Sutton; Patricia Langenfelder; Marcy Brown; Rev. Ruben Freeman; Jay Lancaster; Joe 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 October 6, 2005 meeting were approved as written. The Minutes of the November 3, 2005, were also approved.

STAFF REPORTS

Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner – Ms. Moredock advised the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Carla A. Martin, Community Planner - Ms. Martin advised staff is working on Scenic Byway Grants for interpretative panels at Bayside Park in Rock Hall.

Ms. Martin attended the informational meeting at the Galena Fire House held by Arthur Needham to educate the area residents about their mushroom operation proposed for Massey. There were approximately 25 people present. The presentation was similar to the presentation to the Planning Commission at the November 3 meeting. Citizens concerns were: possible odors; stormwater runoff, truck traffic, and closeness to Route 313.

G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney – No report.

Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director – Mrs. Owings reported consultants Redman and Johnson Associates have been hired for the Kennedyville Village Master Plan. The contract has been signed. Staff has interviewed consultants for the Worton / Butlertown Village Master Plan, and would like to hire Dave Blaha with ERM provided the County Commissioners approve the additional $2000. The RFP has been sent out for Fairlee, but the response time has been extended because of the holidays. Bids are to be submitted by December 28.

Mrs. Owings advised she attended a meeting on the “Open Meetings Law and Public Informational Meeting Act”. Bill Varga, Assistant Attorney General, gave a thorough presentation and answered questions. Mr. Varga provided handouts which are available in the Planning Office. It was suggested that we add to our agenda, that “some portions of our meeting may be closed, if necessary, in accordance with the Open Meetings Law”. She noted Attorney Mowell has always kept us informed of these regulations.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

#05-138 William Tubman - Variance (front yard) - Mr. Tubman is requesting two front yard variances to construct a single family dwelling with a total footprint of 1425 sq ft, 34 ft from Point Lane and 30 ft from Bayview Drive. The proposed footprint includes a first floor of 1210 sq ft, and a deck of 215 sq ft. A basement is proposed. The .376 acre parcel is located at the corner of Point Lane and Bayview Drive in the Sixth Election District, and is zoned “CAR” Critical Area Residential. This lot is a through lot having two front yards.

Contractor Alan Hunt was present representing Mr. Tubman, and was sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Moredock reviewed the staff report addressing the history of the property, and advised there have been three previous variance applications:

September 2002 – Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of Appeals for a front yard setback of 20 ft from Bayview Drive and 30 ft from Point Lane, with conditions:

• The property is sold to the Korens, sister and brother-in-law of the applicants
• The dwelling with dimensions of no more than 38 ft by 34 ft with a porch 10 ft by 18 ft be constructed.
• Standard condition that the variances granted will lapse after the expiration of one year if no
• substantial construction in accordance with the plans occurs.

June 2005 – Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals denied two variances to front yard setbacks, citing:

• Property does not present a practical difficulty due to the shape of the lot.
• The proposed house would change the character of the neighborhood because a 2450 sq ft house (a large house for the neighborhood) sitting on a lot of less than one half acre.
• Granting the variance would confer upon the applicant a privilege not granted to others.
• Denying the variance requested would not deny the applicant reasonable and significant use of the land as he could build a dwelling in scale with the lot size.

October 2005 – Planning Commission voted to make an unfavorable recommendation to Board of Appeals. The Appeals Board denied the two variance of the front yard setbacks

Ms. Moredock noted applicable law found in Article V, Section 2.5, Article VI, Section 3.4.2, Article XI, and IX, Section 2.2. of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Moredock reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. Staff believes the granting of a variance would not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties, however it may change the character of the district by allowing something with a larger total square footage than those existing on comparable lots within the neighborhood. This proposal is in scale with the proposal approved in 2002 and smaller than the proposals denied in 2005. Denial of the variances may constitute an unwarranted hardship and may deny the applicant use generally shared by neighboring property owners. The need for the variance is a result of the unusual shape of the parcel and requires two front yards because it is a through lot. The Comprehensive Plan encourages infill development. Ms. Moredock recommended approval contingent upon the minimization of the proposal in keeping with the neighborhood.

There was no correspondence received in the Planning Office regarding this proposal.

Chairman Morris invited Mr. Hunt to speak. Mr. Hunt informed the Planning Commission that he has reduced the size of the house from the last time he was before the Board. Originally it was 32 ft wide and now it is 27 ½ ft. The deck has been reduced from 330 sq ft to 215 sq ft. Previously the house was 1 ½ story and now it is 1 story.

Ms. Brown asked for clarification of square footage. She questioned the upper loft area. Mr. Hunt advised that area would be for storage. The front part of the house has a cathedral ceiling. Discussion followed. Mr. Hunt said his clients would be willing to sign a non-conversion agreement to assure the upper area remains storage. Rev. Freeman asked if the basement should be included in the total square footage. Ms. Moredock said she did not include the basement in the square footage. Discussion continued.

Chairman Morris invited the public to comment. Bob Basener, resident of Tolchester, advised there are houses in the neighborhood that are 3,000 to 5,000 sq ft, as well as 2 and 3 story dwelling. There are two homes as close as 5 ft to the road. He pointed them out on the map. The Tolchester Association supports the Tubmans proposal.

Andre Tedeschi, an adjoining property owner, advised he sold the subject lot to the Tubmans. His sister-in-law was going to build a 38 by 32 ft house after obtaining a variance, but decided to sell the property. He has no objection to the granting of a variance.

Summarizing, Mr. Hunt said he feels the proposal before the Planning Commission is more in keeping with the building sites in the area since the house is smaller.

Question was raised as to the legality of approving this variance request with regards to previous recommendations. Attorney Mowell agreed that there are some differences from previous applications. He referred to the “impermissible change of mind rule”. After additional discussion, Mrs. Langenfelder made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals, recommending approval of two variance to allow the Tubmans to construct a dwelling with a deck 32 ft from Point Lane and 30 ft from Bayview Drive, since the Planning Commission feels that Mr. Tubman has minimized the need for a variance by providing a smaller footprint and orienting the dwelling to optimize neighboring views. This decision is based on the following findings:

• The unusual size and shape of the lot results in a practical difficulty. The triangular shaped lot is 132 ft at its widest point and has two front yards
• The variances will not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties
• The variance will not change the character of the neighborhood
• The granting of the variances will not confer upon the applicant privileges uncommon to the area
• The proposal represents reasonable use of the property
• The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Staff attended the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy meeting at the Tidewater Inn. A topic of discussion was annexation. It would be good for the towns and county to work together and coordinate thoughts.

The Planning Commission discussed the past three informational meetings on the draft comprehensive plan feeling the meetings went very well. The Board complimented staff on a fine job with their presentations. With regards to the public hearing on December 8, it was decided to only accept comments from the audience however staff will give a brief presentation prior to accepting comments. The Board will accept written comments no later than Wednesday, December 14, and will discuss after the hearing when they will meet again to review comments.

There being no further business, Chairman Morris adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, Thursday, December 8, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.

_____________________________________

Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman

_____________________________________

Elizabeth E. Carroll, Secretary

Home | Business | Community | Government | Top

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