KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., in the County Commissioners’ 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, Rev. Ruben Freeman; Jay Lancaster; Joe Hickman; G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney; Gail W. Owings, Planning Director; Carla Martin, Community Planner; Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner; and Elizabeth Carroll, Secretary.

MINUTES – The minutes of the October 5, 2006 meeting were approved after making a correction to page two noting under Brickyard Land Holding changing the sentence to read, “the setback of the structures are well within the required setback rather than the buildings exceed the setback.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

#05-130  Nelson Clayton / Arthur Needham – Mushroom Plant (Concept Review) –  Arthur Needham is requesting concept site plan review for a mushroom farm production facility on a 314.08 acre farm located on Galena Road near Massey in the First Election District. The farm is currently owned by Nelson Clayton and Judith Hogan and is zoned “AZD” and “I” Industrial.  The proposal consists of a substrate preparation area in the “I” District and growing rooms in the “AZD” District.  The substrate preparation area exceeds the size limits for an agricultural processing operation and is being considered an industrial operation that must comply with the standards found in the “I” District.  Although the growing rooms are a permitted use, the entire operation is being considered as a single facility for the purposes of site plan review.

            The applicants appeared before the Planning Commission a year ago and have since made some changes which they bring before the Board today.  A citizen’s participation meeting was held at the Galena Fire Hall in November 2005.

            Arthur Needham and Steve Layden, McCrone, Inc. were present and sworn in with staff.

            Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report addressing relevant issues and applicable law.  Kent County promotes agriculture as a viable industry as noted on page 14 of the Comprehensive Plan.  Applicable law may be found in Article V, Section 15 of the Land Use Ordinance which addresses requirements for the Industrial District. Within that section the Ordinance addresses Environmental Standards, Stormwater and Sediment Control requirements, and General Design Standards.  Ms. Martin referred specifically to the plan before the Board today.

            The Agricultural Advisory Commission discussed this proposal at its October 17, 2006 meeting. They did not have any issues and feel the mushroom facility is an appropriate operation for Kent County.  The Commission would like to see a nutrient analysis and want to make sure there is a spent substrate plan.

            No correspondence has been received on this revised concept plan.

            Mr. Layden informed the Planning Commission of the changes since their submittal a year ago.  Field topography has been completed. He reviewed the site plan with the Board indicating the location of the tree line, wetlands and blue line stream corridor. There will be no disturbance to the existing buffers.  A 40-ft utility easement is shown for the existing pole line.  Stormwater will be used to lessen their need for groundwater withdrawals. Stormwater facilities will be designed in accordance with all applicable regulations. New changes include the office and a farm stand to sell mushrooms at the front of the property. Growing rooms are in the agricultural zone and the tunnels in the industrial zoned area. Street trees are proposed along with a landscaped buffer to screen structures. He expanded on the site plan pointing out the location of other structures.

            Question was raised about truck traffic and Mr. Needham responded explained the procedure for incoming trucks and their movement around the facility.  He was unable to give a clear picture of numbers at this time.  In addition to growing of mushrooms, substrate will be produced for approximately 25 other growers. 

Considerable amount of water will be used daily, approximately 50,000 gallons. Mr. Needham estimates providing 60 to 75 jobs.  Phase I includes silos, growing houses, and substrate facility.  He commented further on his proposed facility. 

            Chairman Morris asked for comments from the audience.  Each person was sworn in prior to speaking.  Daniel Bones, Galena Road, Massey asked about immigrant housing and the number of unskilled laborers that will be employed.  Mr. Needham said he hopes to hire local people.  Mr. Bones asked for a clearer explanation of substrate.  Mr. Needham advised substrate is baled straw and chicken litter. It is expected to use 40 tons of chicken manure a day in their operation.  Odor is limited because it will have a moisture content of less than 20%.  Mr. Needham encouraged Mr. Bones and any other residents to visit his facility in Pennsylvania. Tractor trailers already are a problem with other industrial uses in the area.  Mr. Needham said most of his traffic will not go through Massey. Mr. Bones continued to express his objection to the proposed mushroom facility which he feels will depreciate his property value. 

            James McCrea, Galena Road, Massey, said his main concern is odor, and how will it be controlled by the County.  Attorney Mowell replied that an Engineer’s report will be required that delineates the discharge and its limitations.  If requirements are violated it may be possible to shut down the operation.

            Robert Kelley, Galena Road, Massey, expressed concern about stormwater runoff.  His property as well as portions of the farm fill with water.  He further noted that Mr. Clayton was willing to provide State Highway with an easement to correct the situation, but nothing has been done.  Ditch needs to be cleaned out. Correct the stormwater problem before doing anything else. Odor is also a concern.  Flies continue to be a problem.

            Roy Hoagland, owner of property in Massey, advised there is an existing problem with truck traffic and this proposal would considerably increase the situation.  Can truckers be required to use other routes?  Mr. Needham said he currently instructs his suppliers to use routes to bypass developments and would do so here.  Local farmers would probably go through Massey.

            Mr. Hoagland asked about construction of growing rooms and also screening.  At this time, Mr. Needham is not sure what the construction will be, but assured the area will be screened as much as possible.  Staff noted a detailed landscaping plan will be required before getting final site plan approval.

            Mr. Needham said he plans to build the most modern facility and will control odor as much as possible.

            Mrs. Needham pointed out they are the third-generation of mushroom growers. They take pride in their operation.  They do plan to become residents of Kent County.

            Having heard comments from the audience and Planning Commission, Mr. Needham will proceed with preparation of the preliminary site plan addressing all necessary requirements set forth in the Land Use Ordinance for preliminary review. 

#06-132 Chestertown Lodge No.2474 Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks – Zoning Text Amendment – The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Chestertown Lodge No. 2474 is requesting approval to amend Article VI, Section 2.4.2 of the Land Use Ordinance to add the words “Charitable Institution” to the sign regulations allowing an area of up to 32 square feet.

            Basil Wadknovsky was present representing the Elks Lodge.

            Mrs. Owings reviewed the staff report and applicable law found in Article XII, Section 6, of the Land Use Ordinance, which sets forth the standards for review and approval of a zoning text amendment. The amendment would read as follows:

 “Institutional signs letting forth the name or simple announcement for any public, charitable, educational or religious institution, located entirely on the premises of that institution, up to an area of 15 square feet. Volunteer fire companies and charitable institutions are permitted to have signs up to an area of 32 square feet.”

Mrs. Owings noted if the amendment is adopted, a building permit will still be required.

            In 1991, the County Commissioners, after receiving a favorable recommendation for the Planning Commission approved an exemption to the Land Use Ordinance to allow signs not to exceed 32 sq ft for volunteer fire companies.  Although signs are for identification and not advertisement, it was felt volunteer organizations deserve a larger sign for the purpose of promoting fundraising events.  This could also apply to other volunteer charitable organizations such as the Elks, VFW, or American Legion.

            No correspondence has been received on this proposed amendment.

            Mr. Wadkovsky informed the Planning Commission that the Elks Lodge holds various functions to raise money to help with needs and programs for the youth as well as other projects throughout the county.  They would like to have a larger sign to advertise their functions to make the public more aware of events.  Illumination would not be necessary.

            The Planning Commission discussed the sign regulations, and existing signs throughout the county. After review, Mr. Hickman made a motion to forward the zoning text amendment submitted by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Chestertown Lodge No. 2474 to the County Commissioners, however changing the amendment as follows:

Institutional signs setting forth the name or simple announcement for any public, charitable, educational, religious or volunteer fire company would be limited to 25 square feet and eligible for the bonus points as described in Article VI, Section 2.7.

The motion was seconded. Discussion followed.  The motion carried by a 4 to 3 vote.

 #06-130 Dan and Lynne Christenbury – Variance (front yard) – Mr. and Mrs. Christenbury are requesting a variance of the minimum 100-ft buffer so they can construct a 30 by 33 ft attached garage approximately 84-ft from Davis Creek, 268 ft from the rear property line (Davis Creek Road) and approximately 24-ft from the side property line and pedestrian walkway.  The 1.3-acre parcel is in the Fifth Election District and is zoned “RCD” Resource Conservation District.

            Mr. Hickman advised he manages the adjacent property but does not feel that would impact his review or decision on this application.

            Dan Christenbury and his contractor Patrick Jones were present and sworn in by Chairman Morris.

            Mrs. Owings reported the existing dwelling sits on a wooded lot which was created in 1985 as part of the Emmett Abbott minor subdivision.  An attached garage was built in 1987.  Houses on adjacent properties are of similar or slightly smaller size and generally have detached garages.  A buffer variance was granted in 2002 for a neighboring property to construct a front porch in the Critical Area Buffer.

            Mrs. Owings reviewed applicable law and relevant issues.  Article IX, Section 2.3 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance sets forth the criteria for granting a variance.  The granting of a variance would not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties nor change the character of the neighborhood. It does not appear the applicants have demonstrated an unwarranted hardship.  Some neighbors have detached garages constructed outside the buffer.  Staff recommended denial of the buffer variance.

            Chairman Morris invited Mr. Christenbury and Mr. Jones to speak.  Mr. Jones submitted a revised site plan showing existing conditions of the property.  Mr. Christenbury said there is a two-car garage on the property but there have been changes made to the interior that eliminates one of the car stalls. He explained the proposed changes.  He also noted that the proposed change will help with stormwater runoff. Discussion followed.

            No correspondence was received on this variance and there were no comments from the audience.

            Following review and discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals, recommending denial of the buffer variance request to construct a 990 square foot attached garage approximately 84-feet from Davis Creek.  This recommendation is based on the following findings:

• The proposal would not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties
• No unwarranted hardship has been demonstrated
• The property is not unusual in size or shape
• Granting a variance would not be in harmony with the Critical Area regulations, Comprehensive Plan, or the Land Use Ordinance.
• Denial of this proposal will not deny the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties as there are other options on the property.

It was also noted there may not be a functioning buffer on-site since the existing dwelling is located approximately 66-ft from Davis Creek.  Should the Board of Appeals grant approval of the variance, then it is recommended that buffer mitigation should be at a ratio of 3:1, and should consist of Maryland native plantings. Also, stormwater runoff should be directed to a bio-retention area.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

STAFF REPORTS

Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner – Ms. Moredock reported she enjoyed her trip to Ireland and informed the Planning Commission of Ireland’s review procedures.  They have no zoning ordinance but instead guidance documents.  Effective March 2007, no single-family dwellings will be allowed in the countryside unless a lineage can be proven to the land or a viable farm is in operation.  Ireland is using enhanced nutrient removal systems. She visited a sewer plant in Limerick.

Carla A. Martin, Community Planner – Ms. Martin noted staff met with consultants for Kennedyville Master Plan yesterday. It is hoped to have a draft plan available on the website soon and hold a community meeting on November 30. Once date is confirmed, a letter will be going out to citizens.

Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director – Mrs. Owings advised the steering committee met last week and commented on the draft plan for Worton-Butlertown.  The consultant will be making changes and presenting the Worton-Butlertown Village Master Plan to the community and the Planning Commission if desired. 

A meeting still needs to be scheduled with the Fairlee-Georgetown community.

Mrs. Owings noted she received a letter from Millington’s mayor and council advising the county of an application from the Wick Family petitioning the town to annex all of the Wick property that extends from the town limit to Speer Road.  Last year the General Assembly adopted House Bill 1141 which addresses new regulations regarding annexation. Mrs. Owings will check on that legislation to see if it affects this annexation proposal.

G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney – A letter was received from Kent County News pointing out that when the Kent County Planning Commission met with the Millington Planning Commission, that was considered to be an open meeting and should have been advertising since a “quorum was present”. The Kent County Planning Commission should have advertised they were meeting with Millington. Attorney Mowell noted that anytime the Kent County Planning Commission meets with a quorum expected to be attendance, the meeting must be advertised.  Although Millington advertised their meeting, Kent County should have advertised also. 

            Four members of the seven member commission constitutes a quorum and a meeting must be advertised accordingly.  Discussion followed.

Bill Kerbin, Housing Planner – Mrs. Owings introduced Kent County’s new Housing Planner.  One of his first tasks is putting together a housing summit.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

            Rev. Freeman asked about the lighting at the Rock Hall Church of God in Edesville. He said the lights do not appear to be “dark-sky compatible”.  Staff said they would look into his inquiry.     

            There being no further business, Chairman Morris adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

 

_____________________________________

Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman

_____________________________________

Elizabeth E. Carroll, Secretary