KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, February 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; Joseph Hickman; G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney; Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director; Carla A. Martin, Community Planner; Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner; Elizabeth Carroll, Secretary.

MINUTES – The minutes of the January 5, 2006 meeting were approved as written.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

#05-147 Eastern Shore Bible Church – Site Plan (Final ) – The Eastern Shore Bible Church is requesting site plan approval to locate a cemetery on their 15.144 acre parcel located on Gregg Neck Road, in the First Election District. The proposed cemetery will be approximately 200 x 200 feet and located in the south west corner of their property. The property is zoned “RR” Rural Residential.

Jay Lancaster excused himself from review of this application.

Pastor Steve Hays was present and sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report noting in November 2005, the church received a special exception for a cemetery with conditions, specifically:

• Obtain site plan approval with provision for a perpetual maintenance agreement by the Planning Commission;
• The four corners of the cemetery be delineated by permanent markers; and
• The special exception will lapse after the expiration of one year if no substantial construction has occurred in accordance with the plan.

Ms. Martin reviewed applicable law found in Article VI, Section 5.3.B of the Land Use Ordinance which sets forth the objectives for the Planning Commission to consider when reviewing site plans. The proposed cemetery is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since houses of worship are considered a desirable amenity and a cemetery is an appropriate accessory use to a church. Ms. Martin recommended approval of the site plan provided details for the corner markers are submitted.

Chairman Morris invited Pastor Hays to speak. Pastor Hays advised the individual plot markers will be ground level. The four corner markers will be 6 by 6 square. The Planning Commission stressed the need to place iron rods at the four corners of the cemetery in addition to the other markers, which will permanently mark the site for future years.

There were no comments from the audience and no correspondence has been received on this final site plan.

After a brief discussion, Mrs. Langenfelder made a motion to grant final site plan approval for a 200 by 200 foot cemetery in the southwest corner of the Eastern Shore Bible Church property, noting the Planning Commission found all conditions and requirements have been met. A condition of the approval is that:

• Iron pins are placed at each outside corner of the cemetery.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

#05-82 The Presbyterian Church of Chestertown – Site Plan Review (Preliminary) – The Presbyterian Church of Chestertown is requesting preliminary site plan approval to expand their church located between Route 213 and Gateway Drive, in the Crestview Subdivision, north of Chestertown., in the Fourth Election District The project will include a new sanctuary and an education wing, with additional parking. The 4.02 acre parcel is zoned “IV” Intense Village.

Philip Rodgers, registered architect, was present on behalf of the church and was sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

With regards to the history of the property, Ms. Martin noted the church received site plan approval by the Planning Commission in November 1991 for a fellowship hall and education wing. In March 1992, the church revised their plan to include an administrative wing which was approved by the Planning Commission. In September 2005 the Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan for this proposal making several comments and suggestions. Today the board is reviewing the revised plan.

Ms. Martin reviewed the staff report and relevant issues found in Article V, Section 8 of the Land Use Ordinance addressing Access and Parking; Landscaping and Forest Conservation; Environmental Standards; and General Design Standards. After reviewing staff comments, Ms. Martin recommended granting preliminary approval, although not all the submittals have been provided or changes made. All requirements must be met prior to receiving final approval.

Mr. Rodgers advised the church has addressed comments presented at the previous submittal. His submittal today is a revised concept plan. A surveyor will be preparing a plat showing changed building setback lines and property lines. The Crestview Architectural Review Committee has given their okay to the proposal.

There was some discussion as to whether the Planning Commission is reviewing the site plan as concept review or preliminary. Susan Debnam, member of the Church Building Committee, advised that 75% of the owners in the Crestview Subdivision have signed the deed restriction change and it has been recorded. After that was done, she thought they were ready for preliminary review.

The Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and had several questions of the applicant -the entrance, location of the handicap parking, and memorial garden. Mrs. Debnam noted the breaks in the concrete are where the handicap parking is located. The church is willing to comply with all requirements of the Planning Commission. Discussion continued.

There were no written comments received in the office and there were no comments from the audience.

Following discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to grant preliminary site plan for the proposed expansion of the Presbyterian Church of Chestertown, finding that:

• The Deed restrictions for the Crestview Subdivision have been changed and recorded. The adjustment of lot lines and removal of the building restriction line will be submitted for approval.
• The 5-foot pedestrian easement along the public road has been added to the plat as well as a bike rack and handicap parking spaces.
• A walkway and planting strip are included within the parking lot and excess parking spaces have been provided.
• The building design compliments the town.

The motion also included what must be submitted to obtain final site plan approval, specifically:

• Forest Conservation requirements include payment of fee-in-lieu-of or afforestation.
• Additional landscaping must be provided between parking lot and the lands of Kent Investors.
• Show footprints for neighboring buildings need to be shown on the site plan
• Any lighting proposed for the building or parking lot must be dark-sky compatible
• Sediment control and stormwater management requirements must be met.
• Submit bond, letter-of-credit or other surety.
• All other requirements of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance must be met.

The motion was second. The vote was unanimous.

#06-04 William W. Tubman – Variance – Mr. Tubman requests two front yard variances to allow him to construct a single family dwelling with a total footprint of 1,299 square feet, 37 feet from Point Lane and 35 feet from Bayview Drive, in the Tolchester Subdivision, Sixth Election District. The property is zoned “CAR” Critical Area Residential. This lot is a through lot and has two front yards.

Contractor Alan Hunt was present on behalf of his client and was sworn in with staff by Chairman Morris.

Ms. Moredock reviewed the history of this property noting there have been four previous variance applications. Today’s application is the fifth submittal requesting two variances to construct a 1299 square foot dwelling located 35 feet from Bayview Drive and 37 feet from Point Lane.

Ms. Moredock noted applicable law found in Article IX, Section 2.2 of the Land Use Ordinance which sets forth the criteria for granting a variance. The proposed dwelling is smaller than the original application which was approved in 2002 and is consistent with neighboring footprints. The variance will not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties nor will it change the character of the district. This proposal is smaller in scale than all previous application. Denial of the variance 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. Staff recommended approval.

Alan Hunt pointed out that they further reduced the size of the house with a different design and is smaller than any of the previous applications. It is a cape cod style with a deck. He reviewed the site plan with the Planning Commission.

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

After some discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals recommending approval of two front yard variances to construct a single family dwelling on the lands of William Tubman. The house will have a total footprint of 1299 square feet and will have a setback of 37 feet from Point Lane and 35 feet from Bayview Drive. This decision is based on the following findings:

• The unusual size and shape of the lot results in a practical difficulty
• The variances will not cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties
• The variances 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 is a reasonable use of the property
• The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Ordinance
• The Comprehensive Plan.
• The applicant has minimized the variance by resubmitting a smaller footprint.
• The current proposal is smaller than previous submittals for variances on this property.

The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

VILLAGE ADVISORY COUNCIL LEGISLATION

Mrs. Owings noted the Comprehensive Plan directs the establishment of a Village Advisory Council. The new Comp Plan describes the makeup of a council. The proposed legislation would be included in the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County upon approval by the County Commissioners. The purpose of the Council is to provide advice to the Planning Commission and County Commissioners on issues affecting the quality of life in the unincorporated villages.

A discussion ensued regarding the text of the proposed legislation, membership and just how the Village Advisory Council would function. A few minor changes to the draft legislation were suggested.

Ms. Brown made a motion to recommend the County Commissioners establish a Village Advisory Council for Kent County, Maryland with legislation proposed. The motion was seconded and the vote unanimous.

VILLAGE MASTER PLANS

Chairman Morris advised letters have been sent out to residents of Butlertown and Worton regarding the Kick-Off meeting for the Village Master Plan on February 1. Letters will be sent for the Kick-off meeting in Kennedyville on March 1. Date has not been scheduled for the Fairlee meeting. It was suggested that Planning Commission members attend one of the meetings. Members decided as follows:

Worton - Elizabeth Morris, Marcy Brown & staff

Kennedyville - Bill Sutton, Pat Langenfelder, Jay Lancaster & staff

Fairlee - Rev. Freeman, Joe Hickman & staff

STAFF REPORTS

Gail Webb Owings, Planning Director – Mrs. Owings advised the County Commissioners approved an additional enforcement person for the Planning and Zoning Department.

Need to pick a date for the next Comprehensive Plan Workshop. The Board decided to meet on Thursday, February 9 to review the final Implementation Section and Historic Preservation Section and any other revisions. The Board could approve the Comprehensive Plan and forward to the County Commissioners either at the February 9 workshop meeting or wait for the March 2 regular meeting. Notice will be placed in the newspaper and notice posted in the building.

After some discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed that they would not accept any further comments received after the cutoff date and would not review the recent correspondence. The public will have an opportunity to submit their comments to the County Commissioners when they hold their public hearing.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Rev. Freeman said he was contacted by a concerned citizen about the possible placement of a water tower on the recreation field in Edesville. Staff was not aware of it and said they would check with Wayne Morris, Director of Department of Water and Waste Water.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Morris adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.

_____________________________________

Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman

____________________________________

Elizabeth Carroll, Secretary

Home | Business | Community | Government | Top

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