KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

M I  N  U  T  E  S 

            The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, December 6, 2007, in the County Commissioner’s Hearing Room at 400 High Street, Chestertown, Maryland, with the following members in attendance: Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman; William S. Sutton; Patricia Langenfelder; Rev. Ruben Freeman; F. Joseph Hickman; Marcy Brown; Jay Lancaster; G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney; Gail W. Owings, Planning Director; Carla A. Martin, Community Planner; Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner and Kim Dixon, Secretary. 

            Chairman Morris called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.  She explained the procedure of the meeting. 

MINUTES - Minutes of the November 1, 2007 were deferred. 

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW 

Kent School – Extension of Variance 

            Kent School, Inc. requests a two year extension of their impervious surface variance granted in January, 2005 to construct three additions to the existing school located at the end of Wilkins Lane, in the Seventh Election District.  The 8.01 acre parcel is zoned Resource Conservation District with a small portion zoned Agricultural Zoning District.  The campus currently consists of the main building containing administrative offices and classrooms; the Little School which consists of classrooms and the library, a gymnasium which contains the gym, locker rooms and classrooms, two storage buildings (one of which is an historic barn), a silo, and various athletic fields.   

Present and duly sworn were Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner; Christopher McClary and Michael Schuler from Kent School. 

Ms. Moredock presented the staff report noting applicable law including the Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 2.7.B.7 of the Land Use Ordinance requires man caused impervious surfaces on parcels greater than 36,301 square feet shall be limited to 15% of the property; Article IX, Section 2.2 authorizes the Board of Appeals to grant variances from the yard, height, bulk, parking, loading. Shoreline cliff, 15% slope, pier length, impervious surface, stream protection corridor, and buffer requirements so as to relieve practical difficulties or other injustices arising out of the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance.   

Ms, Moredock explained that currently the impervious surfaces onsite total 53,707.9 square feet.  A variance from the impervious surface limit is needed.  As proposed, the granting of the variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privileges, will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties and the character of the district will not change; the proposed additions are consistent with uses associated with a campus setting and constitute reasonable use of the property; the Comprehensive Plan promotes the maintenance and upgrading of the educational facilities. 

Staff recommends approval of the requested two-year extension of the variance contingent upon the following: 1) any tree removal to accommodate the additions should be replanted based on square footage of canopy removed; any replanting plan should consist of a mix of native trees and shrubs; 2) stormwater runoff from proposed additions should be directed to stable vegetation; and 3) a net improvement in water quality must be demonstrated.   

There was no correspondence in this matter. 

Ms. Morris stated that they would be making a recommendation to the Board of Appeals. 

Mr. McClary stated that the original variance was for three buildings.  He stated that the Health Department had some concerns about the septic reserve area and Kent School has been working with them for the past three years.  He stated that the Health Department signed the building permit last week.  He said their intension is to proceed with the plans for the classroom.  They would like a two year extension to give them the time to design the library.  They would like to build the library over the summer and he would need the extension because if the construction does not take place this summer they will need time to do it next summer.  He stated the Little School addition would begin at the end of December or the beginning of January.   

Ms. Brown asked that since this is one expansion wouldn’t the current variance still be in effect.  Ms. Owings stated that since the project may come in on three difference building permits they felt it was best to have the variance extended to allow time for construction.  She feels that if we have a bad winter and footers cannot be constructed the extension of the variance will allow them to do construction after February. 

There were no comments from the audience. 

After a discussion by the Board, Ms. Brown made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals citing as a finding of fact: 

·        Kent School has been working with the Health Department for the past three years to iron out issues with the septic reserve area.  This has prevented construction within the three year time frame that they were previously given. 

·        At this point they are planning to proceed ahead with the project and therefore feel that the granting of a two year extension is a reasonable request.   

The motion was seconded by Reverend Freeman and approved unanimously. 

International Building Code 

Ms. Owings presented the staff report concerning the adoption of the International Building and Residential Codes.   

            Maryland law related to building codes is called the Maryland Building Performance Standards (MBPS).  It requires each jurisdiction in Maryland to use the same edition of the same building codes which are the International Building Code and the International Residential Code.  The State has modified the IBC and the IRC to coincide with other Maryland laws.  Each local jurisdiction in Maryland may modify these codes to suite local conditions.  

            For Kent County to comply with the State codes, we must amend the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County to reflect the 2006 International Building and Residential Codes.  It is suggested that Kent County continue with the exemption from inspection for agricultural buildings, that the specific reference to swimming pools be deleted (thus swimming pools follow the IBC/IRC codes as written), that the exemption from mechanical inspections for single and two family dwellings be deleted, and that the remaining portions of the current Kent County Code remain unchanged. 

            Specifically, we are proposing the following amendments to Chapter 73, Building Construction, of the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County:

·        Amend Section 73.-1 Adoption of Standards.

·        Sections 73-2, 73-3, 73-4, 73-5, 73-6, 73-7, 73-8 – no change

·        Section 73-9 Farm Buildings

·        Section 73-10, 73-11, 73-12, 73-13 , 73-14 – no change

·        Delete Section 73-15 Swimming Pools

·        Section 73-16 to 73-20 no change. 

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the amendments as described above.  

            Ms. Morris explained that this would be a recommendation to the Kent County Commissioners. 

            After a discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for the International Building Code citing:

·        For Kent County to comply with the State Codes we must amend the current local laws of Kent County to reflect the International Building Code and the International Residential Code.

·        In the event of any conflict between the provisions found in these codes, the Kent County Land Use Ordinance will apply. 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Sutton and it was approved unanimously. 

Fairlee Georgetown Master Plan 

            Ms. Moredock stated the Plan had been reviewed in September by the Planning Commission and this plan includes changes requested.  If approved, the plan will be forwarded to state agencies for comment and the Planning Commission may hold its public hearing. 

            After a discussion, Mr. Hickman made a motion to forward this plan to the State agencies for review.  

            The motion was second by Mr. Lancaster and was approved unanimously. 

STAFF REPORTS 

Amy Moredock – Ms. Moredock stated the Total Maximum Dailey Load (TMDL) Committee has finalized their review.  She stated they hope to have a final document in January.  She said the Bay Restoration Fund is moving forward.  There are three systems.  One is in the process of getting paid for.  It is possible that Kent School will be involved in the Bay Restoration Fund as well. 

Carla Martin – Ms. Martin noted she has been working on the Agricultural Priority Preservation Area element that will be another appendix to our Comprehensive Plan and hopefully a draft will be available in January or February.   

Gail Owings – Ms. Owings informed the Planning Commission that the Agricultural Advisory Committee discussed the types of projects on which they would like to send comments to this Board and the Board of Appeals.   

GENERAL DISCUSSION  

Choptank Electric - Ms. Morris stated that they have received a letter from the Kent County Historic Preservation Commission and one from the Ag Advisory Commission regarding a decision that the Planning Commission made in November concerning Choptank Electric.  She stated that the Historic Preservation Commission made an unfavorable recommendation and the Ag Advisory Commission made a favorable recommendation.  She asked the Board if they would like to reconsider their recommendation at the January meeting based on the additional information.  Ms. Brown asked how far the barn and house are from the substation.  Ms. Martin stated that Mr. Jenkins testified that it is 1,474 feet.  Ms. Brown asked where the minimum of a mile is written.  Ms. Martin stated that the Historic Preservation Commission had decided that one mile is the minimum distance that any type of tower should be from National Register sites.  Mr. Sutton stated that Mr. Jenkins also testified that he could not see the site from his home site because of the trees and the buffering around his buildings but just the idea of it being that close to the historic structure is what Mr. Jenkins did not like.  Ms. Owings stated that Mr. Jenkins had also testified that the view shed to the entrance to the County would be affected.  Ms. Brown said she specifically drove on 301 in that area and what she really noticed was the big red barn and the way the trees come around and the road bends it just doesn’t seem that tower is going to be an intrusion.  Mr. Lancaster stated that he had done the same thing and his assessment is the same.  Ms. Brown stated she appreciates these two Commissions bringing their concerns to the Planning Commission.   

            A vote was taken and it was unanimous that they will not rehear this application again. 

Kennedyville Plan – Ms. Owings stated the County Commissioners held a public hearing and they have until January to respond.  

Worton–Butlertown Plan – Ms. Owings stated that as requested by the Planning Commission they are working to try to come up with the computer program that will take a fictional piece of property and design a subdivision under provisions found in the proposed Master Plan.  They are hoping to work with Washington College.  

The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m. 

The next meeting will be held on January 3, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. 

________________________________________   

Elizabeth Morris, Chairman

 

__________________________________________

Kimberly Dixon, Clerk