KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, March 6, 2008, 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; Rev. Ruben Freeman; F. Joseph Hickman; Jay P. Lancaster; Marcy Brown; Gail W. Owings, Planning Director; Carla Gerber, Community Planner; Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner; Mitch Mowell, Planning Commission Attorney and Kim Dixon, Secretary.

Election of Officers:

Mr. Mowell opened the floor for nominations for Chairman. Jay Lancaster nominated Elizabeth Morris for Chairman.  The motion was seconded by Reverend Freeman and passed unanimously.  Chairman Morris opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chairman.  Reverend Freeman nominated William Sutton.  The motion was seconded by Pat Langenfelder and passed unanimously.

Review of the Bylaws

Review of the Bylaws was deferred to the next meeting.

MINUTES  

The Minutes of the February 7, 2008 meeting were approved as written.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

Kent County Community Center – Zoning Text Amendment – During Technical Advisory Committee review of the Kent County Community Center project at Worton, an issue concerning the location of parking arose.  Under the current regulations, parking is prohibited between the primary building and front property line in the Village District.  This provision does not recognize any differences between structures on small parcels built up on the road and those arranged in a campus setting.  Therefore, the following amendment to the text of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance, Article V, and Section 7.8C3a is proposed:  Parking lots shall be located as much as possible to the rear of the buildings.  Locating parking lots between the front property line and the primary building is specifically prohibited except where the existing community includes parks and structures that are arranged in a campus-like setting and the parking lot is a minimum of 200 feet from the front property line and existing public roads.

Carla Gerber presented the staff report which included the applicable law Article XII, Section 6 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance which establishes the standards for the review and approval of a zoning text amendment. 

Staff recommended approval.  The amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals to maintain and enhance existing spatial relationships, and to establish linkages and public parking areas.  The proposal meets a public need identified in the Comprehensive Plan to continue the campus setting of the regional park and school campus with the design and construction of a community center.  It also meets the public need to permit design that is consistent with existing community character. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Present and duly sworn were Kevin Shearon, DMS Engineers, Bill Sigg, Architect, and Chip MacLeod, President of the Community Center Authority.  Mr. MacLeod reviewed the history of the project which began in the early 1990’s.  He gave the following timeline of the project:

• 1999 – A committee was formed for the construction of a new Community Center.
• 2002 – The Board of Education agreed to set aside approximately 26 acres for the Community Center.
• 2003 – The General Assembly granted $500,000.00 in bonds for the project.
• 2005 – The Commissioners enacted legislation creating a Community Center Authority.
• FY 2007 – The Commissioners budgeted for the design and engineering of this project.
• 2008 – A public forum was held at Worton Arena which was well attended.   

Mr. MacLeod stated that after much discussion about the design everyone agreed that a text amendment would be needed to implement the desired design.  He said the building is approximately 400 feet off the road and to put the parking behind the building would not serve their purpose.

The text amendment would read:  Parking lots shall be located as much as possible to the rear of the buildings.  Locating parking lots between the front property line and the primary building is specifically prohibited except where the existing community includes parks and structures that are arranged in a campus like setting and the parking lot is a minimum of 200 feet from the front property line and existing pubic roads.

After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Sutton suggested changing the text amendment to read: Parking lots shall be located as much as possible to the rear of the buildings.  Locating parking lots between the front property line and the primary building is specifically prohibited except for public recreational facilities in which the parking lot is a minimum of 200 feet from the front property line and existing public roads.  Mr. Mowell recommended the change in the text to limit the exception to public recreational facilities.  He noted that, as proposed, the text amendment was too vague and would allow for more exceptions than anticipated because the Ordinance lacks a definition for “campus-like setting.”

Marcy Brown made a motion to recommend the adoption of the amended zoning text amendment.  The Planning Commission based its decision on the following:

• The amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals to maintain and enhance existing spatial relationships, and to establish linkages and public parking areas.
• The proposal meets a public need identified in the Comprehensive Plan to continue the campus setting of the Worton Regional Park and school campus with the design and construction of a community center.
• It allows more flexibility for public recreational facilities on public land.
• It provides for safer circulation between the Community Center, Worton Park facilities and the two public schools.

The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Kent County Community Center – Conceptual Site Plan Review – The Kent County Community Center Authority requests conceptual site plan review for the Kent County Community Center facility at the Worton Regional Park in the Third Election District.  As currently configured, the facility will include an 18,800 square foot multipurpose recreational / office building, a 6,800 square foot outdoor pool, five multipurpose fields, a new softball field, and a new baseball field.  Approximately 290 parking spaces are provided on site with additional parking available at the park and the adjacent elementary and high school.  The project is surrounded by the Worton Elementary School, Kent County High School, and the Worton Park.  A mix of uses surround the various county facilities including farms, single family dwellings, commercial uses, and the county parks and recreation building.  The property is zoned Village.

Amy Moredock presented the staff report noting the applicable law including Article V, Section 7 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance which lists public buildings and recreational uses as permitted uses in the Village District and sets for the Village design and environmental standards; Article VI, Section 5 establishes the procedures and standards for site plan review.

Staff stated that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  If the text amendment concerning parking is approved by the County Commissioners, the application will conform to county regulations. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic is designed for safe movement around the site.  Adequate parking is available.  The project must receive approval for sewer allocation.  Trees will not be removed. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Kevin Shearon gave a Power Point presentation showing the site plan and aerial photos of the proposed Community Center.  He said public sewer will be extended to Route 297 and he has been working with Wayne Morris, Kent County Department of Water and Wastewater, to obtain an allocation. He stated that some of the stormwater runoff, roof drainage and the water from the back washing of the pool would be captured and re-used to irrigate the sports fields.  Landscaping and lighting plans will be submitted at a later time.  Forest Conservation will be reviewed by the State and 15% reforestation will occur off site. 

Ms. Brown stated that the parking lots look like roads in the front of the building.  She asked why a connective road was being placed in the middle of a parking lot.  Mr. Shearon stated that people need to go from point A to point B, and they are trying to minimize the impervious surface on the site.  He said they would look at the design to see if it can be made safer.  Mr. Hickman asked who would run the project after construction is complete.  Mr. MacLeod said it would operate under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Mr. Sigg gave a Power Point Presentation that outlined the layout of the building and the use of each area.  Reverend Freeman asked about the type of heat proposed for the building.  He asked if solar panels had been considered.  Mr. Shearon stated that they are looking into the different types of heating systems for the building. 

Mr. Lancaster stated that the design of the building appears difficult to construct and to maintain.  Mr. MacLeod stated the County will be hiring a construction manager for this project.   Ms. Brown said they should make sure that there is enough room for future expansion.  Mr. Hickman stated that it appears the fitness area is mainly for children.  He suggested that there be more opportunity for adult fitness in this building.  Mr. MacLeod said that money is an issue.  He said they will discuss this issue in the future.  Since this will be a campus setting; Mr. MacLeod is hopeful that the schools may provide cross services such as weight lifting.  Mr. Hickman stated that all members of the family should have something to do at the Community Center.

Ms. Brown asked if this would be a one story building.  Mr. Sigg stated it would be.  Ms. Brown said if a second floor could be added so the administrative space could be moved to give more room for activity downstairs.  Mr. Lancaster stated that a design which includes a second floor would be more economical.

Ms. Morris asked for comments from the audience.  There were none.

The Planning Commission made the following comments on the concept site plan:

• Driving through the parking lot area may be a safety issue.
• A second floor should be considered so that the entire first floor can be used for recreational purposes.
• Space should be provided for future expansion.
• Restrooms should be accessible for outdoor activities.
• Investigate the possibility of doing the afforestation to create an arboretum for the schools to use.

Dolly Baker – Historic Preservation District – Dolly Baker has submitted a nomination form to have the building located at 11943 Augustine Herman Highway designated as a historic site and listed in the Kent County Register of Historic Places.  The 3-story brick double house is located on a 0.312-acre lot in Kennedyville.  The property is adjacent to other historic buildings and the area is predominately single family residential. 

Carla Gerber presented the staff report noting consistency with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan and Applicable Law Chapter 187 of the Public Local Laws of Kent County. 

Ms. Gerber stated that the house is one of the earliest Kennedyville houses and was constructed by John Kennedy in about 1870-75.  It was inventoried by Marsha Fritz in 1980 and is included in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (K-389).  The MIHP report was attached for the Commission’s review.  Documentation has also been supplied by Ms. Baker which indicates that some of the original features are still intact.   

Staff recommends that a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Commissioners for designation of 11943 Augustine Herman Highway as a historic site.  The Historic Preservation Commission has also reviewed this application and recommends approval. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Present and duly sworn was Dolly Baker.

Ms. Baker testified that this is a massive three story house that was structurally built to be a double house however it is deeded as one house.  She said this house is the first house in Kennedyville to go through this process.  She feels that this property has cultural and historic significance.  She wants to preserve this structure and has been doing rehabilitation work but most of what needs to be done is cosmetic only.

There were no comments from the audience.

After a discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners citing the following:

• This project complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
• It is one of the first properties to be developed in Kennedyville.
• This house is historically significant.
• It is one of only two double houses in Kennedyville.
• It is a three-story double house that was developed by Mr. Kennedy, the founder of Kennedyville.
• The first two stories of this house are the same with the third being different.
• The architecture is reminiscent of Pennsylvania with the double chimney gable with a curtain wall between.

The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

KRM Development – Final Site Plan Review – KRM Development Corporation requests preliminary and final site plan approval for a 27,000 square foot flex space building on their 3.416 acre property on Commerce Road, near Worton, in the Third Election District.  Commerce Road, a county public road, will serve as access to the site.  The building will be approximately 78 feet from the southern property line, 140 feet from the eastern property line, 80 feet from the western property line and the Maryland Department of Transportation easement and approximately 100 feet from the northern property line.  The determination of the front line is subjective and could be considered the 140 foot eastern line or the southern property line.  Both meet the front yard requirements.  If the Planning Commission uses the criteria for corner lots, then the 140 foot eastern line would be considered the front line.  Twenty five parking, nine loading, and eight bicycle spaces are provided.  After development, the site will have 1.653 acres of impervious surfaces or 48% of the property.  Foundation, parking and general landscaping are proposed. 

This is essentially the same plan approved in 2004.  Since construction has not begun and minor modifications to the loading area are proposed, the applicants are back requesting both preliminary and final approval.  The property is zoned Industrial and is surrounded by other industrial properties.  It is currently a field. 

Present and duly sworn was Bobby Thompson.

Amy Moredock presented the staff report noting the history of the project.  She further reviewed the applicable law including the following sections of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance: Article V, Section 15.5 which establishes density, height, width, bulk and fence requirements for the Industrial district; Article V, Section 15.6 which establishes the industrial performance standards; Article V, Section 15.7 which establishes the industrial general standards; Article V, Section 15.8 which establishes the industrial environmental standards; Article V, Section 15.9 which establishes the industrial design standards which address site access, landscaping, screening, and lighting; Article IV, Section 1 which establishes the parking, loading and bicycle parking standards; and Article VI Section 5 which establishes the procedure and standards for site plan review.

Staff stated that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and conforms to the applicable rules and regulations.  Both vehicular and pedestrian movement is adequate on the site.  Off street parking and loading areas exceed the requirements.  Lighting is to be surface-mounted on the building and will be dark sky compatible.  At the time of subdivision the applicants paid into the forest conservation fund as a means to comply with the Forest Conservation Act.  Landscape plans are included in the site plan and are adequate. Staff recommended approval. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Mr. Thompson explained that this is the same as the original plan that that Planning Commission reviewed with the exception of the loading docks.  In the original plan the docks were elevated and in this plan they are not raised and will be drive-in docks.  He stated that everything else has remained the same.

There were no comments from the audience.

After a review of the plans and a brief discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to grant preliminary and final approval citing:

• This is a 27,000 square foot flex space building.
• They have already looked at this plan; however, slight changes have been made which make the proposal better.
• The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposal meets yard requirements and footprint elevations are adequate.
• Forest Conservation was addressed during subdivision by payment into the forest conservation fund.
• Both vehicular and pedestrian movement is adequate on the site.
• Off street parking and loading exceed the requirements.

The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Mitchell Grieb – Concept Site Plan – Mitchell Grieb is requesting concept site plan review for his manufacturing facility on his 2.03 acre lot located on Commerce Lane, Worton Business Park in the Third Election District near Worton.  The parcel is zoned Industrial.  Other industrial uses are in the vicinity – KRM’s flex space building and Alger Oil are across the road and the County will be selling the other 3 lots to business / industrial users.  Velsicol and CFF are nearby.  Grieb Manufacturing’s primary service is contract manufacturing of medical, commercial and industrial products and systems.  The company has been in business since 1969 and Mr. Grieb purchased lot one with the intention of expanding his business to a 9,000 square foot building designed using “green” building principles.  No chemicals or solids are discharged and scrap metal is recycled.  Standard operating hours are 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday thru Thursday.  Currently, Mr. Grieb has seven employees and may expand to 9 or 10 within the next year.  Traffic generated includes one UPS delivery per day, raw material truck deliveries 2 – 3 days per week, and approximately five client / customer / vendor visits per day.

Present and duly sworn was Mitchell Grieb.

Carla Gerber presented the staff report which includes the history of the property.  She noted the applicable law including the Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 15.5 which allows setback requirements to be set during subdivision review; Article V, Section 15.6 which requires any industrial use established after August 1, 1989 to meet the performance standards; Article V, Section 15.8 which establishes environmental standards for the Industrial district for the protection of natural resources; Article V, Section 15.9 which establishes the design standards for site access, parking, lighting and landscaping; and Article VI, Section 5.3.B which contains the list of objectives for the Planning Commission to consider when reviewing site plans.

Ms. Gerber noted that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Vehicle and pedestrian flow has been addressed.  A loading space and an area for outdoor storage / assembly of large items have been included.  The facility will place reasonable demands on public services and infrastructure.  The parcel has public water and sewer, and there will be minimal discharge into the sewer system.  No tree removal is required and landscaping will be provided.  The applicant has given consideration to the building design and its location on the parcel. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Mr. Grieb showed the site plan and stated that this lot is the farthest one back from Route 297.  He showed the building elevations and parking areas along with the outdoor fabrication area.  He stated the outdoor fabrication area will be screened on all sides with an open top.  He said this building almost doubles the size of his current business.

Ms. Brown asked how often the outdoor fabrication area would be used.  Mr. Grieb stated that it would be used rarely. 

Ms. Morris asked for audience comments.

The members of the Planning Commission agreed that this was an appropriate use of the space and they look forward to seeing the preliminary and final submission.

The Planning Commission took a five minute break.

KNR, Inc. – Conceptual Site Plan Review – KNR, Inc. proposes to redevelop the former Crowding’s Store into a 2,560 square foot convenience store.  The approximately 0.4 acre site is on the corner of Route 297 and Porters Grove Road in Worton in the Third Election District.  According to the narrative submitted, the rear portion of the existing building will be demolished and the front portion renovated into a convenience store.  Approximately twelve parking spaces, a trash corral, one loading space, and concrete sidewalks are proposed along with landscaping around the building and in the rear of the property.  A 7,155 square foot building currently sits on the property.  The existing building sits very close to Porters Grove Road and Route 297.  A deed from the Delaware Railroad Company and Penn Central Transportation Company establishes a restriction on the property prohibiting the growth of vegetation and the construction of any buildings or other obstruction on the area designated as long as the railroad is operated at its existing grade which is the same as Route 297.  The purpose of the restriction is to insure that the railway will have a clear and unobstructed view across Route 297.  The property is located at the center of Worton and is surrounded by single family dwellings and commercial uses.  A farm, proposed to be developed as Worton Station – a mixed use development of single family homes and commercial uses is across Porters Grove Road.  The property is zoned Village.

Present and duly sworn were Kevin Shearon, DMS Associates, Jeremy Burge, Buffalo Architects, and Sunil Datta.

Carla Gerber presented the staff report noting the applicable law which includes the Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 7.5 which establishes the density, height, area, and yard requirements for the Village District; Article V, Section 7.7 which establishes the environmental standards; Article V, Section 7.8A and B which set forth the general design standards; Article 7.8C which sets forth the Village Specific Design Standards; and Article VI, Section 5 which sets forth the standards for conceptual site plan review.

Staff noted that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  The commercial area is within the area identified in the draft Village Master Plan as appropriate for commercial uses.  If the entire business is demolished, then a variance will be needed for the front and side yard requirements.  A waiver of the amount of parking is required.  Staff has some concerns about movement along Porters Grove Road unless significant improvements are made to the area.  Impacts to infrastructure include some traffic on Porters Grove Road and water/sewer usage.  Building designs and landscaping plans need to be developed in a manner to integrate the development into the community.  The applicant needs to clarify the proposal – renovate or rebuild?

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Kevin Shearon testified that this is a renovation not a rebuild.  He said it is an adaptive reuse of the existing building.  He stated the property is bound on three sides by a right of way.  The existing footprint is 7,155 square feet and the renovated footprint will be 2,560 square feet.  Mr. Shearon said that the parking would be to the rear of the building and a State Highway Administration approved curb would be in front of the building and down Porter’s Grove Road.  This will limit access to and from the site.  There will be 11 parking spaces, which is 2 short of the Ordinance.  Mr. Shearon stated that with the customers coming and going this will be enough parking.  He said there will be two accesses into the building.  They will be working with Water and Wastewater for the allocations needed.  Mr. Shearon stated that the business will sell convenience type items, no food sales or food preparation will be done.  He said there was an MTA easement placed on the property during the 1970’s.  He has a meeting scheduled with MTA to discuss this easement.  This is a no building or vegetation easement for the visibility purposes of rail traffic.  Mr. Shearon showed the building elevations.  He said they do not meet the setbacks and are asking for an adaptive reuse.  He said that this site plan qualifies as a minor site plan however the Planning Staff asked that it be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Ms. Morris asked what type of items would be sold from this business.  Mr. Datta said they would be convenience store type items.  Reverend Freeman asked if beer or wine would be sold.  Mr. Datta stated they would.  Ms. Brown asked if food would be sold.  Mr. Datta stated that packaged food only; there will be no food preparation or cooking done on site. 

Mr. Lancaster asked why the design shows a flat roof.  Mr. Berg stated that was to accommodate the HVAC components.  Ms. Brown asked how the building would be renovated.  Mr. Shearon stated that the existing building will remain with partial demolition.  Mr. Sutton asked how far it is from Route 297 to the parking lot entrance.  Mr. Shearon replied it is approximately 140 feet.  Ms. Brown asked if there is an existing entrance from Porter’s Grove Road.  Mr. Shearon stated that black top continues right up to the front door of the building.  Ms. Morris asked how they anticipated unloading trucks when the parking spaces are full.  Mr. Shearon said the trucks would either have to back onto or off the property.  Ms. Brown stated she thinks this could be a problem.  Mr. Hickman asked if there would be signs such as beer signs in the windows.  He said he did not feel this is a good idea since children will be across the road at the park.  Ms. Brown asked how far the building is from the front property line.  Mr. Shearon said it is currently 20 feet from the front line and 11 feet on each side.

Ms. Morris asked for audience comments.

John Nunn asked if this is a reconstruction.  He said the Ordinance states it can be rebuilt only if destroyed by an act of God, explosion, etc.

Mr. Mowell stated it is a repair not a reconstruction. 

Bill Crowding stated that Porter’s Grove Road is an 18 foot wide road that floods every time it rains.  He feels that trucks will pull off wherever they want, not necessarily in the back.  He said he is concerned about the traffic in this community and the location of a beer store near a Community Center and Church.

Ms. Brown said she thinks they should consider this a rebuild and go for a variance. The Planning Commission made the following comments on the conceptual site plan:

• The location for loading needs to be reviewed to provide additional areas for deliveries
• Review parking and circulation on the site.
• While traffic may not increase, safe ingress and egress must be provided.  In designing the entrances to the site, the applicant should consider the site’s location on the corner of a busy intersection.

Brian and Anne O’Connor – Buffer Variance – The O’Connors request a variance to construct a 528 square foot garage within the 100 foot Critical Area Buffer.  The 0.616 acre property is located on Sunnyside Avenue in the Fifth Election District.  The parcel is zoned Critical Area Residential and is surrounded by a mixture of one and two story homes on small parcels, as well as agricultural land.  This parcel is located along a small tidal stream which is a tributary of Grays Inn Creek.  The stream included substantial tidal wetlands and the buffer is set from the edge of the wetlands.  The parcel is located almost entirely within the one hundred foot Critical Area Buffer. 

Amy Moredock presented the staff report noting the history and applicable law which includes the Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 5.5 which requires the minimum yard; Article V, Section 5.7.B3 which addresses development in the buffer; Article V, Section 5.7.B3 which addresses expansion of existing dwellings in the modified buffer; Article V, Section 5.7.B.7 which addresses impervious surface; and Article IX, Section 2.2 which authorizes the Board of Appeals to grant variances from buffer requirements so as to relieve the practical difficulties or other injustices arising out of the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance.

Staff recommended denial of the buffer variance.  If the board is inclined to grant approval, then staff recommended, as a condition of approval, a water quality mitigation plan will be provided by the applicants when applying for a building permit. 

Present and duly sworn was Brian O’Conner.

Correspondence was received from the Critical Area Commission who opposed the construction of the garage. 

Mr. O’Connor stated when he built his house he had intended to purchase adjoining property but was unable to do so. He noted that garages were common to the neighborhood and presented a list of other homes with garages in the area.  He stated that he has reduced the size of the porch, thereby leaving him with 192 square feet that was previously approved but not constructed.  Mr. O’Connor stated that the building will be a garage only and will have no rooms upstairs.  He stated that, while the dwelling has not received its certificate of occupancy, the house is ninety percent complete. 

Reverend Freeman asked if the house was currently for sale.  Mr. O’Connor stated that it was.

Ms. Morris asked for comments from the audience.

Bill Crowding stated he had done the original survey for this property.  He said most of it is a mud flat and rarely has water on it.  He feels it would be better to have cars and lawn mowers in a garage than sitting out in the Critical Area Buffer.

After a discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals finding:

• Granting the buffer variance will not cause a substantial detriment to the property nor will it change the character of the district.
• The unwarranted hardship was not caused by the applicant’s own actions and exists as the nature of the property.
• The buffer variance does not reflect minimization of impact to the buffer.
• The Comprehensive Plan encourages the protection of the buffer, retention of riparian forests and enhancement of water quality.
• Denial of the variance will not deny the applicant of a use of land or a structure permitted to others in accordance with the provisions of the critical area program.
• If the variance is approved on-site water quality mitigation is needed and should be addressed during the permitting process.

Poore’s Propane / Andover River Acres – Special Exception - Poore’s Propane requests a special exception for the operation of a public utility in the form of propane storage and distribution to residences of the Andover Acre Subdivision.  In 2004, Petroleum Equipment, Inc. trading as Poore’s Propane, entered into an agreement with John M. Stoltzfus of Andover River Acres, LLC to supply propane to all lots within the Andover River Acres subdivision through a centralized facility located adjacent to Lot 13 in the open space area.  Poore’s Propane has installed four 2,000 gallon underground storage tanks within a fenced compound of approximately 30 feet by 40 feet.  The piping is to be located within the 10 foot utility that runs along the road right-of-way and consists of 2 inch pipes.  According to the plat, there are 6 road crossings of the gas lines.  According to the agreement, Mr. Stoltzfus wanted to: 1) reduce then number of propane tank trucks coming into the community; 2) eliminate the potential hazards of individual propane tanks and numerous suppliers; and 3) control the location of the propane tanks.

The facility meets the definition of an “LPG system” found in Title 20, Public Service Commission, Subtitle 56, Liquefied Petroleum Gas System of the code of Maryland Regulations.  An LPG system “means and LPG service installation located in Maryland which provides services to ten or more customers or to ten or more separate residential dwelling units required to comply with the provisions of 49 CFR 191, “Transportation of Natural or Other Gas by Pipeline; Annual Reports and Incident Reports”, and 49 CFR 191, “Regulations for the Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline; Minimum Federal Safety Standards”.

Staff noted that the concept of a centralized propane system might make sense.  There should be fewer trucks using roads and it may be more convenient for homeowners who wish to have gas appliances.  However, there may be greater risk of broken lines if their location is not clearly known, especially from homeowners without gas who may not realize the line still runs along the front of their lots.  In addition, the location of the tanks may not be the best site in the subdivision because it is not well screened or hidden.

Correspondence was received from Susan Smith and Patricia Linsheck.  Ms. Smith was present and will read her letter.  Ms. Linsheck’s letter opposing this application was read into the record.

Present and duly sworn Chip MacLeod, attorney for Poore’s Propane, Don Alexander and Michael Steiner.

Mr. MacLeod stated that LP gas is a highly regulated business.  He said the definition of a public utility leaves out storage and gas lines.  Mr. Mowell said if it is not listed in the Ordinance then it is prohibited.  After a brief discussion it was decided to proceed with the hearing.

Mr. MacLeod said there are four storage tanks, each is 24 feet long and holds 2,000 gallons.   Since the site is visited approximately once per month this has no impact on traffic in the area.  He stated that the agreement says every homeowner who uses propane shall use Poore’s.  The developer is supposed to inform everyone who purchases a home of this agreement.  He said he agrees there should be landscaping to shield this site.  There is no impact on community services.  He stated there is a risk of fire however the Maryland Public Service Commission inspects these tanks on a regular basis. 

Mr. Alexander said the Maryland Public Service Commission does inspections as the lines are being installed and inspects the site once each year.  Mr. Steiner said they are held to the same standards as natural gas.  Mr. MacLeod stated that they have requested copies of the inspection records and they should have them for the Board of Appeals hearing. 

Mr. Alexander stated that they assumed the developer had applied for and received all necessary permits for this job.  Mr. Alexander stated that all safety permits were obtained; however, the zoning permit was overlooked. 

Ms. Morris asked for audience comments.

Susan Smith read her letter that had been submitted to the Planning Commission.  She opposes this application for many reasons.  She feels that Poore’s should have obtained all necessary permits before burying any lines or storage tanks.  Since this was not done she fears for the safety of the residents of Andover River Acres.  She opposes the storage tanks being placed in an area designated as open space. 

Steven Copp stated that the Ordinance states that petroleum storage must be 200 feet from the property line.  He asked if propane is petroleum.  He said he is opposed to this application.   Ms. Owings stated that the 200 foot rule applies to petroleum storage of up to 10,000 gallons on farms in the Agricultural Zoning District. 

Cheryl Smith stated that she is opposed to the application.  She said she contacted the Public Service Commission and was told they have no jurisdiction over propane businesses.  Mr. Alexander said the Public Service Commission inspected the lines before they were turned on.  Mr. MacLeod said they will obtain the information from the Public Service Commission.

Suzanne McKee asked if Miss Utility had been provided information on the propane lines in Andover River Acres.  Mr. Alexander stated that they always provide information to Miss Utility and mark lines for them whenever asked to do so.

Chris McKee asked how someone would know if the lines are leaking underground.  Mr. Alexander stated there are already established systems like this that have not had a problem.  He said they have complied with all of the Public Service Commission regulations.

Mr. MacLeod said this applicant is not responsible for the residents not being told about the agreement.  Mr. Mowell stated he doesn’t believe what has been proposed meets the definition of public utility and therefore is not a special exception. 

After a discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals citing:

o        The Planning Commission does not believe that the distribution and storage of propane fits the definition of public utility.

o        There are no requirements for a Special Exception for propane distribution and storage and does not qualify under the current regulations.

o        If the Board of Appeals approves this application they should be aware that this was not reviewed as part of the subdivision to decide where the best place is and provided no guidance as to distances or other requirements.

o        There is no guidance as to if this the most appropriate use of the land.

o        This is an existing situation and no input was allowed by the Planning Commission.

The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Staff Reports:

Gail Owings –

• There will be a joint Planning Commission meeting with the Town of Chestertown on March 10, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the Chestertown Municipal Building.
• The Maryland Association of Counties and the Critical Area Commission are trying to work out a compromise on the Critical Area Bill.  The Bill will strengthen the Critical Area enforcement by allowing the county to pursue enforcement action against contractors.
• Randall Arendt will be at Washington College on March 25, 2008 to do a presentation on “Reclaiming the Strip”.
• Kent County is undertaking a comprehensive review of the Water and Sewer Plan.  The County will hold a kick-off meeting on March 20, 2008 at 9:00 A.M. in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room.
• Drip irrigation at Drayton Manor was approved by MDE.  

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

 __________________________________ 

 Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman 

___________________________________

Kim Dixon, Clerk

Home | Business | Community | Government | Top

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