KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND
PLANNING AND ZONING

The Kent County Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, June 5, 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; Rev. Ruben Freeman; F. Joseph Hickman; Marcy Brown, Jay P. Lancaster; Gail W. Owings, Planning Director; Carla Gerber, Community Planner; Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner; G. Mitchell Mowell, Planning Commission Attorney and Kim Dixon, Secretary.

Chairman Morris called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.

Review of the Bylaws -

The Planning Commission deferred the review of the bylaws until the July 2008 meeting.

MINUTES 

The Minutes of the April 3, 2008, April 22, 2008 and May 1, 2008 were approved as written.

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

County Commissioners of Kent County –County Community Center – The Kent County Community Center Authority requests preliminary site plan approval for the 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 schools. The project is surrounded by the Worton Elementary School, Kent County High School, and the Worton Park.  A mix of uses surrounds the various county facilities including farms, single family dwellings, commercial uses, and the county parks and recreation building.  The property is zoned Village.

Present and duly sworn were Kevin Shearon, DMS and Associates; Bill Seige and Ernie Olds, Becker Morgan Associates, and Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner. 

Amy Moredock presented the staff report which includes the applicable law: Kent County Land Use Ordinance, Article V, Section 7. which lists public buildings and recreational uses as permitted uses in the Village District, establishes the environmental standards including the requirements for forest conservation, habitat, stormwater management and water quality, and sets forth the design standards including building mass and scale, landscaping, access and lighting.  She also noted Article VI, Section 1.3 and Section V which establishes parking requirements, parking lot design criteria and the procedures and standards for site plan review.

Staff noted that the applicants provided preliminary landscaping in the parking lot and around the building. Specifics regarding numbers of plantings must be identified prior to final review.  The State has referred the forest conservation review to the County.  A simplified forest stand delineation has been submitted.  The applicant must identify methods of afforestation prior to final site plan review.  If the text amendment concerning parking is approved, the application will conform to county regulations.  The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic should ensure safe movement around the site.  Adequate parking is available.  Lighting should be dark sky compatible. 

Mr. Shearon stated they are working with the Board of Education to use the same entrance as Worton Elementary School.  A sidewalk will connect the Community Center to the Elementary School.  The proposed road will continue and connect with the High School parking lot.  Mr. Shearon said a stormwater pond will be constructed and the roof runoff and the back wash from the pool will go into a cistern.  He said the runoff will be stored and used to water the athletic fields.

Ms. Brown asked if the applicants considered alternative stormwater practices such as rain gardens.  Mr. Shearon stated yes, but the pond is needed to handle the amount of runoff and only a few areas of the pond will stay wet.  It will function as a wetland.  The pond will also handle some of the run off from the High School property.  Mr. Sutton stated he is concerned that the stormwater pond will not be maintained properly.  Mr. Shearon replied that it is designed to be a shallow pond, which requires less maintenance. 

Mr. Shearon described the proposed afforestation plan noting that the county is reviewing its options for the required planting of 4.2 acres.  One option is to afforest the Kennedyville Lagoon site.  Other county properties are being reviewed.  He said the landscaping plan has been submitted.  Ms. Brown asked if they had considered doing areas of plantings near the schools.  Mr. Shearon stated that forest conservation planting requires a long-term deed restriction that may not be acceptable to the Board of Education.  Ms. Morris stated the schools should be asked if they would like to have the planted areas.  Mr. Shearon stated they would discuss this with the schools.  Ms. Brown stated the schools may want an arboretum.  Ms. Moredock stated there are no regulations regarding the creation of an arboretum. 

Mr. Sutton asked if the shared entrance is because the Elementary School parking lot was being redone.  Mr. Shearon stated entrance improvements are on the fast rack so the project will be finished before school begins in the fall.  Ms. Morris stated she is concerned about the entrance being shared with the school.  Mr. Shearon stated there would be an extra turn lane and the entrance will be widened. 

Ms. Morris said she is also concerned about the roadways being between the rows of vehicle parking.  Mr. Shearon replied that to separate the roads from the parking area would increase the cost.  People will know it is a parking lot and will slow down and signs will be provided to encourage safety.  A drop-off area in the front of the building and handicap spaces will be provided next to the sidewalks.  The project includes room for future expansion.  Mr. Sutton said if more square footage is added to the building then more parking will be needed. 

Mr. Olds showed a diagram of Phase 1 noting the pool and bathrooms by the pool.  People using the athletic fields can also use the bathrooms.  He showed the lay out of the building and explained the use of each area.  If a second floor is included then a stairway, elevator and bathrooms are required.  Due to these requirements, the building gains only a few hundred square feet by adding the second floor.  As the project moves to construction, parks and recreation will review the use of each space.

Mr. Seige explained that green techniques will be used in this building, including the reclamation of the water, the use of natural lighting in many areas, low water use fixtures, use of geothermal energy sources and constructing the countertops with recycled material. 

Mr. Hickman asked if there will be fitness areas for adult use.  Mr. Olds said the Department of Parks and Recreation is deciding what programs to offer. 

Mr. Sutton asked for an estimate of the basic operating costs.  Mr. Olds replied that the Community Center Authority is reviewing both the operating cost and potential income.

Ms. Morris asked for comments from the audience.

Bill Crowding, being duly sworn, said he is a resident off Worton and is worried about the traffic in the area.  People will come to the Community Center from all over the County creating additional traffic.  Roads in this area need to be upgraded.

John Nunn, being duly sworn, said the Community Center Authority is currently looking at the needs of the Department of Parks and Recreation.  One-third of the cost will be site work.  The schools are depending on the stormwater pond to control water from their parking lots.  The schools will provide additional parking for the Community Center. 

Craig O’Donnell, Kent County News, asked if the Planning Commission had read the letters from the Mayors.  Ms. Owings stated they had not received any letters from the Mayors.

Ms. Brown asked what the Roads Department has to say about handling the traffic created by this project.  Ms. Owings said the State Highway Administration, which has submitted comments, maintains the main routes.  Ms. Brown said the other roads in the area might not be able to handle more traffic.  She asked what would happen to the Worton Arena if the Community Center were built.  John Nunn said that would be a question to ask the County Commissioners. 

Mr. Lancaster said the idea that this is a good building design is ludicrous.  He said he thinks the Planning Commission should be worried about how much tax money is being spent and they should be really concerned about traffic in the area. 

Mr. Hickman said the County Commissioners decide what money to spend.  He said he is worried about the children walking to the site. 

Reverend Freeman said the senior citizens need more activities at the proposed community center.  He said traffic in the area needs to be studied closely because no sidewalks exist in Butlertown.

Mr. Sutton said the County Government has decided to move forward with this project and it is the Planning Commission’s job to help get a good design.  He feels this project will move forward and is concerned about the cost of operations and utilities of the facility. 

Ms. Brown asked if the Planning Commission is concerned enough about traffic in the area to hold up this project.  Mr. Sutton asked when they would like to begin construction.  Mr. Olds said they would like to begin in early fall of this year. He said the entrance must be completed before school begins this fall.  Ms. Brown said she is concerned about the feeder and collector roads in the area.  She thinks the County Commissioners need to know traffic is going to be an issue. 

After a lengthy discussion, Ms. Brown made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval finding:

• Landscaping species needs to be identified.
• A Forest Conservation Plan must be submitted for final approval.
• The project will need a sewer allocation and water use figures. 
• Water quality analysis needs to be completed for final approval.
• The text amendment has been passed and will go into effect in 45 days.
• State Highway Administration Entrance Permit will be required.
• The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is within the campus like setting of other public facilities in the area.
• The Comprehensive Plan says there is a need for new community recreational centers.
• Vehicle, pedestrian and bike traffic needs to be reviewed.
• There needs to be a bike way around the site.
• 376 parking spaces are required and 290 have been provided.  The parking provided is adequate since parking is available at the adjacent schools.
• Lighting must be dark sky compatible.
• The connector road should not be through the center of the parking lot.
• Some of the onsite parking should not be on impervious surface.
• Space for future expansion has been provided.
• A second floor on the building is not warranted due to the cost involved.
• There needs to be activities for a wide range of age groups.
• The size of the stormwater management area will accommodate the overflow of the cisterns and runoff of the surrounding schools.
• Restrooms have been provided for use with the outdoor fields.
• Applicant will contact the schools regarding the construction of an arboretum.
• Community recreation center is a permitted use in the Village District.
• There are no rare or endangered species on the site.
• Sediment control and stormwater management plans are under review.
• Traffic calming devices need to be shown on the final site plan.
• Project should be constructed as efficiently as possible.
• Connector road should not go through the front parking lot.

The motion was seconded by Reverend Freeman and passed by a vote of 4 to 1.  Mr. Lancaster was the only opposing vote.

Our Home in the Country LLC – Diana Flakes, Our Home in the Country, LLC, requests final site plan approval to construct an assisted living facility at 25667 West Hill Road in Coleman.  The 0.852-acre parcel is zoned village and the surrounding area is characterized by single-family residences.  The Board of Appeals granted approval of the Special Exception with conditions.

Present and duly sworn were Carla Gerber, Community Planner and Diana Flakes.

Ms. Gerber presented the staff report noting the applicable law: Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article VI, Section 5.3.B that contains a list of objectives for the Planning Commission to consider when reviewing site plans.

Staff noted that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Tom Speakman has prepared a landscaping plan with red maples and white pines along the front property line, a variety of foundation plants around the building, and arborvitae as a screen for the driveway.  Staff recommends replacing the ‘Thuja’ green giant with a native species.  A letter of credit has not been submitted.  A twenty-foot driveway has been shown on the site plan. Parking has been located on the western side of the proposed building and four parking spaces are shown; an area for outdoor recreation has been provided in the back yard.  Staff recommends that one or two shade trees be planted in this area.  Staff recommends approval contingent upon submission of a letter of credit for landscaping and recordation of the adjustment of lot lines. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Ms. Flakes, being duly sworn, stated she agrees with the staff report.  She said there will be a light between the building and the recreation area.  She stated trees will be planted in the recreation area.  Letters of Credit will be submitted and the Lot Line Adjustment will be recorded.  She said there will be handicap ramp.

There were no comments from the audience.

After a brief discussion, Mr. Hickman made a motion to grant final site plan approval citing:

• The project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
• The site plan conforms to the applicable regulations.
• The existing road can handle the additional traffic.
• The amount of parking provided is adequate.
• There will be no unreasonable demands on public infrastructures.
• There will be landscaping provided onsite.
• There will be no tree removal.
• Landscaping will be developed to further include native species.
• The applicant has tried to integrate the facility into the neighborhood.
• Letters of Credit for the landscaping must be submitted.
• Outdoor lighting should be dark sky compatible.
• Staff will review the final floor plan and elevations
• Lot Line Adjustment has been recorded.

The motion was seconded by Reverend Freeman and approved unanimously.

Frederick T. Lohr, et ux. – Road Waiver – Frederick Lohr is requesting a road waiver to allow a private road with more than five abutting properties having access to the road.  The 101.06 acre farm is located on Fairlee Creek.  The applicant wishes to subdivide the farm into three parcels and provide access by a private road.  The farm, proposed waterfront lots, and five existing lots currently utilize an existing right of way.  The farm is zoned Resource Conservation District and Agricultural Zoning District, and the surrounding area is characterized by fields, forest and residential development. Currently, six lots access the existing private road.  The proposed subdivision brings the total number of lots serviced by the existing right of way to eight.

Present and duly sworn was Amy Moredock, Environmental Planner; Michael A. Scott, Surveyor; and Frederick Lohr.

Ms. Moredock reviewed the staff report including the applicable law: Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 1.8.B.3 which establishes the criteria for private roads; Article IX, Section 3 which authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a waiver of the private road requirements so as to relieve extraordinary hardship or other injustices arising out of the strict application of these provisions.

Staff noted that the existing right of way is currently used to access six residential parcels including the farm.  The County Engineer supports using the existing right of way / road over installing a new lane and requests a right of way for a cul-de-sac at the end of the lane.  The proposed subdivision will create the eighth parcel with access to the private road.  Mr. Lohr is requesting a waiver to allow the private road on his property with a 50 foot right of way and cul-de-sac at the end of the lane.  The waiver will not cause a substantial determent to neighboring properties.  It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the general intent of the Land Use Ordinance.  The strict application of these provisions would result in inhibiting the achievement of the gorals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.  The existing lane and proposed parcels are located in the Critical Area; it is desirable to minimize impervious surfaces in the Critical Area.  Adding additional road surface would create further impervious surface onsite. 

Staff recommends approval contingent upon approval of a road maintenance agreement by the Planning Commission attorney.  The Road Maintenance Agreement should be recorded with the final plat. 

There was no correspondence in this matter.

Mr. Scott testified that Mr. Lohr would like to subdivide two lots from his property.  These would be the only lots left in the Critical Area of this property.  He said it does not make any sense to construct another road right next to the current road just to access these two lots.

Mr. Lohr stated he had contacted some of his neighbors and they agree that it would be better to use this road and not create another road.  He said he doesn’t think it makes sense to construct an additional road.  He said he meets the requirements as set forth by the Ordinance. 

Ms. Brown asked about the new critical area laws.  Ms. Moredock explained that new lots in the critical area will have a two hundred foot buffer.  Ms. Owings stated that since this application was submitted before July 1, 2008, these lots would have a one hundred foot buffer if recorded within a certain specified time. 

Mr. Hickman asked if Mr. Lohr is ready to install the cul-de-sac.  He said these lots are being subdivided so his children will have a place to build a home if they decide.  Ms. Owings stated that the road waiver could be extended for a period of time longer than one year. 

After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Lancaster made a motion to grant the road waiver citing:

o       There are currently six lots using the road and there will be eight lots using it after the subdivision.

o       The applicant must adhere to all regulations of the Kent County Public Works Department.

o       There will be no substantial determent to the surrounding neighborhood.

o       This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

o       The hardship is caused because there is an existing road that leads to the existing six lots and to build another road next to this one would take up more agricultural land and land in the critical area. 

o       Approval will be granted for a two year period.

o       Denial of this application would inhibit the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

o       The road will be a fifty foot wide private road.

o       A Road Maintenance Agreement must be recorded.

o       The initial five lot subdivision was done prior to 1940

Reverend Freeman seconded the motion and it was approved with a vote of six in favor and one against.  Ms. Brown cast the opposing vote.

The Planning Commission took a five minute break

Tyson Janney – Variance – Mr. Janney requests a variance to construct a single family dwelling within the one hundred foot Critical Area Buffer.  The 0.36 acre property is located on Quaker Neck Road / Maryland Route 289 in the Seventh Election District.  The property is zoned Critical Area Residential, and is located along the Chester River Yacht and Country Club Lake.  The totally wooded parcel is currently undeveloped and located entirely within the one hundred foot Critical Area Buffer.  It should be noted that any amount of impervious surface and/or disturbance on this lot requires a variance as the entire lot is located within the Critical Area Buffer.  The footprint of the proposed dwelling is situated approximately 18 feet from the Lake and 29 feet from the road.  The applicant’s proposal appears to meet the current impervious surface limitations for a parcel of its size (31.25% of lot area equals 4,901 square feet; the applicant proposes 8 % or 1,350 square feet of total impervious area.)  The proposed disturbed area totals 2,260 square feet (14.4%) and area of proposed clearing totals 3,076 square feet (19.6%).  The surrounding area is zoned Critical Area Residential, Resource Conservation District, Community Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is characterized by waterfront homes along Quaker Neck Road, the Country Club Estates Subdivision and Quaker Estates with a mixture of one and two story homes and agricultural land and the Chester River Yacht and Country Club.

Present and duly sworn were Amy Moredock, Environment Planner; C. Daniel Saunders, Attorney for the Applicant; and Tyson Janney.

Ms. Moredock presented the staff report noting the applicable law: Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 5.5 which requires the minimum yard; Article V, Section 2.7.B3a which addresses development in the buffer; and Article IX, Section 2.2 which authorizes the Board of Appeals to grant variances from buffer requirements so as to relieve practical difficulties or other injustices arising out of the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance.

Staff noted that this proposal is similar in nature and setback to the previous application for a variance on this property submitted by Mr. Janney which was denied in 2007 (the proposed footprint in 2007 was approximately 1,370 square feet and the current proposed footprint is 1,350 square feet).  The variance may cause a substantial detriment to neighboring properties, and may change the character of the district as the parcel is located adjacent to the Lake and within a bend in Quaker Neck Road, thus impacting a significant viewshed.  The Comprehensive Plan encourages the protection of scenic viewsheds and the maintenance of buffers.  The proposal should minimize its impact on the buffer and viewshed.  The proposed dwelling’s proximity to the Lake will have an impact on the water quality and habitat.  The applicant has not specified the height of the proposed dwelling.  The proposed construction project results in the removal of nearly 20 percent of the vegetation onsite which does not reflect a minimization of impact on existing forest and habitat.

The parcel is located within the 100 Year Floodplain (flood zone A6, flood elevation 7 feet); therefore, any proposed dwelling must meet floodplain elevation regulations which, among other items, will require the dwelling to be elevated to a minimum of eight feet.  The result of this requirement, in addition to a multi-story dwelling proposal, will be a cumbersome structure in the bend of Quaker Neck Road.  Staff feels that the size and bulk of the proposed multi-story dwelling should minimize impact on the neighborhood.  The proposal should minimize its request for a buffer variance by requesting a modest deck on the Lakeside of the dwelling and moving the dwelling farther from the dam location of the Lake and closer to the south side lot line.

Denial of the application as presented does not deny the applicant of uses generally shared by neighboring property owners.  This location along Quaker Neck Road marks a transition between the Country Club Estates subdivision and the community around Wilkins Lane.  Multi-story dwellings in the vicinity are located on parcels with sufficient acreage and setbacks from the road; while one or one and a half story dwellings tend to be situated on smaller parcels in the area.

The entire parcel is located within the buffer; therefore an unwarranted hardship exists.

Staff recommends denial. If the Board is inclined to approve the application, then the approval should be contingent upon the following 1) Mitigation of 3:1 for disturbance within the buffer should be required consisting of native trees and shrubs; 2) Stormwater runoff from proposed dwelling should be directed to stable vegetation in the form of rain gardens (biorretention areas) and / or rain barrels; 3) Pea gravel shall be placed beneath the proposed deck.

Correspondence was received from the Critical Area Commission expressing opposition to the granting of a variance.

Mr. Saunders stated that the applicant will provide more information regarding the impact of this project than presented in the last submission.  He said that Mr. Janney has owned the property since 1970 and his aunt had owned it since 1941.  Mr. Saunders explained that the property is 1/3 acre in size that has been served by public sewer since 1986.  The proposed house is smaller than any other house in the neighborhood.  Other properties in the area are larger than this property.  He explained that the unique size and shape of the property which is entirely in the one hundred percent in the buffer creates an unwarranted hardship.  The question remains, “Are the Janney’s denied reasonable use of their lot?”  This project would be infill development.  The house can be built at grade parking is not proposed under the proposed house.  Vehicles will be parked on a pad alongside the house.  Proposed decks on the water side of this are smaller on this proposal than the first proposal.  This is a one and one-half story structure and they are not requesting to construct accessory buildings. 

Mr. Shearon said the site is limited to twenty percent forest clearing.  They have identified the larger trees on the site.  The only canopy of the trees removed will be the location of the dwelling.   This lot was created prior to 1985. The impervious surface limit is 31.25%.  Ms. Moredock stated that would change soon with the new critical area laws.  Mr. Shearon stated they would stay within 15% impervious surfaces.  The current “pull off” located on the property will be returned to pervious surface. Gravel dry wells will be created for stormwater management.  Pea gravel with perforated pipes will be used around the driveway for drainage.  The lot is partially in the floodplain; however, the dwelling would be located outside the floodplain.  Ms. Moredock said some of the house is in the floodplain.  Mr. Shearon said they will elevate the house to eight feet so that they can meet floodplain regulations. 

Mr. Saunders stated they have attempted to find the smallest footprint possible.  He said the State Highway Administration has approved the entrance permit.  He explained they are stuck with a small lot and they cannot change that.  Mr. Saunders showed pictures of other houses in the neighborhood that are located on small lots.  They have done everything reasonable to minimize their request.  If the County wants to own this lot, they are willing to sell it.   However if they want the Janney’s to own it and pay taxes they should be able to use the land.  Mr. Saunders says without the granting of a variance the County has taken this property without compensation. 

Mr. Janney said he took the comments from the previous meetings and addressed each issue.  He said he is open to constructive criticism. 

Ms. Brown asked the length and width of the dwelling. Mr. Shearon said it would be 22 x 55.  Ms Moredock stated the plans submitted show the footprint as 33 x 55.

Ms. Morris asked how much the level of the lake changes.  Mr. Shearon said it is tidal but mostly runoff and it generally stays the same. 

Mr. Lancaster asked if the Critical Area law supersedes the grandfather clause.  Mr. Mowell stated that if it was buildable before the critical area law, it is still buildable.  Ms. Owings said this lot was an existing lot; however it may not have been a buildable lot.  Mr. Saunders said it doesn’t say it has to be a buildable lot, it only says it must be an existing lot. 

Ms. Brown asked for the required setbacks.  Ms. Moredock said the proposed front setback is 18.9 feet, the required is 100 feet.  She said the proposed rear is 29 feet and the required is 30 feet.  She said they meet the side setbacks. 

Ms. Morris asked for comments from the audience. 

Page Barroll, being duly sworn, stated the property does not have public water.  She is concerned about the lake, trees, nature and cars on the road.  She said she is opposed to the approval of this application.  Ms. Brown asked if Ms. Barroll’s house had flooded.  Ms. Barroll said no she has had no flooding.  Ms. Brown asked if Ms. Barroll lives in the house on the property next to the Janney property.  Ms. Barroll stated she does not, she lives in Lutherville Maryland.

Darlene Housley, being duly sworn, testified she is worried about the safety on Quaker Neck Road.  She said two people have been killed near her driveway and this is a dangerous curve.  She said she does not agree with the Maryland State Highway’s approval of the entrance permit.  She said she agrees with Ms. Barroll.  She said the Janney’s should not be allowed to build on this lot.  She said the lot should be taken off the buildable lot list.

Mr. Saunders stated the Janney’s need a variance to build anything on this property.  To deny this variance would be taking of their land. 

Mr. Janney stated he has taken reasonable steps to minimize the disturbance on this lot.  He said he has done everything humanly possible to minimize any impact.

After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Hickman made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals finding:

• The proposal will be nineteen feet from the front property line.
• The proposal will be twenty nine feet from the rear property line.
• The proposal meets the side setbacks.
• There will be no substantial determent to neighboring properties.
• The proposal is in character with other houses in the area.
• The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it is an infill lot.
• The practical difficulty is the size and shape of the property.  The unwarranted hardship is due to the fact that the entire property is within the minimum 100 foot Critical Area Buffer.
• The proposal is in harmony with the Critical Area law and the regulations of Kent County.
• The project will not adversely affect water quality or wildlife.
• The Critical Area Commission has commented on this proposal.
• Disturbance of the buffer should be mitigated at 3:1.
• The applicant should use rain barrels and storage facilities.
• Pea gravel should be used under the decks.

Mr. Lancaster seconded the motion and it was approved by a three to one vote.  Ms. Brown voted to oppose this motion.

Chestertown Annexation Proposal – Northeast Annexation – The Chestertown Planning Commission has forwarded for Planning Commission review, the proposed “Northeast Annexation,” which consists of several parcels totaling approximately 182 acres along Route 213 northeast of the Town of Chestertown.  The properties are currently owned by Arthur Foster, the Heritage Capital Partner Group, Trinity Evangelical Church, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, and Joan Baxter.  The proposed properties are currently agricultural land and forest.  The properties are currently zoned Intense Village, Rural Residential and Commercial.  If the Town approves the annexation request as submitted, the applicants request a zoning change in the area currently zoned Rural Residential to R-5, Multiple Family Residential District, which will increase the permitted housing density by more than 50 percent from one dwelling unit per three acres to twelve dwelling units per acre and change the type of permitted dwelling units from single family to multi-family.  This increase will require a waiver of the five-year rule.  The area currently zoned Intense Village is also proposed to be R-5, which will reflect an increase in zoning which is also a fifty percent increase in permitted density (8 dwelling units per acre to 12).  The areas zoned Commercial is proposed to be General Commercial.  An amended request, as suggested in Resolution #1, will still result in significant changes in the type and number of dwellings permitted. 

Agricultural and forest land surrounds the site to the north, east and northwest.  The Leaverton Farm, separated by one parcel from the proposed annexation (approximately 250 feet at the closest point) is protected by a Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation easement.  The Fry Farm across Route 213 from the site is in an agricultural preservation district but has not sold an easement.  Commercial and residential uses surround the southern portions of the proposed annexation. 

Ms. Owings reviewed the staff report noting the new annexation law and history of the property. Staff noted that this proposed annexation could permit development at substantially higher densities and a change in uses than is currently permitted.  Therefore, the five-year rule would apply.  The Chestertown Planning Commission discussed this proposal at several meetings.  A copy of the minutes of the last meeting were attached for the Planning Commission’s review.

Staff notes that the annexation plan is quite vague but includes positive elements such as a pacing element limiting development to ten percent of the total units per year.  Staff is concerned about the provision and financing of county infrastructure and services required by the proposal and encourages the town to consider these services when crafting an annexation agreement, if approved.  Staff offered the following general comments for the purpose of initiating discussion about the proposed annexation.

• Although the County has adopted a new Comprehensive Plan since this application for a zoning map amendment, the facts remain the same.  This area is a gateway and transition area between town and prime agricultural land. As such it is important that any new development not only respect and reinforce the unique character of Chestertown but respect and include protective measures for the existing agricultural uses in the area.  This could include requirements for transfer of development rights for any increases in zoning; significant buffers for the adjacent agricultural parcels including the one across Route 213; recognition for the needs of the agricultural community in the area including the movement of equipment on new or redesigned roads, impacts of odor, dust, hunting, and noise on new residents, and recognition of the Kent County Right-To-Farm Law.
• Traffic continues to be a concern in the Chestertown area.  Resolution of the river crossing and other points of congestion should be finalized before development commences.  In addition to north-south connectors, eat-west connectors should be included.
• Any annexation plan and agreement should include discussion of the services and infrastructure provided by the County and whenever possible any annexation agreement should include provisions to assure that the development pays its fair share for these services.  The Kent County Local Emergency Planning Committee has expressed concerns about the impact of future development on the emergency services of the county.
• Kent County, in conjunction with the incorporated towns, is preparing the water resources element to the Comprehensive Plan as required by House Bill 1141. This bill not only requires each jurisdiction to review water and sewer capacity but to review the assimilative capacity of receiving waters.  In this case, the receiving waters include both Morgan and Radcliffe Creeks.  As the analysis required to complete the water resources element is not complete, approval of significant additional growth is premature. 
• This annexation extends beyond the area typically considered for higher density development and the proposal is lacking in the type of details that have recently been included in annexation proposals.  Therefore, before any annexation occurs and a decision on the waiver of the five-year rule, staff believes that the completion of an area plan developed in cooperation between the developer, the town, the county, and the residents of our communities is essential.

Correspondence was received from the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.  An email was received from the Town of Chestertown.

Mr. Hickman stated he is on the board of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy however he feels he could evaluate this fairly.

Ms. Morris explained the Kent County Planning Commission is sending comments to the Town of Chestertown and the Mayor and Council.  Ms. Owings stated they could also send comments to the Commissioners on the five year waiver.

Present for the discussion was C. Daniel Saunders, John Passyn of Yorktown Group and Jim Gatto, Chairman of the Chestertown Planning Commission.

Mr. Gatto stated they are looking at this as a two step process.  He said they want to make a recommendation to Mayor and Council to open the negotiations on annexation.  If those negotiations go successfully then the Mayor and Council will then act to annex the property.  At that point in time they will come back to the County, if they agree to the increased zoning, and ask for the five year waiver or stage the development so the five year waiver would not be needed.  He said what they are asking for is if this annexation goes forward, these are the things that need to be considered.  . 

Mr. Passyn said annexation is happening all over the Eastern Shore.  He said we are lucky here because the County has gotten their act together so that it doesn’t happen here like it has in Queen Anne’s and Cecil Counties. 

Mr. Saunders stated this particular annexation proposal is different from many.  Because of the restrictions that the developer has proposed in the annexation plan, no net gain in density is sought.  The result of the annexation will not create additional houses.  The purpose of this annexation is to gain flexibility in the planning of those houses.  More dense houses would be better than many single lot homes that would gobble up land.  The waiver of the density requirement may not be necessary.  He feels that the County should provide input to the Town on issues such as where the bypass should be constructed and issues like this. 

Mr. Passyn stated they were drawn to Chestertown for the beauty and character of the area.  They do not want to change any of that.  They are not sure of the exact design issues at this time.  Ms. Owings stated that the parkway should be the end of the development in Kent County and not have development on the other side of the parkway.  Mr.  Passyn said the road would be developed as an urban road and the area next to the road would be scenic however, it would be a bypass. He said the multi-family dwelling would front the road.    

Mr. Hickman asked what if someone decides they do not want their property annexed.  Mr. Gatto said there are two approaches the Mayor and Council can take. The first is they annex around that property and leave them out.  The second is if three of five property owners vote for annexation then the property is annexed. 

Ms. Morris asked if there would be enough water for this project.  Ms. Brown said she would assume Chestertown would consider their capacity of their water and sewer.  Ms. Owings said the discharge should be coordinated with the county as required by House Bill 1141.  Ms. Owings suggested there be a participatory process.  Ms. Brown said she agrees and would like to see what the community thinks about this, not just the developers point.

The following is a list of concerns the Planning Commission has regarding this annexation:

• Impact on and the cost of expansion of infrastructure and services provided by the County.
• Width of buffers between agricultural uses and intense residential uses.  200 feet is not adequate.
• Cooperation between the town and the county
• Completion or expansion of wildlife corridors
• Provision of water and sewer, including coordination with the county to assure adequate capacity and the ability of receiving water to assimilate the discharge.
• Vehicular and pedestrian traffic impacts including east-west connections and movement across the Chester River.
• Inclusion of a mixture of housing types and price points including workforce housing

Mr. Gatto said what he has heard during this discussion is much of the same concerns that were discussed by the Chestertown Planning Commission.

Staff Reports:

Gail Owings:

• Ms. Owings informed the members that the Drayton application was approved with conditions.
• The County Commissioners filed an injunction to prohibit Synagrow from spreading sewage sludge on a farm, near Georgetown owned by Ed Schaffer.
• There will be a meeting on June 10, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. with Bill Varga from the Attorney Generals Office, who will speak on the Open Meetings Act.  They will also try to schedule an evening meeting. 
• The Kent County Board of Appeals approved the Special Exception for the Verizon Tower.

Amy Moredock – No Report

Mitch Mowell – No Report

General Discussion:

A Draft Memorandum of Agreement was received from the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy requesting that the County amend its Comprehensive Plan to include the principles agreed upon during the charette concerning the Clark Farm.  The Agreement would be between the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, The Town of Chestertown and Kent County.  After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission agreed it is not necessarily interested in signing the Agreement because the Commission is concerned about the precedent of signing a contact for the spot amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. It would be inappropriate to enter into this contract although they agree that the principles should apply to all proposals for annexations. 

The Planning Commission agreed to send a letter to the County Commissioners regarding the traffic in the Worton / Chestertown area.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

 __________________________________

 Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman 

__________________________________

Kim Dixon, Clerk