2008

ANNUAL REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, HOUSING & ZONING

KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND

Completed June 2009

This report is an opportunity to highlight the Department’s achievements, identify development trends, and assess the planning and development process during calendar year 2008. This report will describe specific actions taken by the Kent County Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Agricultural Advisory Commission, Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, Historic Preservation Commission, Board of Electrical Examiners, Agricultural Resolution Board, Board of Housing Appeals, Board of Building Appeals, and Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning.

DEPARTMENT STAFF Gail Owings, Director Carla M. Gerber, Community Planner Bill Kerbin, Housing Planner Amy G. Moredock, Environmental Planner M. Richard Myers, Chief Inspector Bryan Foreman, Enforcement Officer

Harold Coleman, Housing Inspector Carolyn Brinkley, Office Manager Kimberly Dixon, Secretary Judy Hickman, Administrative Assistant Doris Olsen, Secretary Michelle Wood, Administrative Aide

PLANNING COMMISSION

The Kent County Planning Commission, appointed by the County Commissioners of Kent County, acts as a citizen board for all planning matters. As set forth in Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the County Commissioners on zoning map and text amendments and to the Board of Zoning Appeals on certain designated variances and special exceptions. The Commission may also prepare ordinances and plans for review by the County Commissioners. In its decision-making capacity, the Commission approves all major subdivisions and site plans.

MEMBERS

Elizabeth H. Morris, Chairman Marjorie Brown Rev. Ruben Freeman F. Joseph Hickman

Jay P. Lancaster Patricia A. Langenfelder William S. Sutton

G. Mitchell Mowell, Attorney

The Planning Commission meets the first Thursday of every month at 1:30 P.M., in the County Commissioners’ Hearing Room in the County Government Center, 400 High Street, Chestertown. The agendas for all meetings are available from the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning and on the County website prior to the meetings. The Planning Commission is a member of the Maryland Citizens Planners Association, and members attend training sessions and meetings. In 2008, the Planning Commission met 16 times.

COMMISSION TRAINING

� Eastern Shore Land Conservancy 10th Annual Planning Conference: Where are the Eastern Shore’s Road Taking Us?: Staff and planning commission members attended the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy’s annual conference at Chesapeake College, Wye Mills. � Maryland Citizen Planners: Topics of discussion for county and municipal planning commissions were greenbelts.

2

� Reclaiming the Strip –Presentation by Randall Arendt � Open Meetings Act – Presentation by Bill Varga, Maryland Attorney General’s Office, and Susanne Hayman, County Administrator.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appointed by the County Commissioners, the Zoning Board of Appeals hears and decides special exceptions, variances, and appeals of any decision or determination of the Zoning Administrator in the enforcement and administration of the Land Use Ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals meets on Monday evenings as may be required. In 2008, the Board of Appeals met 13 times.

MEMBERS

Albert Townshend, Chairman Allen Davis, member

Trey Hill, member Charlotte Staelin, alternate

Alice Ritchie, Attorney for the Board

HOUSING The Housing Improvement Program provides housing rehabilitation assistance to owners of substandard houses who meet certain income criteria. The repairs must address health and safety related matters. Repairs may include flooring, roofing, plumbing and electric systems, and well and septic systems. The program is generally funded through grants from the Department of Housing and Community Development, Maryland Affordable Housing Trust and a County match. Rehabilitation costs must not exceed $25,000. During 2008, there were 35 applications for assistance submitted to the County, with 21 of them coming from the Second, Fourth and Fifth Election Districts, equally. Overall, there were 13 applications approved, primarily for rehabilitation assistance.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

The Historic Preservation Commission is responsible for administering the Historic Preservation Ordinance which allows for the voluntary designation of Historic Sites and Districts in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Commission also reviews projects which may affect historic resources and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission on possible mitigation. The Commission is supported by staff from the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning. The Commission meets monthly and agendas are available prior to the meeting.

COMMISSION MEMBERS Davy McCall, Chairman Elizabeth Beckley Michael Bourne, resigned May 2008 Carolyn Brooks, appointed August 2008

Janet Brandon R.Reece Corey Ron Kerns Mary Kate O’Donnell

3

Historic Designations and Districts are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, and County Commissioners. In 2008, the local boards recommended approval of two Preservation Districts. Dolly Baker – 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. This house is one of the earliest Kennedyville houses and was constructed by John Kennedy in about 1870-75. Kathy L. McGraw – submitted a nomination form to have 25789 Lambs Meadow Road (Hopeful Unity) designated as a historic site and listed in the Kent County Register of Historic Places. The 2 ½-story brick house is located on a six acre lot, near Lynch. The house sits back approximately 1,000 feet from the road, and the property is surrounded by farmland. This house is considered a significant pre-revolutionary house in Kent County. Charles Groome built the house around 1770. A 1½ story service wing was added later in the 18th Century, and the house underwent a major remodeling in the late 19th Century. Similar houses, all built around the same time, are Hepbron’s Choice, the Bordley-Usilton House, and Piney Grove.

AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION The Kent County Agricultural Advisory Commission provides advice to the County Commissioners of Kent County and the Kent County Planning Commission concerning any proposals that affect agriculture. Additionally, the Commission recommends changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Ordinance, and other programs which will improve and promote agriculture in Kent County. The Agricultural Advisory Commission is supported by staff from the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning. The Commission meets as needed and an agenda is available from the Planning Department prior to the meeting. The Commission met twice in 2008 to once to discuss the Priority Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and once to review a special exception application for a “structures for the buying, processing, and sale of farm products related to agriculture, including the sale of fertilizer and seed but not including animal products, in structures that exceed 10,000 square feet but are less than 25,000 square feet.”.

MEMBERS

Franklin Dill, Chairman W. Frank Barnes, Jr. David A. Hill. Herman E. Hill, Jr

Sean Jones Craig McSparran Jonathan Reed

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD

The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board reviews and approves all applications related to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Program. These include applications to establish agricultural preservation districts, sell permanent protective easements to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, create lot exclusions, and subdivide properties in the preservation program. The Board also establishes policies for ranking districts in the easement acquisition program. Staff for the Board is provided by the Department of

4

Planning, Housing and Zoning. The Board meets as necessary and an agenda is available from the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning prior to the meeting. The Board met 4 times in 2008.

MEMBERS R. Allen Davis, Chairman William Cooper Jennifer Debnam

W. David Leager Timothy Redman

In 2008, the County amended Chapter 71 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County to reflect changes at the State level. The County elected to continue requiring the establishment of an Agricultural Preservation District as a pre-requisite of submitting an application to sell an easement. Because the new law did not become effective prior to July 1, 2008, the County Commissioners decided to allow any interested landowner to submit an application to sell an easement. There were 21 new applications submitted, which were reviewed by the Board, Planning Commission and County Commissioners. In all 36 applications to sell an easement were submitted and the 16 highest ranking applications were submitted to the State for consideration. One easement offer was accepted, permanently protecting approximately 392 acres. *Note: See Appendix A for Map showing Kent County protected lands.

AGRICULTURAL RESOLUTION BOARD

The Agricultural Resolution Board consists of five voting members appointed by the County Commissioners. A representative of the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and a member of the Kent County Soil and Water Conservation District serve as non-voting members. The Board arbitrates and mediates disputes involving agricultural operations conducted on agricultural lands and issues findings concerning whether or not such operations are conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural practices. Members attended Open Meetings Training and adopted Bylaws in 2008.

MEMBERS R. Allen Davis, Chairman William Bowdle Michael Forney Edward Taylor

William Washington John Hall, Cooperative Extension Timothy Redman, Soil & Water Conservation District

BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS

The Board of Building Appeals hears and decides appeals of decisions of the Building Code Administrator in administering the Building Code. The Board consists of three members appointed by the County Commissioners and meets upon request. The Board did not meet during 2008.

MEMBERS Richard Cookerly William Issacs James H. Smith

5

BOARD OF ELECTRICAL EXAMINERS

Appointed by the County Commissioners of Kent County, the Board of Electrical Examiners examines the qualifications and capabilities of all persons who are engaged in or desire to engage in the electrical business. The Board reviews applications for licenses and administers the homeowner’s examination for those individuals desiring to perform electrical work in the individuals own home. The Electrical Board meets on the first Thursday of every month at 9 AM in the Planning, housing, and Zoning Department, 400 High Street Chestertown, Maryland.

MEMBERS Wayne Pinder, Chairman Charles A. Langenfelder

Mike Usiliton

BOARD OF HOUSING APPEALS

A three member Board appointed by the County Commissioners, the Board of Building Appeals hears and decides appeals of the Housing Code Official made in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the Kent County Housing Code. The Board meets upon receipt of an appeal and did not meet in 2008.

MEMBERS Nancy Dick Janice Graham Charles W. Summers

Ronald Kennard, alternate Peter Newlin, alternate

6

SPECIAL PROJECTS Special Projects which involved Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning staff in 2008 included:

2010 Census: Staff began preparing for Census 2010 through participation in the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program. LUCA provides local governments the opportunity to review and update US Census Bureau address listings in an effort to obtain a complete count. Staff attended training sessions and completed the update within the 120 day period provided by the Census Bureau.

2010 Trust Fund: In partnership with the Chester River Association and Washington College on a MDE grant looking to spend about $600,000 on one watershed improvement project. The focus will be on the Middle Chester River on water quality improvements, agriculture, enhancing the Bay Restoration Fund septic system upgrades, and stormwater management in residential subdivisions.

Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway: The Scenic Byway Management Team continued to work on implementation of the Corridor Management Plan and Interpretive Plan. In 2008, an agricultural heritage/informational brochure was published and worked continued on the gateway sign initiative. In addition, the new bath house at Bayside Landing Park was completed.

The Chestertown Gateway Master Planning Project: This is a cooperative project between Staff, the Kent County Planning Commission and the Chestertown Planning Commission, as well as the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, to discuss the Draft Chestertown Gateway Master Plan.

Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc.: This is a cooperative project between Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne’s, and Talbot Counties that designated the Upper Shore Area as a certified Heritage Area resulting in approval in July. Planning staff has supported ESHI’s Stories of the Chesapeake and its adoption into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has also acted as liaison between ESHI and the municipalities in the adoption of the Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area.

Early Action Compact: Staff reviews projects for conformance to the action strategies to reduce local emissions and improve air quality identified in the EAC. Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties have been designated a nonattainment area by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both Counties continue to work with Maryland Department of the Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the two counties from the list of ozone nonattainment areas.

Kent County Total Maximum Daily Load Committee: The County formed a Kent County TMDL Committee which has been meeting since November 2006 to draft the Local Tributary Strategy Basin Implementation Plan. The draft was completed in March 2008 and represents a snapshot in time. The Committee is awaiting state data both from MDE and Maryland Department of Agriculture. The Draft Basin Plan includes the following initiatives: Point Source Implementation Plan; Urban and Suburban Non Point Source Implementation Plan; Planning and Preservation Programs to Reduce Impacts of Future Growth on Water Quality; Regulations,

7

Zoning, Ordinances and other Implementation Programs to Protect Water Quality; Watershed Restoration and Education Programs; and New Initiatives to Address Barriers. Maryland has addressed the non-point source pollution sources through the Tributary Strategy Implementation Plan. All six watersheds in Kent County are contained within the Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy Area

Maryland Statewide Addressing Initiative: In partnership with ESRI, MSGIC (Maryland State Geograhic Information Committee), and the Maryland Highway Safety Office, the Towson University Center for GIS (CGIS) worked with Maryland’s counties and Baltimore City to complete the Maryland Statewide Addressing Initiative—Maryland’s first statewide coordinated dataset. Project partners worked with Maryland’s jurisdictions to obtain and/or synchronize their addressing data. Either by geodatabase replication or via FTP, all jurisdictions are now sharing their data to the statewide dataset housed at CGIS. Department of Planning staff attended training and are now responsible for uploading updated centerline files at regular intervals.

Priority Preservation Area Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Under the Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006, all counties with certified agricultural preservation programs must include a Priority Preservation Area Element within their Comprehensive Plans (PPA) by July 1, 2009. The Agricultural Advisory Commission and Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board spent 2007 and 2008 drafting the PPA. The two boards determined that the best approach to protecting Kent County’s agricultural industry was to designate almost all of the County’s resource lands as part of the PPA.

Purchase of Development Rights Program: This program helps fund the purchase of conservation easements to assist in agricultural land preservation. The PDR program is required to remain a certified preservation program, thus allowing the county to keep 75 percent of the Agricultural Transfer tax. In 2006, the County Commissioners also dedicated $100,000 from the general fund to be used as matching funds for the purchase of MALPF easements.

Rural Legacy Program: The program is part of Smart Growth Initiatives and is aimed at preserving rural character through the purchase of development rights. The Agricultural Security Corridor (ASC) is sponsored by the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and Cecil, Kent, Talbot, Caroline and Dorchester Counties. The ASC has received funding during each cycle of the Rural Legacy Program and was awarded $2.1 million in 2008.

Sassafras River Association – From My Backyard to Our Bay: A committee of Kent County agencies is collaborating with the SRA to produce a homeowner’s guide to environmental issues in Kent County. The purpose of the booklet is twofold: the first message is that all Kent County residents have a roll to play in cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries – and that they can take actions immediately that will have an effect on water quality. The second, related message is for the farming community: that government agencies and environmental organizations recognize the contributions of non-farm activities to Bay degradation and the need for non-farm residents to pull their weight in Bay cleanup.

Sassafras River Association – Sassafras Watershed Action Plan: This project represents a collaborative effort between the SRA, state, local, and other stake holders to generate a watershed restoration action strategy. A core team of contributors was formed to begin compiling

8

data for a stream protection corridor assessment and watershed characterization. Community stakeholder meetings will be scheduled as data is compiled. The stakeholder group will assist the core team to clearly define watershed restoration goals and strategies.

Turner’s Creek Living Shoreline Project: In cooperation with Resource Conservation and Development, the Department of Planning was awarded a grant to complete a living shorelines project on the south point of the Turner’s Creek property. The grant is funded jointly by the Chesapeake Bay Trust, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Centre, and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment. The project consists of groins to combat shoreline scouring at the toe of the bank, native plantings in the buffer to divert runoff over the top of the bank, and signage to educate the community regarding nonstructural sediment control design and habitat benefits.

Water Resources Element: The purpose of the Water Resources Element, as defined in Maryland House Bill 1141, is to establish a clear relationship between existing and proposed future development; it further establishes the relationship between drinking water sources and wastewater facilities that will be necessary to serve that development and measures to limit or control the stormwater and non-point source water pollution that will be generated by new development. The document identifies drinking water sources and wastewater treatment facilities needed to support the existing and future development. It also identifies suitable receiving waters for existing and future wastewater and stormwater discharges. Collaboratively, Kent County and the Towns of Betterton, Chestertown, Galena, Millington, and Rock Hall have prepared a Water Resources Element that will “focus growth to areas best suited to use the existing and planned water and wastewater infrastructure that will protect and preserve the natural environs, promote economic growth and support diversity of living environments in Kent County.” The County received a grant from Maryland Department of Natural Resources Chesapeake and Coastal Program to complete the draft document. Staff provided the GIS data needed by the consultant to complete the project.

MEETINGS AND ORGANIZATIONS

During 2008, in addition to meetings associated with special projects, the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning Staff attended, participated on, or acted as liaison to the following meetings or organizations:

Adkins Arboretum: Shore Land Stewardship Council meetings APA Workshop: Future of Comprehensive Planning in Maryland Bay Restoration Fund meetings Bedford, Virginia – Agricultural Land Preservation Presentation Coastal and Watershed Resources Advisory Committee Critical Area Commission – Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway Chester River Association—Annual Snapshot DNR Forest Conservation Act Training Eastern Shore Land Conservancy – Annual Conference and quarterly planner’s meetings Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc. (Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area) Governor’s Commission on Agriculture

9

Governor’s Housing Conference Historic Preservation Summit in St. Michaels Kent County Chamber of Commerce – Workforce Housing Task Force Kent County Council of Government Local Emergency Planning Committee Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Maryland Association of Counties:

Planning Official's Meetings Critical Area Planners Meetings and workshops

Maryland Attorney General’s Office – Open Meetings Act Maryland Department of Planning—Planning Directors Roundtable Maryland Department of Planning – Listening Sessions Maryland Growth Scenarios Project NRCS Local Workgroup Rural Legacy Advisory Board St. Andrews Society – Chestertown Sassafras River Association meetings Sea Level Rise Planning Workshop State Highway Administration—Route 213 Bypass meeting State Highway Administration Pre Tour Meeting Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Team monthly meetings and wade in Upper Shore Regional Council

10

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Within the unincorporated areas of the County, 61 new lots were approved in 2008. In addition, nine major subdivision applications, consisting of a proposed 171 lots, are pending further action, and four minor subdivision applications remain under review consisting of a proposed nine lots. All major and minor subdivision applications are reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee at least twice. The Technical Advisory Committee also reviews all adjustments of lot lines and any other site plan. All major subdivision applications and site plans are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission makes a final decision on all major subdivision and site plan applications. As a part of their review, the Planning Commission routinely consults with incorporated towns that may be affected by a project. As part of their findings, the Planning Commission is required to determine that the project is consistent with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable plans or ordinances, including the Comprehensive Plans of the incorporated towns. Of the 61 lots approved in 2008, 46 were located in development areas (75% percent). The trend of development occurring in designated growth areas has been consistent in the past five years, averaging over 70%. The number of lots created in Agricultural and Resource Conservation Districts has dramatically decreased since 2001, at which time only three of the nineteen lots created was located in a development area. In 2008, only 15 of the 61 lots were created in Agricultural or Resource Lands. Figure 1 show the development trends of lots approved by zoning type. Figure 1 also shows how variable the amount development activity can be within the unincorporated areas of the County.

Figure 1: Lots Created by Zoning Type

4 6

1611 10 7 4 6 8

15

51 3

51

25

72 70

7

28

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Num

ber o

f Lots

Crea

ted

Agricultural/Resource Development Areas

11

Lot size is another variable to consider. Lots created in the Agricultural and Resource Conservation Districts tend to be larger because they are served by private wells and individual septic systems. The median lot size in the Agricultural and Resource Conservation Districts trended downward until 2008, when lot size ranged from 1 acre to 125 acres. The median lot size within the County’s development areas has remained fairly constant and is 0.57 acres for 2004-2008. Figure 2 shows the development trends for median lot size by zoning type.

Figure 2: Median Lot Size by Zoning Type

Development Trends

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Lot S

ize

in A

cres

Median for AZD or RCD Median for Development Areas

Protecting farmland and natural resources from development and growth and encouraging growth in and around existing towns in the form of sustainable growth are fundamental goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance. Landowner interest in preserving farmland remains high. In 2008, 36 applications to sell an easement were received, including 21 applications from owners who had not previously applied. Since 1972, almost 30,000 acres of farmland have been permanently protected.

Table 1: New Lots Created

Lots Created Median Lot Size Major Subdivision 39 0.73 acres Minor Subdivision 22 2.03 acres

Table 2: New Lots Created by Zoning District

Zoning District Number of Lots Agricultural 8 AZD/Resource Conservation District 3 Community Residential/Critical Area Residential 4 Community Residential/Resource Conservation District 16 Resource Conservation District 4 Rural Residential 12 Village 4 Village/Community Residential 10 Total 61

12

Major Subdivisions Major subdivisions contain 6 or more lots, sites, parcels, tracts, or other divisions of land. All lots or other divisions of land recorded after December 23, 1969, from an original lot or parcel of land as described in the Land Records of Kent County are counted in determining the number of lots in a subdivision. The Technical Advisory Committee reviews and the Planning Commission approves major subdivisions in three phases: Concept, Preliminary, and Final Plan Review. Three new major subdivision applications were submitted to the planning department during 2008, and two of those applications received final approval resulting in the creation of 2 lots. Four previously submitted applications also received final approval resulting in the creation of 37 lots. There are 9 applications in the system pending further action. The proposed subdivisions total 171 lots averaging 0.75 acres in size. Major Subdivisions Completed in 2008 Carlton L. & Marianne J. Felty: Mr. & Mrs. Felty received final approval to subdivide a 0.49 acre lot from their 1.264-acre parcel located on Raleigh Road in Fairlee in the Sixth Election District. The parcel is zoned Village (V). Choptank Electric – Lands of Huff and Frank: Choptank Electric received final approval for a proposed 5.77-acre lot off Tract 3 of the farm owned by Marcia Frank and Carol Ann Huff located on Fox Hole Road in the First Election District. The proposed lot is for the construction of a new electric substation Choptank is developing to serve the long-term needs of the residents in the Sassafras area. The farm is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Edgar Lusby, et al: Mr. Lusby received final approval to subdivide his 321.517 acre farm which is bisected by Kennedyville Road in the Second Election District. The subdivision divided the farm into two tracts using the road as the new line of division. Parcel 1, which is east of Kennedyville Road, will be approximately 195-acres., and Parcel 2, which is west of Kennedyville Road, will be approximately 125-acres. The farm is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Lawrence and Associates, LLC, Prestwick Woods: Mr. Kent Lawrence received final approval for a 12-lot re-subdivision/major subdivision on Lover’s Lane near Chestertown in the Seventh Election District. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR). Oddmund & Hedvig Angell/Crosby Woods: Mr. and Mrs. Angell received final approval to subdivide 10 lots from their 10.7-acre parcel located off Crosby Road, near the intersection with Route 20 in the Fifth Election District. The lots will have access to Crosby Road from a new cul-de-sac. Six of the lots will be 9,500 square feet in size, and the remaining four lots average 0.645 acres. The parcel is zoned Village (V) and Community Residential (CR). Sassafras Holding Co. – Wilson Point Estates: Sassafrass Holding Company received final approval to subdivide 14 lots from its 31.15-acre parcel at the end of Wilson Point Road in the First Election District. The property is zoned Community Residential and Resource Conservation District. All development will occur within the Community Residential District.

13

Major Subdivisions Reviewed in 2008: Richardson Hay & Cattle: Mr. Richardson proposes to subdivide two lots from his 118.314 acre parcel on Harry Clark Road and MD Route 298, in the Second Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). The average lot size of the proposed subdivision is 1.123 acres. This application was submitted as a concept plan and reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. This application was not reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2008.

Minor Subdivisions

Fourteen minor subdivision applications were submitted to the Planning Department during 2008. Of those applications, 10 were approved consisting of 14 lots, and 4 applications remain under review consisting of a proposed 9 lots. Four previously submitted applications were approved, creating 8 lots. The median lot size for all lots approved in 2008 was 2.034 acres and the average lot size was 5.410. Minor Subdivisions Completed in 2008 Bobby O. Clark, Jr.: Subdivided 2 lots, averaging 0.546 acres, from his 38.19-acre parcel located on Eastern Neck Road in the Fifth Election District. The property is zoned Community Residential (CR) and Resource Conservation District (RCD). C. David Hocking: Subdivided a 6.1-acre lot from his 232.608 -acre parcel located on Sassafras Caldwell Road, in the First Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Catherine Hill: Subdivided a 2.567-acre lot from her 115.6-acre parcel located on the west side of Eastern Neck Road (Route 445), in the Fifth Election District. The property is zoned Resource Conservation District (RCD). Charles Wiest: Subdivided a 3.217-acre lot from his 298-acre parcel, located on the south side of Cypress Road, in the First Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Clarence Hawkins: Subdivided 3 lots, averaging 0.218 acres from his 3.285-acre parcel located on Martin Wagner Road, in the Fifth Election District. The property is zoned Village (V). David Watts: Subdivided a 43.299 acre tract from his 189.245 acre farm located off Shrewsbury Church Lane/Augustine Herman Highway in the 2nd Election District. The farm is zoned Resource Conservation District (RCD) and Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). E. Thomas McGlinn: Subdivided a 6.31-acre lot from his 95.92-acre parcel, located on Swan Creek Road, in the Sixth Election District. The property is zoned Resource Conservation District (RCD). Frederick Lohr: Subdivided 2 lots, averaging 3.02 acres, from his 101.6-acre parcel located on Breezecroft Road, in the Sixth Election District. The property is zoned Resource Conservation District (RCD).

14

J. Franklin & Mary Peacock: Subdivided a 1.845 acre lot from their 264.15-acre farm, located on Crumpton Road (Route 290) in the Second Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD) and Resource Conservation District (RCD). This lot is located outside of the Critical Area. Joseph Piri, etux: Subdivided a 12.527-acre parcel into five lots, averaging 2.505-acres. The parcel is located at Piney Neck Road and Frazier Road, in the Fifth Election District. The property is zoned Community Residential (CR) and Critical Area Residential (CAR). Kenneth M. Corrin, Jr: Subdivided an 8.522-acre lot from his 301.2-acre-parcel, located on the northwest side of Golts-Caldwell Road, in the First Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Mary Maule/James Yeager: Subdivided a 5.1-acre lot, from their 168.14acre farm located on Dudley Chance Road, in the First Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Peter Van Dyke: Subdivided a single, 9.39-acre lot from his 72.90-acre parcel, located on the northside of Lands End Road, and the east side of the East Fork of Langford Bay, in the Seventh Election District. The property is zoned Resource Conservation District (RCD) and Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). William Carl Redman: Subdivided a 1-acre lot from his 120-acre farm on the south side of MD Route 298, and opposite of Cooper’s Lane, in the Third Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). William R. McDanolds, etux: Subdivided an 18.015-acre lot from his 180.165-acre farm, located on Still Pond Road (Route 292), in the Second Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD). Minor Subdivisions Reviewed in 2008 Brayton Family, LP: Proposes to subdivide a 3.725-acre lot from their 167.249-acre farm located on MD Route 291 and Shadding Reach Road, in the First Election District. The property is zoned Agricultural Zoning District (AZD) and Resource Conservation District (RCD). Eastern Shore Builders, LLC: Proposes to subdivide two lots averaging 12,758 square feet from its 41,453 square foot parcel located on Georgetown Road in the Sixth Election District. The parcel is zoned Village (V). Nevitte W. Ford, Jr.: Proposes to subdivide a 1.161-acre lot from his 3.784-acre parcel located on the north side of MD Route 20, northeast of Rock Hall, and southwest of Martin Wagner Road in the Fifth Election District. The property is zoned Crossroads Commercial. Philip & Marie Dougherty: Proposes to subdivide a 2.769 acre lot from their 278.352 acre farm on Chesterville Road, in the First Election District. The proposed lot is located in the Agricultural Zoning District (AZD).

15

Road Waivers

David O. Watts: Requesting a road waiver to allow a private road with more than five abutting properties having access to the road and a waiver of the 50-foot right-of-way width requirement for a private road. The 189.245-acre farm is located behind Shrewsbury Church on Turner’s Creek. The applicant wishes to subdivide the farm into two parcels, and provide access by a private road. The farm currently has “the right to make use of the old, abandoned County road,” and a 20 foot right-of-way granted by Charles Edward Miller, et ux, in 1975. The farm is zoned Resource Conservation District, and Agricultural Zoning District, and is in the Second Election District. The Planning Commission granted approval of the waiver. Frederick Lohr: 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 is the Sixth Election District. 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. The Planning Commission granted approval of the waiver.

Adjustment of Lot Lines

Adjustment of Lot Lines applications are reviewed by Planning and Zoning Staff and the Technical Advisory Committee. Planning Staff and TAC reviewed 47 adjustments of lot lines in 2008; 38 were approved.

Table 3: Lot Line Adjustment by Zoning District

Zoning District Number Agricultural Zoning District 6 AZD/Village 1 Community Residential 7 Community Residential/Resource Conservation District 1 Critical Area Residential 13

Critical Area Residential/Marine 1

Rural Character 2 Village 7 TOTAL 38

Site Plan Reviews

Major site plan reviews are required for commercial development, industrial development, multifamily dwellings, special exceptions, quasi-public, and public facilities. The Technical Advisory Committee reviews and the Planning Commission approves these projects. Site plan

16

review occurs in three stages: Concept, Preliminary, and Final Plans. Minor site plans are reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and may be approved by the Planning Director. Staff reviewed 16 site plans in 2008, 6 of which were minor site plan reviews. Of the remaining 10 projects, 2 plans remain under review. Overall, 14 plans received final approval. Site Plans Completed in 2008 Alden Yetman: Proposal to remove an existing 3,200 square foot building and construct a new 2,720 square foot building to be used for his home-building business, on MD Routes 213 and 297, in the Third Election District. The property is zoned, “IV,” Intensive Village. This was a minor site plan review. Choptank Electric: Proposal to construct an electrical substation on a proposed 5.77-acre lot located on MD Routes 290 and 299, in the First Election District, and is zoned “AZD,” Agricultural Zoning District.,” This was a major site plan review. County Commissioners of Kent County – County Community Center: Proposal to construct the County Community Center facility at the Worton Regional Park, in the Third Election District. The property is zoned “V,” Village. This was a major site plan review. County Commissioners of Kent County – Worton Treatment Plant Upgrade: Proposal to upgrade the existing Worton Water Treatment Plant with would entail the construction of an additional building. The facility is located on a 0.75-acre parcel on Worton Road/ Route 297 in the Third Election District, and is zoned, “V,” Village. This was a major site plan review. Jimstown Partnership: Proposal to use an existing building to operate a retail seafood store at 500 Morgnec Road, in the Fourth Election District. The parcel is zoned, “V,” Village. This was a minor site plan review. KRM Development Corp: Proposal for a 27,000 square foot flex space building on their 3.416 property on Commerce Road, in Worton, in the Third Election District. This proposal was a major amendment of a major site plan. The parcel is zoned “I,” Industrial. This was a major site plan review. Mitchell Grieb: Proposal for a 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, “I,” Industrial. This was a major site plan review. Nelson Clayton – Needham Mushroom Farm: Proposal for an extension of final site plan approval to construct a mushroom farm production facility on a 338.50-acre farm located on 12206 Galena Road, in the First Election District, near Massey. The farm is zoned, “AZD,” Agricultural Zoning District, “I,” Industrial and “EC,” Employment Center. This was a major site plan review. Our Home in the Country: Proposal to construct a new assisted living facility on West Hill Road, in the Third Election District. The parcel is zoned, “V,” Village. This was a major site plan review.

17

Philip Nolan: Proposal to open a welding machine shop on his property on Martin Wagner Road in the Fifth Election District. The parcel is zoned, “CC,” Crossroads Commercial. This was a minor site plan review. Presbyterian Church of Chestertown: Proposal to operate a private nursery school in an existing building on the property owned by the Church on Gateway Drive, in the Fourth Election District. The property is zoned, “IV,” Intense Village. This was a major site plan review. Roland Clayton Co., LLC: Proposal for an approximately 64-acre sand and gravel pit on its 221-acre farm off Walnut Tree #10 School Road, near Massey, in the First Election District. The property is zoned, “AZD,” Agricultural Zoning District. This was a major site plan review. William Bontrager/Verizon Wireless: Proposal to construct a 195 foot monopole tower with a four foot lightning rod, and an area for equipment, on a 158.43-acre farm owned by William Bontrager, located at 12530 Dad’s Desire Lane, in the Second Election District. The property is zoned, “AZD,” Agricultutal Zoning District. This was a major site plan review. William Cording: Proposal to operate, warehouse, distribute, manufacture and assemble water quality tests and other similar kits from the 40 foot by 60 foot accessory building behind his home on 25022 Cording Road, in the Third Election District. The parcel is zoned, “AZD,” Agricultural Zoning District. This was a major site plan review. Site Plans Reviewed in 2008 Rumit H. Dusia: Proposal for a 2,400 square foot, one-story, convenience store with a fuel facility on his property at the intersection of Route 20 and Route 21 on the site of the former Dieker’s Store/ Caulk’s Field Cafe, in the Sixth Election District. The property is zoned, “CC,” Crossroads Commercial. Woods Edge, Phases I, II, and III: Proposal to renovate existing apartments and construct a new community center, on the parcel located on Woods Edge Road, in the Sixth Election District. The property is zoned, “V,” Village.

Zoning Text Amendments

Critical Area Program Text Amendment: In response to the requirements of Maryland House Bill 1253 which generally became effective on July 1, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated and recommended approval of amendments to the text of the Land Use Ordinance concerning lot coverage, buffer requirements, variance standards and procedures, and enforcement. Day Care: The Kent County Planning Commission initiated and recommended approval of a zoning text amendment to the Kent County Land Use Ordinance Article XI (Definitions), Day Care Group and Day Care Home. The purpose of the amendment was to increase the number of children permitted in a day care group to nine or more children, and a day care home to eight or fewer children. The County Commissioners approved the text amendment.

18

Matapeake Partners: Byrne Murphy, representing Matapeake Partners, submitted an application to amend Article V, Section 13.2 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance (Marine District Permitted Uses) to permit one or more buildings owned, co-owned, or operated by a corporation, association, person, or persons for transient or vacation use, by the day, week, or month, or on another reserved time basis. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission found that the language as proposed is so vague that almost any kind of accommodation or rental agreement would apply. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the application as proposed. However, the Planning Commission continued to discuss the concept of vacation accommodations. The Commission proposed and recommended approval of amendments to the Kent County Land Use Ordinance permitting private destination residence clubs as a special exception in the Marine District under certain conditions and to include a definition of private residence destination clubs. The County Commissioners approved the text amendment as a permitted use with specified conditions. Parking Areas in the Village District: The Kent County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a proposal to amend the Kent County Land Use Ordinance, Village District – Specific Design Standards Parking Area requirements. Specifically, the text amendment proposed to add an exception to the limitation of locating parking lots between the front property line and the primary building. The County Commissioners approved the text amendment. Sassafras River Association: John Vail, on behalf of the Sassafras River Association, submitted an application to amend Article V, Section 5.3 of the Kent County Land Use Ordinance to add offices or other headquarters for nonprofit environmental or preservation as a permitted use in the Critical Area Residential District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment if amended to become a special exception for offices for nonprofit environmental or preservation organizations under certain conditions. The application was withdrawn.

Other Projects Reviewed Right to Fish and Conduct Seafood Operations: The Kent County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Right to Fish and Conduct Seafood Operations Law which is intended to be included in the Code of Public Local Laws of Kent County. This is the second in the series of the “Kent County Economic Resources Bill of Rights” identified in the Economy Section of the Kent County Comprehensive Plan. Water and Sewer Plan Amendment – Chesterville Forest: The Kent County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the application to include the Chesterville Forest Service Area in the Kent County Water and Sewer Plan. The Commission reviewed the application for consistency with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan and based its decision on the fact that Chesterville Forest is a small community which is identified as a rural village PFA in the Comprehensive Plan, and the community has a history of failing septic systems in poorly drained soils. The Commission noted that the extension of the lines from the Dutch Family Deli would pass through areas considered as a part of the Countryside. Since the line will only serve those parcels with existing homes (most with failing systems) and will otherwise be designated a denied access line, the Commission felt that the proposal will comply with the Comprehensive

19

Plan goal to correct public health problems while protecting the countryside from incompatible capital projects. In addition, staff provided the maps needed by the Department of Water and Wastewater Services for the application. Water and Sewer Plan Amendment - Lovers Lane -Edesville: The Kent County Planning Commission reviewed for consistency with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed Lover’s Lane-Edesville amendment to the Kent County Water and Sewer Plan. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to issue a determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and based its decision on the fact that soils in the area are generally very poorly drained and as a result of the poor soils, septic systems in the area have failed. The lots to be served are within the countryside but have been recognized by the Kent County Health Department as having failing septic systems. Properties to be served are clearly delineated on the map and are limited to one per parcel. In addition, staff provided the maps needed by the Department of Water and Wastewater Services for the application. Water and Sewer Plan Amendment - Lovers Lane – Quaker Neck: The Kent County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the application to include certain designated properties in the Lovers Lane Quaker Neck area into the Water and Sewer Plan. The Commission reviewed the application for consistency with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan and based its decision on the fact that this area is included in the Chestertown Comprehensive Plan as a part of the town planning area and in both plans as an area to retain its rural character as a means of transition to agricultural areas. The Commission noted that the proposal will correct failing septic systems and the areas to be served are clearly delineated on the service area map. In addition, staff provided the maps needed by the Department of Water and Wastewater Services for the application. Annexations – Chestertown Northeast – The Planning Commission met with representatives of the Chestertown Planning Commission and the proposed developer of the “Northeast Annexation” properties 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 “IV”, Intense Village, “RR”, Rural Residential, and “C”, Commercial. This is the first step in a two step process to assure coordination between the Town and the County in reviewing applications and initiating discussion concerning the project but not to make recommendations concerning the 5-year rule. Issues discussed included provision of infrastructure, traffic and transportation connections, housing price points, completion and expansion of wildlife corridors, assimilative capacity of receiving waters for stormwater and wastewater discharge, and the width of buffers needed to respect and include protective measures for the existing agricultural uses in the area.

20

BUILDING PERMITS

Building permits are reviewed by Planning, Housing and Zoning Staff for consistency and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Ordinance, and Forest Conservation, Sediment Control, Floodplain, and Stormwater Management regulations. Staff issued 530 building permits in 2008. There were 55 new single family dwelling permits issued in 2008. The highest percentage of new single family dwellings were constructed in the Fifth Election District (a total of 23.6 percent), followed by the First Election District. The fewest homes were built in the unincorporated areas of the Fourth and Seventh Election Districts. Likewise, approximately 40 percent of all new homes were built in the Still Pond-Fairlee watershed. Development has been most prevalent in the Still Pond-Fairlee watershed in recent years. Approximately 31 percent of the new dwellings were built within designated Priority Funding Areas, and another 29 percent were built within areas the County considers appropriate for development. Additionally, 56 percent of the homes built in 2008 had a construction value of under $200,000, with 25 percent of homes built having a construction value of under $100,000. Approximately 15 percent of homes built listed construction values between $200,000 and $300,000. Finally, approximately 29 percent of homes built in 2008 listed construction values ranging from $300,000 to $1 million. These numbers do not reflect sale value but construction value as reported on building permit applications.

Figure 2: New Single Family Dwellings by Zone Type

41 38 36 36

26

39

25 2520 22

52

64 63

81

95 95 92

61

70

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Num

ber

of D

wel

lings

Agricultural/Resource Development Areas

21

Table 4: Building Permits by Type

Application Type Number

Accessory Building 78

Agricultural Building 28

Bulkhead 13

Commercial Addition/Alteration 8

Deck/porch 32

Demolition 55

Garage 24

Logging 7

New Commercial Building 3

New Single Family Dwelling 55

Other 25

Pier 23

Residential Addition/Alteration 68

Sediment Control 39

Sign 5

Swimming Pool/Spa 32

Tennis Court 1

Use 11

Closed, pending, denied or withdrawn 23

Total 530

22

020406080100

120

140

160

Accessor

y Build

ingAgric

ultural

Building

Bulkhea

d

Commerci

al Addi

tion/A

lteratio

nDeck

/porch

Demolition

Garage

Logging

New Com

mercial B

uilding

New Singl

e Fam

ily Dwel

ling

Other

Pier

Resident

ial Addi

tion/A

lteratio

n Sediment

Control

Sign

Swimming

Pool/Spa

Use

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 3: Building Permits by Type

23

Table 5: New Single Family Dwellings by Zoning District* Zoning District Total Percentage Agricultural Zoning District 11 20.0 Agricultural Zoning District/ Resource Conservation District 2 3.6 Agricultural Zoning District/Village 1 1.8 Resource Conservation District 7 12.7 Resource Conservation District/Rural Character 1 1.8 Community Residential 6 10.9 Critical Area Residential 11 20 Rural Character 2 3.6 Rural Residential 1 1.8 Village 13 23.6 Total 55 100.0

*Note: See Appendix B for Map showing locations of New Single Family Dwellings and Subdivisions

Table 6: New Single Family Dwellings by Election District*

Election District Number Percent First 12 21.8 Second 6 10.9 Third 10 18.2 Fourth 1 1.8 Fifth 13 23.6 Sixth 8 14.5 Seventh 5 9.1 Total 55 100%

*Note: See Appendix C for Election District Map.

Table 7: New Single Family Dwellings by Watershed

Watershed Number Percent Langford 8 14.5 Lower Chester 11 20.0 Middle Chester 6 10.9 Sassafras 5 9.1 Still Pond/Fairlee 16 29.1 Upper Chester 9 16.4 Total 55 100%

*Note: See Appendix D for Watershed Map.

24

Table 8: Value of New Single Family Dwellings*

Construction Value

Number

Percent

$0-$49,999 2 3.6 $50,000-$99,999 12 21.8 $100,000-$149,999 13 23.6 $150,000-$199,999 4 7.3 $200,000-$249,999 3 5.5 $250,000-$299,999 5 9.1 $300,000 -$349,999 2 3.6 $350,000-$399,999 1 1.8 $400,000-$449,999 2 3.6 $450,000-499,999 1 1.8 $500,000+ 5 9.1 Unknown 5 9.1 TOTAL 55 100%

* As reported on building permit applications.

SEDIMENT CONTROL/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

The Planning and Zoning Staff is directly involved in permitting and enforcing the Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Ordinances. During 2008, the Staff was involved with 114 sediment control and stormwater management permits (39 sediment control, 13 bulkhead/retaining wall, 7 logging, and 55 new single family dwelling). Each permit requires a minimum of 1 site inspection. The number of projects reviewed for sediment control and stormwater management is consistent with numbers in past five years.

GROWTH ALLOCATION The Kent County Commissioners granted the Drayton Manor request for Growth Allocation in February 2007 after lengthy review by planning staff and the Planning Commission. The application was approved with conditions for the operation of a retreat on the Drayton Manor property. The Commissioners submitted a request for a program amendment to the Critical Area Commission in March 2007; the CAC continued to request additional information until April 2008 when CAC staff notified the County that the file was complete and the CAC chair determined that the 2007 refinement request should be heard by the CAC as an amendment to the local program. In June 2008, the CAC approved with conditions the growth allocation request for the County’s designation of 31.991 acres of land from Resource Conservation Area to Intense Development Area.

25

Growth allocation may be granted in the unincorporated area of the County only for the development of desirable employers or quality amenities as identified by the Comprehensive Plan. A project must have a positive impact on the County’s economy and make a positive net fiscal contribution to the County budget. Application for growth allocation must undergo a rigorous review process. The County Commissioners submit the proposal to the Planning Commission for concept review and recommendation on growth allocation. Following the Planning Commission’s decision, the County Commissioners hold a public hearing and render its decision within 90 days of the hearing.

VARIANCES The Planning Commission forwards recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning all variance applications except variances of the Floodplain Ordinance. During 2008, the Board heard 13 applications for variance requests (See Appendix E1). Of the 13 variance requests, 4 were granted, 4 were denied, and 1 was withdrawn in 2008. Four applications remained under review at the end of the year.

Table 10: Variances Granted and Denied by Type*

Variance Type Total Granted Denied Withdrawn

Tabled Under Review

Buffer and Height 1 0 0 1 0 0 Buffer & Side yard 1 0 0 0 0 1 100 Foot Buffer 4 0 4 0 0 0 Height 2 0 0 0 0 2 Impervious Surface Variance Extension

1 1 0 0 0 0

Pier length 1 1 0 0 0 0 Setback 2 1 0 0 0 1 Waterway 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 13 4 4 1 0 4

Administrative Variances*

Beginning in October 2003, the Planning Director, or Planning Director’s designee, gained the authority to grant Administrative Variances. Applicants may apply for an Administrative Variance from the yard but not buffer, height, parking, and loading requirements that do not exceed 50 percent of the required yard for the applicable zoning district so as to relieve practical difficulties or other injustices arising out of the strict application of the Ordinance. These hearings do not go before the Planning Commission but may be submitted, at the Planning Director’s discretion, to the Board of Appeals for approval. The Planning Director and her designee reviewed a total of 7 variance requests in 2008. Six variances were approved by the Planning Director and one was withdrawn from consideration. * See Appendices E1 and E2 for list of Variances and Administrative Variances and decisions.

26

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS The term “Special Exception” was adopted in the 2002 Land Use Ordinance and replaces the term “Conditional Use”. These terms are used interchangeably throughout the state. Kent County adopted the term “Special Exception” to become more consistent with other Maryland Counties. The purpose of the Special Exception is to provide for certain uses, which because of their unique characteristics cannot be distinctly listed as a permitted use in a particular District. These special exceptions may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or where applicable the Planning Director (see below), after consideration in each case of the impact of such uses upon neighboring uses, the surrounding area and the public need for the particular use at the particular location. The Board may authorize buildings, structures, and uses as special exceptions in the specific instances and particular zoning districts. In 2008, Staff worked on 13 applications for special exception. Of those, the Board heard 7 special exceptions. Of the 13 special exceptions, the Board granted 7 applications and 3 remained under review at the end of the year.

Table 11: Special Exceptions Granted and Denied by Type*

Special Exception Total Granted Denied Withdrawn Under Review

Church Cemetery 1 0 0 0 1 Cottage Industry 1 1 0 0 0 Construction of deck in the front & side yard within the Critical Area Buffer of a waterfront lot

1 0 0 0 1

Construction of personal wireless facility

1 1 0 0 0

Construction of a 1,680 sf garage 1 0 0 1 0 Construction of 30’ x 50’ covered building for storage of boat and yard tools

1 0 0 1 0

Construction of an assisted-living facility

1 1 0 0 0

Construction of an electrical substation 1 1 0 0 0 Gravel Pit/Excavation – Renewal of existing operation

1 1 0 0 0

Operation of agricultural machinery sales and repair business

1 1 0 0 0

Operation of nursery school in existing building

1 1 0 0 0

Operation of a public utility in the form of propane storage & distribution to residences

1 0 0 0 1

Shed & Carport in front yard of through lot

1 0 0 0 1

Trap & skeet shooting, sporting clays 1 0 0 1 0 Total 14 7 0 3 4

27

Administrative Special Exceptions

Along with administrative variances, the Planning Director, or Planning Director’s designee, may hear and decide the following special exceptions: accessory storage structures, accessory structures in the front yard requirement of waterfront parcels, accessory structures in the front yard of a through lot, and day care group. This provision, adopted in the 2002 Land Use Ordinance, allows for the aforementioned cases to be decided by the Planning Director rather than the Board of Appeals, thus lessening the number of cases that appear before the Board. The Planning Director and her designee heard a total of 16 administrative special exception cases in 2008. Four applications were requests for a structure within the front yard setback; 7 were for accessory buildings greater in size than 1,200 square feet; 2 were for an accessory building over 17 feet tall; and 3 were for day care groups. The Planning Director granted 16 special exceptions.

Table 12: Administrative Special Exceptions Granted and Denied by Type*

Special Exception Total Granted Denied Tabled Under Review Accessory building or pool in front yard

4 4 0 0 0

Accessory building over 1,200 sq ft

7 7 0 0 0

Accessory building height over 17 ft

2 2 0 0 0

Daycare group 3 3 0 0 0 Total 16 16 0 0 0

*See Appendices E3 and E4 for a list of Special Exceptions and Administrative Special Exceptions and decisions.

Administrative Special Exception & Variance

The Director of Planning heard and granted one application for an Administrative Special Exception to construct an approximately 50 foot x 26 foot one story garage to be located in the front yard of the property, as well as an Administrative Variance of the side yard requirements. This was granted on April 29, 2008.

Removal of Intra-Family Transfer

Charles Tuley requests an amendment to his minor subdivision approved in December 1997 which created an intra-family transfer parcel of approximately 2.8 acres. Specifically, Mr. Tuley request the removal of the intra-family restrictions which limit the transfer of the parcel to anyone outside of the Tuley family. The 2.8 acre parcel is located on Coopers Lane and Still Pond Creek in the Third Election District. At this time, the property remains vacant. The property is zoned Resource Conservation District. The Planning Commission decided at its October 2, 2008 meeting to deny the application.

28

CODES ENFORCEMENT

Kent County’s Land Use Ordinance is directly enforced by the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning Staff. In 2008, staff was involved with 169 violation cases. Each case requires a minimum of two inspections. In addition to those cases, staff conducted 301 site visits related to violation concerns expressed by property owners. Several violations were forwarded to the Planning Commission attorney with one case being forwarded to the District Court. The Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning collected $26,300.00 in fines. The nature of the fines collected in 2008 mainly was related to applicants building or clearing vegetation within the Critical Area Buffer prior to obtaining permits, and building prior to obtaining permits. Several significant violations were cited in 2008and are pending resolution. Staff spends a significant amount of time meeting onsite with property owners in an effort to reduce code violations. In addition to 40 specific violation cases, staff conducted 20 sediment control and stormwater management inspections, and two Floodplain inspections. These inspections involve sediment control, stormwater management, vegetation removal and replacement, and water quality code enforcement.

Table 13: Violations by Type Case Type Number of Cases Building in Critical Area Buffer 5 Building without a permit 60 Clearing in the Buffer 6 Clearing in the Forest in the CA 2 Clearing without a permit 14 Illegal Signs 23 Other 59 TOTAL 169

29

Appendix A: Kent County Protected Lands

30

Appendix B: New Single Family Dwellings/Subdivisions

31

Appendix C: New Single Family Dwellings/Subdivisions by Election District

32

Appendix D: New Single Family Dwellings/Subdivisions by Watershed

33

Appendix E1: Variances

Application Applicant Type Decision

07-135 Kent School Extension of Impervious Surface Granted 01/28/08

07-157 Larry & Hildegard Sunkler Buffer Denied 03/24/08 08-09 Richard Wilson Height Under review 08-12 Brian & Anne O’Connor Buffer Denied 04/21/08 08-21 Langford Bay Associates Width of Waterway Granted 10/20/08

08-30 Chester River Yacht & Country Club Pier Length Granted 08/20/08

08-37 Phillip Nolan Setback requirement Granted 08/20/08 08-53 Scott Sanders Buffer & Side Yard Under review 08-54 Tyson Janney Buffer Denied 06/16/08 08-64 Stoneton West, LLC Buffer Denied 08/25/08 08-115 Richard & Joan Lessans Buffer & Height Withdrawn 11/12/08 08-130 James Fizzano Setback Under Review 08-134 Johnson Farm, LC Height Under Review

Appendix E2: Administrative Variances

Application Applicant Type Decision 08-16 Robert Schriber Setback requirement Withdrawn 08-25 Colleen & Ralph DeGroodt Setback requirement Granted 04/30/08 08-35 William & Meredith Acton Setback requirement Granted 07/12/08 08-55 Brett Bigelow. Setback requirement Granted 06/14/08 08-94 Paul & Vicki Care Setback requirement Granted 09/12/08 08-103 Pamela Nichols Setback requirement Granted 10/01/08 08-110 Robert & Christine Large Setback requirement Granted 11/03/08

34

Appendix E3: Special Exceptions

Application Applicant Type Decision

07-110 Choptank Electric Construction of an electrical substation

Granted 02/25/08

07-135 Verizon Wireless Construction of personal wireless facility

Granted 05/28/08

07-150 Presbyterian Church of Chestertown

Operation of a private nursery school

Granted 02/25/08

07-153 William Cording Operation of a cottage industry Granted 02/25/08

08-10 Poore’s Propane/Andover river Acres

Operation of a public utility in the form of propane storage & distribution to residences Under Review

08-18 Our Home in the Country, LLC – Diana Flakes

Construction of an assisted-living facility

Granted 05/14/08

08-20 Union U.M. Church Church Cemetery Under review

08-50 Scott Sanders

Construction of an accessory deck in the front and side yard of a waterfront lot Under review

08-62 Kent County Gun Club Trap & Skeet shooting, and sporting clays Withdrawn

08-98 Harry Dixon Gravel pit renewal Granted 10/14/08

08-105 R. Scott Mason

Operation of agricultural machinery sales and repair business

Granted 11/18/08

08-159 Jennifer Lieber Construction of 30 ft x 50 ft covert building Withdrawn

08-163 Bayard Williams Construction of a 1680 sq ft garage Withdrawn

35

Appendix E4: Administrative Special Exceptions

Application Applicant Type Decision

08-01 John. R. Heldmyer Accessory building height over 17 ft Granted 02/14/08

08-11 Arne Sorenson Accessory building in front yard Granted 03/18/08

08-29 Frank Bunch Accessory building in front yard Granted 03/24/08

08-31 Jeff & Annette Green Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 04/30/08

08-33 Herbert Brodie Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 05/06/08

08-47 James E. Huber Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 06/24/08

08-48 Andrew C. Bradley Accessory building in front yard Granted 06/12/08

08-49 Robert Bramble Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 06/14/08

08-51 William Spray, Jr. Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 06/14/08

08-65 Michael Moore Accessory building in the front yard Granted 07/12/08

08-66 George & Gladys Hynson Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 07/19/08

08-87 Stephanie E. Blyman Operate a day-care group Granted 09/10/08

08-88 J.R. Hanson & Debra Meikle Operate a day-care group Granted 09/10/08

08-111 Tim & Janet Nordhoff Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 11/10/08

08-114 Dawn Thrift Operate a day-care group Granted 11/03/08

08-120 David Wilson Accessory building over 1200 sq ft Granted 11/03/08

36

Appendix F: Development Review

During the year 2008, the Department of Planning, Housing and Zoning provided technical review and direction on the following projects: Adjustments of Lot Lines: 38Administrative Special Exceptions: 16Administrative Variances: 7Agricultural Preservation Easement offers: 1Building Permits: 530 New Single Family Dwellings: 55Determination of Nonconforming Use 1Special Exceptions: 14Growth Allocation Under Review: 1Map Amendments 1 (withdrawn)Removal of Intrafamily Transfer 1 (denied)Site Plan Reviews Finalized Plans: 14 Withdrawn: 0 Plans under review: 2Subdivisions Major Subdivisions completed in 2008: 6 Number of lots created: 39 Major Subdivisions submitted: 3 Proposed number of lots: 11 Minor Subdivisions completed in 2008: 14 Number of lots created: 22 Minor Subdivisions submitted: 14 Proposed number of lots: 13Text Amendments 5Variances: 13