Town of Trappe, MD Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

October 19, 2005

7:30 p.m.

Trappe Town Hall

The regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was opened by Chairperson Edgar Harrison at 7:30 p.m.  Planning Commission members present were Mr. Bobby Quidas, Mr. Don Haring, Mr. Jerry Adams, and Mr. Norm Fegel. A motion was made by Mr. Adams to approve the minutes as corrected.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Don Haring.  All were in favor.

PERMITS ISSUED:

T-32-05 – Sandy Thompson – 3881 Main Street – Kitchen Deck

T-33-05 – Sydney Ashley – 3725 Rumsey Drive – Fence

T-34-05 – Brian & Cathy Schmidt – 4282 N. Main St. – New House

T-35-05 – Brian & Cathy Schmidt – 4282 N. Main St. – Pole Bldg.

T-36-05 – D & H Properties – 29332 Maple Avenue – Fence

T-37-05 – Michael Marshall – 29416 Howell Pt. Road – Carport

PERMITS PENDING AND ZONING ISSUES:

None

OLD BUSINESS:

 CASTLE RACKET (LYONS FARM) – FINDINGS OF FACT

Mr. Frank Hall, Town Planner, reported that he completed the draft Findings of Fact for the Castle Racket Planned Neighborhood development as the Planning Commission requested at the September 21, 2005 meeting.  Frank noted that Brynja Booth, Town Attorney, reviewed the draft and she found it to be legally sufficient.  Four numeric values in the draft were updated because of design refinements and Mr. Don Haring pointed out some typing errors.  Mr. Hall stated that he would prepare a corrected copy of the findings for the Commission’s signature should they decide to approve the draft.  Finally, Mr. Hall noted that Mr. Barry Griffith had changed the street dimensions as requested and that the developer, Mr. Bob Karen, has submitted revised Development Design Guidelines books that included the new street cross sections and the improved townhouse architectural renderings.  The townhouse architecture was improved through the use of various design elements including gabled roofs, awnings, porches, bowed windows, and a variety of façade treatments.  Mr. Griffith added that several graphics were added to the design guidelines book to help clarify architectural terms and visually depict some of the landscaped buffers.  All planting strips will be at least 6 feet and all sidewalks are at least 5 feet as required by the Trappe Design Guidelines. Since the developer complied with the Planning Commission’s request, Mr. Harrison asked that paragraph 1 on page six of the Findings of Fact be amended to include only the sentence dealing with the archeological study.

Mr. Griffith presented, in detail, the changes to the street hierarchy and on street parking configurations.  He noted that street widths for the Collector Street increased to 11 feet and that the Collector Street now connects to both White Marsh Road and MD 565.  He also mentioned that the Neighborhood Residential Street and Local Residential Parallel Street widths were increased to 10 feet, but that the parallel on-street parking width remained at 7 feet.  After Mr. Griffith described all the changes he made to the PN PUD Plan he respectfully requested that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as corrected and asked the Planning Commission to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Council so the developer can begin the next level of the approval process as required by the Floating Zone Ordinance. Mr. Adams stated that he believed the findings were well drafted, but he expressed some concern that the number of housing units could change dramatically from what the Planning Commission is reviewing today.  He wanted to know if there was any way to hold the developer to the number of homes noted in the Findings of Fact.  Mr. Hall mentioned that the PN Ordinance permits up to 4 units to the acre.  Attorney Booth mentioned that the Planning Commission is only being asked at this time to approve the general PUD Plan and that the Commission will have final approval during the subdivision and site plan review process.  She also reassured the Commission that if there was a significant change in the housing counts that the Town Council would ask for a new recommendation from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Harrison acknowledged that the developer made all the changes that the Planning Commision requested.

Mr. Haring motioned to approve the Findings of Fact with the corrections that were discussed during the meeting and to amend paragraph 1 on page six to include only the sentence that deals with the Phase I archeological study as recommended by EAC/Archeology.  Mr. Fegel seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:

DON ENGLISH – VILLAGE OVERLAY ZONE REQUEST FOR NEW HOUSE

Mr. Don English requested that the Planning Commission permit him to demolish and reconstruct a home he owns at 29453 Maple Avenue according to the rules of the Village Overlay Zone.  Construction plans for the new home were presented to the Commission.  Mr. English stated that the new two-story house would be constructed in basically the same footprint; it would have a porch, but it would not have a garage.  Mr. Adams noted that the new house would actually reduce the non-conformity of the existing house.  Mr. Harrison mentioned that Mr. English’s request seemed to be in order.

Mr. Adams motioned to approve the request by Mr. English to demolish and reconstruct the house on Maple Avenue in compliance with the Village Overlay Zone.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Haring.  The motion passed unanimously.

BRENDA TIGHE – USE OF AN ACCESSORYBUILDING FOR CUSTOMER SEATING DURING THE WINTER AND OFFICE SPACE FOR EMPLOYEES

Mrs. Brenda Tighe, owner of Mitchum’s Market, requested permission from the Planning Commission to use the building behind the market for customer seating during winter months and to also use it for an employee/business office.  The interior of the building is currently unimproved and is used only for storage.  In response to a question from the Planning Commission, she replied that use of the building will not be for retail sales, only for customer seating during the winter.  Mr. Don English, Zoning Administrator, stated that he believes the request is reasonable.  Attorney Booth commented that temporary use of the “back” building during the winter does not constitute a change of use and it does not add any additional uses that already exist on the same parcel.  Attorney Booth agreed with Mr. English that the request was reasonable.

Mr. Adams expressed concerns that the use of the “back” building would use additional water and sewer and change the use of the market to a sit down restaurant.  Attorney Booth responded to Mr. Adam’s concerns by stating that she did not see the request as a change of use since there will not be any retail sales from the back building.  Mr. Adams asked if Mrs. Tighe had paid her sewer/water connection fees.  Mr. English noted that all required fees were paid by Mrs. Tighe.  Mr. Harrison asked for Mr. Hall’s opinion.  Mr. Hall commented that he totally supports Mrs. Tighe and the benefits her business has brought to the town.  Although Mr. Hall acknowledged that he was a little nervous about approving Mrs. Tighe’s request, he recommended approval based on the legal advice given by Attorney Booth and the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator.  Mr. Hall did note that the building would need to be improved to comply with public safety rules for customer and employee use.  Both Attorney Booth and Mr. English reminded Mr. Hall that safety compliance would be enforced by the building permit inspectors.

Mr. Haring motioned to approve the request by Mrs. Tighe to use the “back” building for customer seating for a period of six months.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Fegel.    The motion passed by unanimous vote.

REVIEW OF TRAPPE EAST DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AGREEMENT (DRRA) FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY

Mr. Edgar Harrison started the discussion by stating that he didn’t fully understand why the Planning Commission needed to approve a legal contract.  Mr. Harrison referred to Section 7.2 Fiscal Policies of the Comprehensive Plan where it states “infrastructure costs…will be absorbed mainly by the developers and newcomers who will benefit the most from additional capacities.”  The DRRA fulfills the requirements of this statement. He also reminded the Commission and the public that the Planning Commission had already completed the Trappe East PUD Plan design review and found it to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission’s recommendations were forwarded to the Town Council in July of 2004.

Attorney Booth explained that a DRRA concept is a new statute in Maryland law that gives a municipality the right to enter into these agreements.  She also noted that a DRRA also gives a developer vested rights in the PN District Zoning especially since the developer is investing millions of dollars in infrastructure cost.  Attorney Booth added that one of the components in the State Code is that the Planning Commission reviews the DRRA for consistency with the local Comprehensive Plan.  It is not the Planning Commission’s role to debate the financial or contractual side of the DRRA.

Frank Hall handed out exhibits to each of the Planning Commission members.  The exhibits were missing in their draft DRRA.  Mr. Ryan Showalter, attorney for the developer, agreed with Attorney Booth’s comments, but added that there is a section in the Comprehensive Plan that states annexed properties are subject to appropriate annexation agreements to ensure that there is no cost to the Town.

In response to a question asked by Mr. Adams, Attorney Booth told the Commission that the DRRA is a draft document worked out through long negotiations between the developer and the Town Council.  She emphasized that the DRRA is only a draft and has not been adopted by the Town Council.

In addition to Section 7.2, Fiscal Policies, of the Comprehensive Plan, Attorney Booth referred the Planning Commission to Section 5.1 Sewer System Improvements (page 50) where the plan states “Areas shown as planned annexation areas will be required to develop separate sewer facilities if the existing town WWTP cannot be expanded to adequately provide service.  The Town will support this approach provided new sewer treatment facilities are based on land application treatment of effluent.”  She acknowledged that there are probably multiple sections throughout the Comprehensive Plan that relate to the topics outlined in the draft DRRA.  Other sections of the Comprehensive Plan referred to during the meeting that supports the DRRA include Section 3.1.3 Planned Neighborhood District (page 33), Section 3.2 Annexation (page 37), and Section 2.3.3 Public Services (page 26).  Mr. Harrison pointed out several pages in the draft DRRA that comply with the Comprehensive Plan sections mentioned above including page 26 (Public Facilities), Page 29 (Parks and Open Space), Page 33 dealing with developer obligations, Page 36 (Waste Water), and Page 38 (Storm Water Management and Drainage).

Mr. Harrison and Attorney Booth pointed out that all of the conditions of the annexation agreement are further refined in the DRRA such as developer responsibility for a Town Police Department, Administrative costs such as town office improvements and funding for a town planner, etc.  Mr. Adams also pointed out the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan, the Annexation Agreement, and the DRRA.  Mr. Adams suggested that Findings of Fact should be drafted for the Planning Commission to document their reasoning for finding the DRRA consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 

After Mr. Harrison asked for any additional comments, Mr. Don Haring referred the Commission to page 30 of the DRRA in regards to the ownership of the lake and the availability of the lake for public access.  Mr. Haring was concerned that the language in the DRRA does not comply with what the public and Town was led to believe about public access to the lake.  Attorney Booth noted that the Town Council heard Mr. Haring’s comments at an earlier Town Council meeting and that she expected his points, which were well made, to be incorporated into a revised draft of the DRRA.  Mr. Haring replied that he was uncomfortable forwarding a document to the Town Council without making sure the language about the lake was correct.  Mr. Haring reviewed other concerns he had including the definition of “street vacations”, a typing error in the definitions Section 1.1.15 (“date last” – or – “last date”).  Referring back to Mr. Haring’s comments about the lake, Mr. Showalter noted that there are two separate issues with the lake.  The first being use of the waters of the lake for recreational non-motorized boating and the second being access to a public beach.  Mr. Showalter added that the language in the DRRA would give the Town the opportunity to take ownership of the lakebed if they desired.  Use of the lake for non-motorized recreation creates a liability issue.  Attorney Booth responded to Mr. Haring by stating that the changes Mr. Showalter was referring to have not been made yet.  Council President Lewis added that there are other changes in the draft DRRA that have not been made and that there are still public workshops and public hearings that need to happen.

Mr. Haring’s next point was on Page 35 Section 8.8 referring to meter reading.  Mr. Haring was concerned about the cost to the Town for meter reading should there be a delay in the town taking responsibility for the facilities.  Attorney Booth suggested adding language to the beginning of the sentence Mr. Haring was referring to that would say “After the town accepts the facilities…”.  Council President Lewis acknowledged Mr. Haring’s point and said she would make sure that the intent of having the developer pay for the Town’s cost to read the meters was correctly stated in the draft DRRA.  Mr. Showalter responded by referring the Commission to Section 8.7 (Operation and Maintenance) and the bottom of page 34 and 35 in the draft DRRA which states that the developer will absorb all costs of operation, maintenance and capital cost for the system until the revenue generated from those facilities are enough to cover those costs.  The developer will get a credit for the revenue collected, but will reimburse the Town for any deficit.

Mr. Adams asked President Lewis why the Town wanted to be responsible for the meter reading.  President Lewis stated that the permit for the facilities is in the Town’s name and therefore the Town should manage the meter reading.

Mr. Haring said he had a problem with the waiver of the impact fee for the first 500 homes which totaled over $1.3 million.  Mr. Harrison and President Lewis reminded Mr. Haring of the millions of dollars worth of commitments provided by the developer at no cost to the Town such as the treatment plant, police department, public works building, fire company donations, town planner, town hall, and an enterprise fund.  President Lewis added that these benefits to the Town will be realized immediately rather than having to wait for years until enough impact fees are collected.  Mr. Adams said he had the same concerns as Mr. Haring and he thanked Mr. Haring for bringing them up.

Mr. Harrison suggested asking Attorney Booth to produce Findings of Fact based on the Commission’s discussion and bring them back in written form for review and approval.

Mr. Melvin Schwaninger asked if the Planning Commission has already agreed with the planning of the roads, housing and other parts of the development.  Mr. Harrison responded by saying that the draft DRRA addresses all of those concerns generically and that we are not discussing specific locations of roads, water towers, etc.  We are not approving details of the plan.  This draft DRRA does answer all of the concerns raised by the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Quidas made a motion to request that the Town Attorney draft proposed Findings of Fact for the Commission to consider at the next meeting. Mr. Haring seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

October 26, 2005 – Special Town Meeting – Snack Ordinance – Street Repair Loan – Trappe East Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement 7:00 p.m.

October 28, 2005 – Special Trash Pickup

October 29, 2005 – Time Change

October 31, 2005 – Halloween Trick or Treat – 5:30 – 8:00 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.01 p.m.